User:Szmenderowiecki/Editing in ECP topics

This is to all editors' attention regarding EC-protected topics and articles that get frequent edit/revert wars for whatever reason.

Despite the fact that all of the editors who are eligible to edit there are supposed to be familiar with relevant editorial policies (note I'm not speaking of behavioural issues, which is a whole other matter, though the patterns of editing might constitute some behavioural evidence), there are frequent occurrences in which their ignorance has been noted. Therefore, I feel that it is very important to note some of the issues plaguing the anti-Semitism in Poland topic in particular.

The talk pages have, for quite a long time, seen a proliferation of demagoguery which eats up the time that should be instead spent on the main purpose of why we are here, that is, writing articles. Some of these have taken gargantuesque proportions, as I've witnessed on ArbCom and on one of the articles I've expanded. I've been involved in both, and that's more than enough for me. If you want to waste your time bickering on talk pages - please do that, but if I come there, please involve me only to the minimal extent possible, the extent which is reasonably required to clarify any of the issues.

The editors who wish to interact with me in any extent regarding editorial disputes are reminded that:


 * Per WP:DRNC and WP:ROWN, do not revert an edit simply because you need more time to analyse it or because you need an editor to explain to you why they believe this edit is necessary. A proper review of an edit takes some time - you can just as well spend it and read the sources to determine if anything is problematic.
 * Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ROWN, reverts are the changes of last resort. Only revert a large portion of text which isn't obvious vandalism if all other methods to improve the text fail to get the same improved result quicker (this including time you and the other editors spend typing on talk pages). Besides, editors have a policy-mandated duty to fix the errors themselves if they find something problematic whenever this is feasible with the fragment.
 * Per point 2a of WP:SQSAVOID and footnote 3 of WP:CHALLENGE, anyone who reverts an edit, or deletes parts of content within an edit, must provide a clear substantive explanation of why this edit is getting reverted. As the definition of word "substantive" indicates, the challenge must base on real, not apparent or simply plausible concerns. For the purposes of ECP topics, the clear substantive explanation will be interpreted as providing, apart from the relevant policy/guideline which the editor thinks is being violated, the specific example of the questioned passage(s), if the highlighted passage within the diff does not make it clear enough, the reason this passage gets deleted, as expressed in e.g. a quote/page reference/URL etc. supporting the other interpretation or in a suggested remedy (e.g. this section gives too much weight to the issue relative to the rest of the article, expand others or trim the section), and the reasoning why this could not have been fixed by the reverter/deleter themselves otherwise than via a revert. For instance, if WP:BALANCE is asserted over a specific edit which e.g. adds another source to the viewpoint already represented in the article, the editor will have to point to (a) source(s) that say(s) otherwise, or better still, add them themselves and present the other viewpoint. The editor may reverse the burden of proof, and therefore compel the one seeking inclusion to form consensus, only if the clear substantive explanation was provided.
 * Encyclopedias are inherently about synthesis (WP:SUMMARY in Wikipedia parlance), but this is not the same as WP:SYNTH, which says that we should not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, [we should] not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In short, editors often mistake the two, and they must know the difference.
 * The main purpose of a Wikipedia editor is making the encyclopedia and not engaging in procedural arguments unless behaviour policy is being violated (in which case the article talk is not appropriate). Arguing about how to add content, rather than whether to do that and which wording should accompany the edit, does no service to anyone.
 * More to follow if anything comes to my mind.

In light of these considerations, the behaviour regarding failure to comply with the above-cited policies or well-recognised essays will be as follows:

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any statements accompanying reverts to the effect of "seek consensus at talk", "explain the edit", "this edit is too large to analyse, please revert yourself", "please split into smaller chunks" etc. will be ignored, and the edit reverted back.
 * Any procedural-based arguments on how to introduce edits, with the exception of edits being under active discussion on the talk page at the moment of their introduction, will be ignored.
 * Any deletions that refer to problem(s) in a small chunk of text which is part of a larger chunk of content, and which do not refer to reasons why all of the text must have been deleted, instead of simply part of it, will get reverted. The editor will be instructed to remedy that part themselves.
 * Any statements that cite a policy violation without providing specific examples where the problem exists, according to the editor who reverts content, will be not acted upon as too vague, and any deletions of content based on non-specified allegations of problems within the fragment will get reverted back, with the instruction to provide evidence that the fragment breaks the policy.
 * No comments will be provided to any response beyond the scope of the discussion of specific problems raised in edit summaries or talk pages.