User talk:Anythingyouwant

⚖️

Removing a topic ban
I'll write more about your proposed addition to Be Bold on that talk page. Here, I'm wondering about your inability to get out from under the topic ban. Topic ban essay says "In the case of indefinite topic bans, conditions should be given by which the user can demonstrate rehabilitation." Did you receive conditions? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Butwhatdoiknow, basically, they said that as long as I continued to question them about whether the original ban was proper in the first place, then it would remain.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ► Or perhaps they said the ban would remain until you demonstrate that you understand why the original ban was placed? (Whether or not you agree is is proper.) If so, I encourage you to consider that the ban is not simply for the edit you made to consensus. Rather, it is for a sequence of events that included the edit, to wit:
 * 1. You ran into an editing roadblock,
 * 2. you edited consensus in an effort to remove that roadblock, and
 * 3. then (after time had passed) you tried to use the edited text to get past the roadblock.
 * I can see why you thought this would work. After all, the passage of time created a silent consensus on the consensus page that your edit was okay.
 * ► But I'm wondering whether the fundamental problem isn't about the consensus edit but the about the roadblocked edit. You believed it was a non-substantive edit and, evidently, another editor - or other editors - disagreed. Then, rather accepting that you have lost the battle, you tried to do an end run.
 * Look, I understand the frustration when you believe you are 100% right and others are unreasonable for not agreeing with you or, in some cases, even failing to engage in good faith discussions about the dispute. But at some point you have to accept The Wrong Version and move on. See Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
 * ► In this case, I suggest you stop trying to get the topic ban removed by arguing that it was improper in the first place. Instead, say that, (a) while you did not intend to game the system, upon reflection you understand that that is what you did and (b) you will be on guard to avoid that in the future. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Butwhatdoiknow, thanks for the advice, but I am not currently trying to get the topic-ban removed. I am trying to improve policy to help well-intentioned editors in the future.  I believe that, going forward, Wikipedia policy should explicitly say that boldly editing policy in any way that does not change the policy’s meaning cannot possibly be gaming the system.  That policy edit would not be retroactive, so it would have no effect whatsoever on my topic ban 15 years ago.  There are sound reasons for making a policy’s implications explicit, one of those reasons being so that malicious editors cannot so easily try to twist that meaning.  This is obvious.  Incidentally: your understanding of what happened to me ages ago is wrong.  You wrote: “You believed it was a non-substantive edit and, evidently, another editor - or other editors - disagreed. Then, rather accepting that you have lost the battle, you tried to do an end run.”  When I mentioned the policy at article talk, weeks after I had boldly edited the policy, no one had objected to my policy edit, quite the opposite.  So there was no “end run.”  I don’t understand where you got that idea.  The only objections to my policy edit happened after I mentioned the revised policy weeks later at article talk.  Hell will freeze over before I confess to having “gamed the system,” which I did not do.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide me with a link to the topic ban discussion so I can see what actually took place? Perhaps then I will understand why you believe your proposed change at consensus would reduce the chances of whatever happened to you happening to someone else. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like a no-brainer that the policy on bold policy edits should distinguish between bold policy edits that change the meaning of the policy versus those that don’t. You think they should be treated just the same?  Of course they shouldn’t be treated just the same.  You asked me whether I’d ever had experience in this regard, so I told you about it.  I have no desire to dredge up the past here.  You should be able to recognize that treating bold policy edits the same, whether they change the policy’s meaning or not, is nuts.  There must be a way to convey this important point succinctly without bloating the policy on bold edits.  If you must have some links, here’s what ArbCom said about me in 2011 on this point: “He has edited the page on consensus on July 10, giving the reason for an article he edited that day (presumably abortion which was the only contentious one , and then referred to it-as-policy 20 days later, hence manipulating policy pages to further a point in a dispute.  The policy change was removed by KillerChihuahua..”  As you can see, ArbCom didn’t give two sh*ts whether the policy edits changed the meaning of the policy or not, they just assumed there was something nefarious regardless whether the policy’s meaning was changed.  Many times I have raised this point with them, and many times have they refused to address whether my policy edit changed the meaning of the policy or not.  As you can probably tell, I don’t enjoy rehashing this now, and I don’t think further discussion about 2011 is necessary in order to determine whether a policy edit would be wise in 2024.  Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

► Thank you for the history. I will honor your desire to not discuss it further.

► Regarding your proposed change to Be bold, I believe the policy on bold policy edits shouldn't distinguish between bold policy edits that change the meaning of the policy versus those that don’t. Here's why -

If it were up to me we'd eliminate "However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed" because it suggests that other things can't and shouldn't be "fixed" as soon as they are noticed. And for the same reason I am opposed to starting a list of things that fall within the "can and should" category.

If we were to have a list, "changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy" strikes me as opening up an opportunity for editors to have a procedural argument about whether an edit fits within that definition (as opposed to having a substantive argument about the content of the edit). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we eliminate the sentence about grammatical and spelling errors, then an editor who makes such a correction, and then quotes the corrected version at article talk during a content dispute, should be sanctioned for editing policy to advance his position in a content dispute?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence before the grammatical and spelling sentence says " In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first." And your proposed sentence is "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." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "often better" can be the basis for a sanction or that "less likely to be problematic" can protect against a sanction. Particularly when the sanction is for later quoting the self-edited text, not for making the edit in the first place. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The type of sanction I’m concerned about is not merely for “later quoting the self-edited text” but for later quoting the self-edited text without having discussed the potential policy changes before making them. That’s what a bold policy edit is.  Anyway, I hope you could please see your way to acknowledging that citing one’s own bold policy edits is perfectly fine if the policy edits did not change the meaning of the policy.  That covers spelling fixes, grammatical fixes, stylistic changes, et cetera.  So maybe we could state that general principle instead of the sentence about grammar and spelling.  You say it’s not good to create potential arguments for bold editors to make, but if the bold editor did nothing wrong then I don’t see what’s wrong with helping him argue he did nothing wrong.  Unless we want to set a trap for the unwary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts about "citing one’s own bold policy edits is perfectly fine if the policy edits did not change the meaning of the policy" -
 * 1. One editor's "did not change the meaning" is another editor's "did change the meaning." In your case, an opposing editor could argue, you changed the meaning from being limited to spelling and grammar to including something more. That is what I meant when I expressed a concern that adding your text would create an opening for procedural arguments (perhaps I should have said "wikilawyer arguments").
 * 2. I suggest that the explicit exception you propose to the general "citing one's own bold policy edits" statement should not be placed in Consensus or Be bold. Rather, it should go into Gaming the system Policies and guidelines (which currently says "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose it when making the edits"). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, User: Butwhatdoiknow. I’ll say three things in response.  First, you say, “an opposing editor could argue, you changed the meaning from being limited to spelling and grammar to including something more.”  But I edited WP:Consensus, not the policy on being bold, and anyway the sentence of the latter (“spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed”) does not suggest to me that other non-substantive edits cannot be made on a more leisurely schedule.  Second, I did make disclosure in edit summary, which of course Arbcom held against me instead of counting in my favor.  Lastly, you suggest editing the policy on gaming the system instead of the policy on bold edits; good enough, I’ll go there instead when I get around to it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. It has been nice to have a respectful discussion with an editor with whom I disagree. Happens all too rarely.
 * One note: In my most recent post I changed my recommended target for change from Gaming the system to Policies and guidelines, specifically wp:PGBOLD. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Laptop CT violation
this edit of yours violates the Consensus Required restriction on that article. You reinstated content challenged as UNDU and a citation to deprecated Fox News. Kindly self-undo your violation. SPECIFICO talk 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The text is entirely new, and there is a new reference too. Here's the first edit. And, here's the second edit.  Additionally, I have removed the Fox reference, which leaves two references.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You reinstated challenged content. That violated the page restriction. Please remove the entire edit. If you wish to dispute that violation. it w need to be at AE, not on a talk page or edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. The content is totally different from what you reverted.  The text is totally different, and the footnote to Fox is removed.  AFAIK that’s the way Wikipedia works.  Editor A reverts with an explanation, so Editor B tries something else in a way that respects that explanation.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave you the courtesy of a reminder warning. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia editor can’t always slant articles her way. Incidentally, I have never edited the article titled “Stage Coaches Act 1790”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)