Main Ruleof Cautious Editing Judgment Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

11:02:11 AM Feb 19th 2018
So recently, a conflict came up on The Flash over if a Dork Age entry should be deleted because fans of that era might be at-risk of starting a Flame War. Ultimately it was decided by mod-intervention to keep, but given that their was a conflict about the exact meaning and point of this, so I think we need a better explanation of things.

Firstly, how seriously is this to the Wiki? Is it actually a rule, one that should be enforced on any topic potentially fight-starting, or is it more a guideline, advising users not to be too antagonistic in their writings, lest other users change things later?

Secondly, taking it as a serious rule, that users have to edit anything potentially controversial posted, what's the correct procedure? Should it be subsequently deleted completely, or is re-wording to be less controversial and more neutral on the topic?

Thirdly, does YMMV effect this? Should audience reactions be subject to this kind of policing, or should they be left alone since every audience reaction is going to be disagreed on and thus be potential for a flame war?

Fourthly, and lastly, what warrants intervention? Does the entry have to be related to specific hot-button topics (IE, politics, feminism, religion, etc), or is anything remotely controversial subject?

09:46:38 PM Feb 19th 2018
It is not about being controversial, it is about the tone. Bitter, negatively couched, sniping entries are just annoying to read, more than anything else. It seems pretty clear, really.
06:55:59 AM Sep 12th 2016
Where is the boundary between this and Political Correctness Gone Mad?
03:11:21 AM Dec 29th 2016
edited by Theatre_Maven_3695
This is why that page was permalocked. People were citing anything and everything that even remotely conflicted with their views, to the point where the drama and foot-high flames were making Tumblr (hell, even The Wiki That Shall Not Be Named!) look positively civilized by comparison.
12:40:27 PM Apr 17th 2016
edited by SneaselSawashiro
(Can't find out how to delete this post)
12:45:07 PM Apr 17th 2016
This isn't the place for this. Take it to the Edit banned/Suspended thread.
07:09:05 AM Feb 28th 2016
I used this to change a "the above point is stupid" to "the above point doesn't make sense", on The Purge, citing this. I know it was some other troper long ago who said it, but leaving the usage there can lead to tropers reading it and thinking it's okay.
03:09:58 AM Nov 5th 2015
"Ninety-nine percent of the wiki are not looking for a fight." - Ironically, a good portion of that use the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment to pick fights on this very wiki. Can someone explain this to me?

Moreover, is it really necessary to sinkhole it in a good portion of these pages on this wiki? Is there any purpose on this besides getting editors to bite the bait and causing more problems?
12:37:41 AM Nov 6th 2015
I think it's become a bit of a meme here.
08:06:40 PM Feb 11th 2013
Is it me, or are some people only using this tag to excuse deleting things that conflict with their own views?
03:28:05 AM Feb 22nd 2013
Possibly yes. Bring it up in Ask The Tropers if it happens.
09:54:41 PM Apr 2nd 2015
I think some people sink hole this into articles if it even remotely conflicts with their views, yes.
04:56:00 AM Jul 25th 2012
edited by Craver357
Why is considered over the line of ROCEJ to call Real Life people Jerkass Woobies?
08:05:35 PM Feb 11th 2013
Because it would just lead to flame wars and natter talking about which jerkass is sympathetic and which one is not.
05:19:47 PM Jun 3rd 2012
This should not be cutlisted. Move it to Administrivia if you must, but outright cutting it is out of the question.
11:50:30 AM Oct 15th 2012
Some troper with no edit history is trying to cut this again.
07:48:12 PM Oct 17th 2012
edited by ArcadesSabboth
This probably should be in Administrivia.
11:56:15 AM Oct 20th 2012
Yeah, this isn't going to get cut. If someone wants to move it to Administrivia, I don't object, but the existing page needs to remain a redirect.
01:47:48 AM May 17th 2012
If someone incorrectly pot holes or sink holes this page into an article, should it be removed? The reason why I'm asking is because it's already linked on the left sidebar, causing a bit of redundancy.
12:33:58 AM Jul 2nd 2012
Seeing as there's still some potholing/sinkholing problems with this page, what should be done? Should it be moved to Administrivia?
12:57:44 AM Jul 2nd 2012
The page should probably be in Administrivia/, with this as a redirect. However, I wouldn't remove the notices from articles — the sidebar link is easy to miss, and some pages require the extra reminder.
09:49:58 PM Jan 13th 2012
'Ninety-nine percent of the wiki are not looking for a fight.'

What's the one percent?
03:57:57 AM Jan 18th 2012
Trolls and people who refuse to be civil.
02:53:09 AM May 17th 2012
edited by SotiCoto
03:53:28 PM Feb 1st 2011
I think we should be able to put any example we consider good or fitting, after all this page is not a forum or a discuss page(except this specific one of course), so it won't be any trouble about a example.
06:38:44 AM Jan 24th 2011
As a GrammarNazi, I think it should be pointed out that the opening line should be "99% of the wiki IS not looking for a fight," not ARE. I'd fix this, but the page is locked, so...
02:40:53 PM Nov 21st 2011
edited by SeptimusHeap
You can ask it here.

03:05:46 AM May 17th 2012
I'd say the problem lies in the words "the wiki", rather than the "is"/"are" divide. The sentence refers to the users of this site, so rewording it to imply the site itself operates as a single, independent unit doesn't strike me as a great plan.
06:02:19 AM Jun 4th 2012
edited by TheOneWhoTropes
It's actually different in American and British English. In American English, you can say IS in cases where in British English, you would say ARE. Since both are used on the Wiki, either can do, as long as the rest of the article is written in the same grammar. I see no problem with "99% of the wiki are not looking for a fight." Please don't correct British English to American English or vice versa, unless the article has two types of grammar and/or spelling in it.
08:30:19 PM Jun 10th 2010
Would it be accurate to say that this is not a wiki policy ("Do not post flame bait") as much as it is an observation ("If you post flame bait, someone will delete it")?
07:45:40 PM Jul 21st 2010
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
03:01:15 AM May 17th 2012
More accurately, if you post something that offends someone prone to pro-actively defending their own beliefs, irrespective of intent, it will be deleted. Then lower down it discourages actually doing this... as though things should just vanish on their own.

In short... it seems to be trying to discourage posting anything remotely unusual or off-the-beaten-track on the grounds that it will just get deleted anyway.
06:06:29 AM Apr 13th 2014
edited by
Collapse/Expand Topics