Maybe Foroa shouldn’t have done the protection himself but if a neutral third-party (e. Actually, I didn’t even read what you changed/added, I just noticed the edit-war, so I really don’t have an opinion one way or another. Just keep in mind (both of you), this is proposed, and just because someone edits a policy page doesn’t mean it’s instantly policy. It must be backed by consensus to mean anything. Relax and talk about whatever the issue really is. I would unprotect this, but that would be pointless if you guys are just going to continue edit-warring.
If you can’t reach an agreement, there’s always ?:DN
Parad (UTC) The standard procedure on Commons is that, in case of disagreement, that a discussion takes place on talk pages or elsewere till there is some consensus. This is even more applicable for sensible pages as rules or guidelines. So that’s what I enforce, no more, no less. Neither is it a guideline. You made that mistake several times. This was pointed out to you before. I don’t mind you two editwarring. You’re users, too, after all. But in my opinion, you very clearly overstepped the limits of your mandate when you used page protection in a content dispute with another user. Please let me remind you both of Docu’s advice: “Please both avoid reverting each other in the future without installment loans Maine attempting to discuss it.
I’m asking you, Foroa, to either unprotect Commons:Naming categories, or to provide a statement contained in ?:P that justifies the block and its extent. Parad (UTC) Both of you Foroa and SJu, have a point, and both of you are undermining your positions with a silly edit war, and really the both of you should know better. Yes SJu, your amendment seems a sensible and logical amendment to Foroa I agree the lock was needed to stop the edit war, but given that you are a party to it, the best thing to perhaps would have been to ask an uninvolved third party to adjudicate and carry out the lock. KTo288 ( talk ) , (UTC) Good heavens, is it contagious?
So try and establish that before adding anything (even if what you’re adding is “a description of established practice”, obviously someone disagrees so discuss first)
Did you really just refer the proposal as a policy? Is there some subtle quirk of the English language I’m missing? Sorry, KTo288, but this is exasperating. In my last reply, I gave an explicit, referenced argument that the page in question is not a policy. Now you go and talk like I said nothing. If I’m wrong, please let me know. Parad (UTC) I could make the case that even as a proposal it is being implemented as if it were policy and that is why there is an awful fuss here, or I could just admit that I didn’t read your argument properly and that it was lost on me. KTo288 ( talk ) , (UTC) If you can make a case that it is being implemented as if, then where is the distinction between a proposal and a policy?
In that case, label it as policy, and the problem is solved. But then we can do away with the entire formal consensus process, and simply consider anything as policy that is done anyway. If it was just lost on you, no problem, just hand some fish, and I’ll hopefully be less TLDR next time around. Parad (UTC) I’ve come across quite a few categories deleted or redirected as not conforming to policy, might take some to find them again though.