I'd just like to point out that "edit
uncontroversially" turned into
"uncontroversial copyedits" here - two totally different things. The
It didn't "turn into" that. I gave the latter as an example of the former.
But there is a point here, that maybe they're not so different, to wit:
vast majority of Wikipedians spend most of their time
uncontroversial edits on subjects far more interesting and varied than
(Actually, so did I, but this is overlooked.)
bunnies and flowers. And they don't have to just
be "copyedits" (ie,
spelling and punctuation) either...
Don't be so sure. I've been amazed by what people are willing to
fight over around here. The most seemingly innocuous edit may be
deemed provocative by someone. I'm reminded of [[User:Ark30inf]] and
Arkansas, or that [[DNA]] mess, and a few experiences of my own.
With conflicting, vague, and possible out-of-my-control requirements -
no "interpersonal disputes", no "causing conflict", etc. -
may be all that's safe.
Or not even that. Last time I was being stalked, my simple attempt to
fix the capitalization in an article "provoked" an edit war, as the
user was simply reverting all my edits (my restoring of such edits was
then offered by the AC as proof of my bad behavior).