Misplaced Pages

See this. rootology/equality 04:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How to actually achieve this

This sounds nice, but regardless of whether it is adopted, I don't think it would change anything. If you really want to achieve equality, support the idea of term limits for administrators. That is the best way to break up the cliques and the inequalities (both real and perceived) that exist. Say, for every 12 or 18 months as an admin, every admin would have to spend 4 to 6 months as a "regular" user, with no powers or tools at all (except maybe for rollback.) And no "grandfathering" -- how about everybody who has been admin for 3 years or more starts their "break" right now, and everybody else who has exceeded the 12-18 month limit takes their break in 6 months. Of course, I understand that none of this will ever happen, because most admins will never support an idea that would deprive them of their elite status, even if only for a short period. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin. This proposal puts me on exactly the same footing as everyone else, and I support it. rootology/equality 04:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. That's one down, 1499 or so to go before there's a consensus.  :) (Actually, it's even worse than that: I have mentioned this idea to some admins in the past and their reaction was, shall we say, not encouraging.) 6SJ7 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; we don't even need the buy-in of the otehr 1400 odd admins. Just the 17 on the Arbitration committee, and enough of the other 10,000 or so active users. We admins don't run Misplaced Pages. All of the rest of you do, alongside us. rootology/equality 04:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the theory, anyway. I'd like to see it become the practice. I'll believe it when I see it. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

@ 4:14 post: "Mailer? ... is that you?" — Ched :  ?  07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia first, a community second

The policies of a project should be geared towards effecting its aims. The aim of this project is to collate the sum of all human knowledge, not to create a just society. It may very well be that an egalitarian justice system is conducive to our aim, but I doubt it. Open projects which do not properly prioritize their aims attract a great deal of individuals who are neither able nor interested in contributing value; this is abundantly clear on Misplaced Pages, where a great proportion of active editors are more engaged in social dynamics than the production of high quality encyclopaedia content. This is constantly observable at WP:AIN, WP:RFA, WP:WQA and so forth, day after day. Misplaced Pages, perhaps for want of strong social norms, lack of social incentives to focus on the encyclopaedia, or simple self-selection of editors, has a drastically unbalanced power structure that rewards civil tenacity and social skills rather than content production. To institute a norm of equality among editors regardless of their value to the project is to aspire that Misplaced Pages be not a serious encyclopaedia, but yet another social experiment in democratic governance.  Skomorokh  04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

this. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Skomorokh. Enforcing policy equally will quickly weed out the people not here to build Misplaced Pages. The game-players will have no more incentive to stay, as they will become completely without value, having no more social power or authority than anyone else. rootology/equality 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this will become just another weapon in the kit of the "eggshells armed with sledgehammers", along with WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If I get blocked, what could be easier than trotting out WP:EQUAL to demand someone else be blocked too? And in fact I think there is a difference between registered and IP editors. We're exactly equal when it comes to editing articles, no doubt there. The difference though is not that I've made 10,000 edits, it's that I've made them all under one name and I have a talk page where every stupid thing I've done can be commented on. So I have a track record and when I do the next stupid thing, I can only hope that someone will also look at the good things I've done and tell me not to be so stupid in future. IP editors can't be judged the same way, their track record is whatever library terminal or study carrel or corporate PC they've sat down at. Similarly for Giano, I look at the things he says and think "yeah, he does that when provoked, whatever" - he's a known quantity, just don't poke him with a stick and start crying when he roars. Admins, no, shouldn't have special status just because they're admins. Some of that status though comes from the fact that most (some?) admins have made more contributions, have a better grasp of policy, have shown an ability to learn from mistakes - and thus get more chances.

I'd say fix the problems with the system that lets some editors push POVs, engage in endless "civil" debates, and in general play the system until a valued editor snaps and tells them to fuck off, before saying everyone is exactly equal. Perhaps by improving the reading and investigative skills of admins and getting away from this distressing "on-diff" mode of reacting to situations. Franamax (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You raise good concerns, but a user with 10,000 edits should be more in control than someone with 10 edits. The civil POV pushing thing, however, I discussed here. That's a far, far bigger problem than this policy even sets out to fix (or can fix). This is actually exceptionally simple--for 99% of our user base, this will never come into play. If someone does violate policy--actually, supported by concensus did violate policy--it's role will be to ensure that who or what they are cannot play a role in their getting out of it. rootology/equality 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you there. This is sparked, if not because of, at least on the tail of, Giano's three week block. I believe that, overall, established editors and admins should get the same treatment overall. I accept some leeway on admins due to the massive amount of crap we often have to deal with, but overall we should be on pretty equal footing with other established editors. That said, I completely agree with Skomorokh. Content editors should be valued over everyone else, particularly the kids that do nothing but vandal fighting and socializing on their guestbooks.

The main problem, as I see it, is specific to admins getting a free pass or a slap on the wrist while non-admins are taken to task over the same offenses. Another problem is that what constitutes incivility varies among editors. Too many people confuse offensive remarks as incivility. Thus, there's no way to enforce the equal treatment of editors when it comes to CIV because it's to open for interpretation. And, honestly, it's a counter-productive policy at this stage. The idea that everyone can work together harmoniously is pretty, but it's entirely unrealistic. What should happen is a successful deletion of the civility policy, but keeping NPA. Calling a spade a spade shouldn't result in a block. I've been called far worse than an idiot by vested contributors, one of them an old guard admin, and not even a warning was issued. A lowly editor would have been on the business end of a long block. That's the problem. لennavecia 05:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as (as a content editor, when I lately have that amazing thing called "long blocks of time" like I prefer for writing--tonight's a weird exception) I would love to codify that content contributors come first, I didn't want to do that here, or go after CIV, or anything crazy. What happened to you, and your closing example--that's the loophole this closes exactly. Based just on your description, that Old Guard admin if blocked for that would have been just as on the hook as anyone else. Anyone unblocking would have been on the business end of trouble, possibly. This Equality proposal explicitly doesn't get into things either like interpretation of policy, which seems to be your major concern--that comes down to discussion, voting, polling, whatever your poison is. What this comes down on the proposal is empowering the community to tear down quietly those very "old guard" systems you're talking about. If a 5 day old username called you a "#*&)@#", it would be blocked without question at the least 24 hours, if not indef. If a 5 year old admin account called you a "#*&)@#", it would be blocked--not indef, unless they had a very, very long history of incivility, but that would be swiftly heading to the AC front then. But at the very least, that would net the 5-year admin 24 hours. Today? Probably no more than people saying "Knock it off" on his talk page. rootology/equality 05:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenna, I feel the need to point out that the vandal-fighters are pretty important too. They are the ones who keep the content-writers from exploding at the constant stream of "my firend Alison is teh coolest!" edits showing up on their work. Yes, some of them are a little scattershot and the younger ones may have a first-person-shooter mentality, but they fall under the rubric of Equality. Content is king, I think we all agree on that - but there are many avenues to preserving and enhancing our content, to each his/her own. Whether it's a good content writer or a good gnome, if they've been around long enough and are contributing 99.99% good edits, I file the rest under "whatever". Franamax (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think of myself as a content guy, and my article watchlist, unless it's some fire I'm temporarily watching, is entirely stuff I wrote exclusively and a bunch of files from one fantasy book series I'd like to build up someday. I adore when I see some RC guy go crazy on a vandal of one of my articles, since they "got my back". rootology/equality 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Do bears roar? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Often. But bears can't register on Misplaced Pages, since they can't type well enough to work the login or edit summary screens. rootology/equality 05:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean polar bears, black bears or Chicago Bears? According to Google, they all do. :) (And so root, you're not so committed to equality after all, if you're excluding the bear population ;) Franamax (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I killed a bear because The Colbert told me to. rootology/equality 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

(ec X 2) I suggest moving it to Misplaced Pages:Equal (because this isn't a civil rights article or project) and also include that God is not immune to this guideline. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy is a user. I dunno on the name. You think so? rootology/equality 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I don't guess the name is a big deal, it just seems more appropriate. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe later if everyone is game, I like them both, or someone Bolds it. I'm married to the idea, not the name. rootology/equality 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the name change, but on the reference to Jimbo as God? Absolutely NOT. My reasoning is this, we are a diverse culture, with many beliefs, religions, and backgrounds - a remark like this, while I can certainly see the humor in it myself, will undoubtedly be offensive to many editors who adhere to a strict religious principle. Sorry Allstar, just flat out NO. — Ched :  ?  05:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (Note: if that was just humor, feel free to strike this - sometimes with text, and no voice inflection, I have a hard time telling ;)) — Ched :  ?  07:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke, so feel free to strike it yourself. I was just pointing out the irony of how some people higher up, while also just "editors", feel the need to stress how high up they really are. ;] - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Take baby steps first.

OK, my thoughts: The first sentence On the English Misplaced Pages project, all users, from the anonymous IP user to the most senior of users, are bound to adhere to and honor our various policies of governance.; is probably going to be too big of a jump for some users. You'll likely have the oppose crowd calling it contradictory to WP:BOLD. Specifically the "you don't have to know all the rules" parts. If I'm understanding my rootologys correctly though, that doesn't have to be a problem. I think primarily (correct me if I'm wrong), what you want to accomplish is that ALL editors should be treated with civility and respect. The two big stumbling blocks the last couple days have been: WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. - I suppose we could throw in the AGF one too, but I'll stay basic. Our 4th pillar (of WP:5), is what we'd like to get established first and foremost I think. I think it's not going to be acceptable to expect a new editor or IP to always conform to things like NPOV, OR, WP:N, BLP, MOS, etc. that more experienced Wikipedians are aware of. Perhaps something like: On the English Misplaced Pages project, all users, from the anonymous IP user to the most senior of users, are bound to adhere to and honor our (see choices) of governance.

choices

• civility guidelines
• proper Etiquette
• a civil code of conduct
• our core codes of conduct

In other words, pull that 4th pillar out and demand that everyone adhere to it. Possible links?

• WP:NPA
• WP:CIV
• Misplaced Pages:Etiquette

That's my thoughts on the matter , and I'm stickin to it - unless consensus demands otherwise ;) — Ched :  ?  06:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

These are good thoughts. Quick counter thoughts: We don't block an IP (or an 8-year guy) today for a random one off failure to stick a single given policy, unless it's totally over the top and crazy. An 8-year editor or an IP calling me a "fucking douchebag commie motherfucker, that fucks his mother," or something colorful like that, is one thing. But for most NPA & CIV stuff, to pick those out? Not likely, and not without a warning anyway. So, if 8-year or IP Man calls me a "dumb fuck", to tone it down, and that's just the one sole bad edit, should they be hard blocked for it, no warning? No. Now, if they've been warning, and come back with, "Thanks for the warning, you dumb fucker," then sure--the IP guy needs to be reigned in since he's not here for the right reasons, and the 8-year guy? They should know better, so by equally giving them both a 24 block, we've prevented ongoing CIV/NPA/disruption, and we've made sure that 8-year guy is held to the same standard anyone less 'tenured' is held to. Mission accomplished, in such a basic scenario. rootology/equality 06:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that when an 8-year editor says that kind of thing, it's often because they're familiar with a longstanding unsolved problem with an editor or a process. In that case, it just might be totally correct to call you a douchebag, because you in fact are one. (I use the royal "you" here, I hate all wiki editors equally, not just you :) The problem arises when the comment is dealt with context-free. Longer-term editors don't necessarily have greater frustrations than new ones, they just have different frustrations. If the long-term problems aren't being sorted, the long-term editors need to be cut some slack and talked to quietly, not hit with the block-by-4. Recent events have borne that out. The ultimate aim is changed behaviour, so the question still comes down to whether a block will change the behaviour, or whether it's better to fix the underlying problem. Franamax (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This all presupposes that blocks are the easy tool. :) They're the armed guns of our arsenal. Even if I am a douchebag, and you're the 8-year Guy, or vice versa--if I called you a douchebag repeatedly, I should be blocked. If I did it once? Nah. Ditto for the 2-month guy or the 1-year guy. If there IS a problem where an 8-year guy is to the point where he's visibly snapping at the sight of my name, however, then that's a totally separate issue, and if it hasn't been up and down DR and/or the AC than that is a totally separate problem and unrelated beast that this proposal can't even begin to address. The point of this one is simple: who you are, and your status here, is irrelevant in following policy. What you describe is a systemic long-term failure of DR. rootology/equality 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in fact blocks are the easy tool and they get trotted out all too often in response to a single edit that can be easily identified as something-or-other (usually CIV). That saves you from having to actually investigate the underlying conflict and can be done in less time than the average MTV video runs. I do agree with you that all editors should be treated in a generally flat space. I guess that I just wish that all mitigating factors would be properly taken into account. And with ref to your comment far above, I actually feel that my 10,000 edits should expose me to a higher standard of behaviour - I do indeed know exactly what's expected here. But I personally wouldn't judge Giano in the same way, 'cause Giano ain't Franamax. I find it more productive to worry about my own behaviour than to watch user talk pages and fret about what might bother me, even if it doesn't bother the actual participants. If I post on your talk page, you can tell me to fuck off anytime you want, I disclaim any CIV violation and I don't expect an admin to take up the cudgel on my behalf. Do it on my talk page or an article talk page, that's different. In project talkspace, depends on the context, but I'm always secretly pleased when someone goes out of their way to insult me - it means that I affect their world. :) Franamax (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

mmm .. OK. Well... if said IP Man (or 8 year old) said to me: you're a "fucking douchebag commie motherfucker, that fucks his mother,", first I'd have to explain to him that I wasn't a communist. ;) .. but seriously - if I'm understanding where you're wanting to go with this, then be it admin, or IP - 4im, then block. On one or two items I do agree with almost all the posts here so far. Yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia, but it's a collaboration, and on a global scale. If you don't have the civility, it's only an experiment in anarchy. Should content contributors be valued? ... of course - but if someone's gonna get all bent out of shape because someone edited "their" (see wp:own), article - this is not the place for them. Write a book, and get it published if you can't deal with it in a "civil" manner. I understand Jenna/Lara's point about dealing with the crap that admins. have to, it goes with the tools. Of course I don't have a problem with someone saying "Pfft ... shoo - get off my page". And when 2 admins can point to policy to delete, and 5 IPs say "I like it" ... that's where the extra power/privledge comes into play (also called consensus). But if one is big enough to weild those buttons, then with great power comes great responsibility. Calling an (agreeably annoying) editor a "little shit" just isn't acceptable. I'll admit, when I see something like "Make me" - yep, I'm thinking the 8-year old, but experienced admin. should know to either walk away from the keyboard, or just delete the post. Again, we're back to "civil" behavior.

If we're trying to move away from that "Old guard" completely open project, then you're along the lines of Larry and Citizendium. I think that's going to be a hard sell myself, but I wouldn't necessarily jump ship over it either. In some ways it almost sounds though, like you want to hold the admins to an even higher level than the IP-guy. I'm gonna have to read through all these comments one more time too much too fast for me to keep up - bbl. — Ched :  ?  06:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No need for the Citizendium model (which requires academic credentials). Just recognise the efforts of content contributors and think of a way of giving them status on the project instead of treating them as scum. That's all. Peter Damian (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the Vandal Fighters that are the biggest problem

Franamax: "The vandal-fighters are pretty important too. They are the ones who keep the content-writers from exploding at the constant stream of "my firend Alison is teh coolest!" edits showing up on their work. "

No. It's the vandal fighters that are the biggest problem with this project. Let them down tools for a week, for a day even, and some real progress would be made towards proper account registration and the end of IP editing. Progress could also be made on having one editor <-> one account.

Currently so much work is expended on 'vandal fighting' that it generates a vast workforce, whose only skill is identifying edits of the form "my firend Alison is teh gay!", rather than encyclopedia writing. These people dominate IRC and RfA and are a strong political force. They possess weapons and power. They dislike content editors who tend to be rude, often arrogant. The content editors mostly hate them (particularly the IRC variety). The situation has now escalated to outright war.

If vandal-fighters really wanted to further the goals of the project, they would down tools now. I am doing no further work in article space until enough people recognise this problem for what it is, and there is consensus towards achieving a solution. Peter Damian (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you subtracted my reverts from my "article edits", it would be a pretty shameful record. If you looked at my number of windows opened, and number of sources added per article sentence, blood sweat and tears, maybe it would look different. Anyway, I spend most of my time overseeing the 1900 or so articles on my watchlist, ones where I'm familiar with the content and the issues and I can respond to talk page issues. Maybe 50 or so are active items, the rest are just watched - but in reality, I'm mostly a vandal-fighter, it never stops. However, IP's also contribute lots of good stuff, especially in the science-y topics where I mostly edit, so you won't find me joining the no-anonymous-editing camp anytime soon. My own first edit was to push the Moon more than 9m off the Earth's surface, and that was made anonymously. (I was worried it would hit my house :) Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting editors who leverage Twinkle/Huggle edits into a good reputation, and I find that any chat session with more than 3/4 participants is a waste of time. But the actual act of reverting vandalism is worthy, and if it prevents a content-writer from having to do it themselves, it's doubly worthy. I think the problem you focus on is where editors are able to make mostly superficial edits, chat up the right groups, and thus gain status. That's not a problem with vandal-fighters, it's a problem with status-seekers. J.delanoy and Ckatz, to name two, seem to be able to churn out who-knows-how-many reverts a day in an effective manner. Franamax (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

While I respect "content creators", I fail to see the point of what you're saying. Where are you getting the idea that "vandal fighters" are interfering with "proper account registration"? The "end of IP editing" isn't going to happen, and "one editor, one account" is essentially technically unenforceable (though it's a nice idea). If you're so insistent on those goals, you might want Citizendium or some other project. Openness fuels a lot of our growth, and is, in my opinion at least, a useful check on centralization of editorial power. Vandal-fighters make that useful by filtering out the nonsense. I further find it ironic that you're requesting a deliberate imbalance (privileges or recognition for content editors at the expense of vandal fighters) on the talk page of a policy proposal that suggests that we should focus on applying our rules equally.

Can you supply any examples, any diffs, which illustrate this problem? I'd appreciate evidence that this isn't just a pointy ultimatum about your participation. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to have been a silent edit conflict somewhere, or something. If it's not clear, my comment is directed at Peter Damian. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Much ranting. In reply to these points

1. If 'vandal fighters' ceased their work, this would instantly prompt a re-evaluation of the IP editing issue. Perversely, it is the immense efforts of this large vandal-fighting police-force that gives the appearance of Misplaced Pages working.
2. On 'this is never going to happen'. On the contrary, if you guys stop vandal-fighing, anon editing will become a thing of the past in a week or less.
3. You will argue no doubt that IP editing is essential for the project. This is a myth. Many vandal-fighters I speak to are becoming disillusioned with IP editing. My experience is that IP's are wholly negative. Never met a good one yet. If they do have anything to add, let them register. Peter Damian (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have redacted part of your comment one; it is an unacceptable personal attack. How dare you treat volunteer editors with such disdain? Happy‑melon 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the added value ?

Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines says "Our policies are considered standards that all editors should follow". Misplaced Pages:Administrators says "Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies". What does this proposal add that is not already there ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it's technically redundant, it does have the advantage of making the principle more visible. That's not a trivial difference. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Make this policy. Now.

Okay, maybe ↑ that is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do feel that this has been too long in coming for a number of reasons.

• Right now, many people seem to treat IP editors as little more than vandals. This is patently not true. IP editors can be as constructive and helpful to the project as long-time users. I've seen a number of reverts of perfectly valid IP edits which the reverter than restored; this indicates an inherent suspicion of all IP editors. When working in the "admin-only" area at WP:RM (this was before I became an admin myself), an IP user was helping very constructively to keep things organized. But still somebody (not naming names; I don't think that that is relevant) called him/her something to the effect of "the little IP user in the admin-only" area. To be perfectly honest, I wasn't doing anything that the IP wasn't and this user didn't say anything to me. Looking through the talk pages of many long-time IP users, it's easy to see that they have, on average, many more warnings than registered users... but looking at the diffs, many times these edits could have been made by registered users and nobody would have said anything.
• At this time, policies and guidelines say that adminship is no big deal, etc., etc., but it seems that many users still consider admins to have more "authority". That's not what adminship is about. The only things which should be associated with adminship are the extra technical abilities and the trust to close discussions and determine the results.
• There's also inequality, to a degree, in users who are neither IPs nor admins. Users who produce or review Featured Articles are sometimes considered to be "better" or "more knowledgeable", and may be treated slightly differently from other users. The same goes for bot operators and some vandal-fighters. To be perfectly frank, what somebody chooses to do on-wiki shouldn't have that kind of impact... for example, the users who work in the often-underappreciated area of finding copyright violating images and media so that they can be deleted are just as vital to the project's smooth functioning as the FA reviwers, bot ops, and vandal fighters.

Now there is something to be said for experience; when you need help with something, you may want to try and find a more experienced user. But things like adminship just indicate community trust... a non-admin user can have more actual experience than an administrator, for example, but that user might not be an admin either because they don't want to or because, although they have experience, they aren't fully trusted by the community to use the tools correctly.

The other partial exception to "equality" would be Jimbo Wales and the members of the arbitration committee... but only a partial exception. My feeling is that when trying to resolve disputes or give advice on the functioning of the wiki as a whole their opinions should be taken more seriously than other users', but when it comes to article-level editing, AFDs, and FACs, they're just normal users. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The problem that seemed to have sparked this debate was different standards for different people - can we make it clear in the policy, please, that not only are users bound to follow the same rules, but that transgressions will be met by equal sanctions, regardless of status? Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)