| Revision as of 04:44, 22 May 2009 editAllstarecho (talk | contribs)Rollbackers41,096 edits →Name: +r← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:45, 22 May 2009 edit undoGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →Name: marriageNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| :Jimmy is a user. I dunno on the name. You think so? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | :Jimmy is a user. I dunno on the name. You think so? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::I mean, I don't guess the name is a big deal, it just seems more appropriate. '''-''' ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] @'''</sub> 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ::I mean, I don't guess the name is a big deal, it just seems more appropriate. '''-''' ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] @'''</sub> 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. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 04:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:45, 22 May 2009
I believe in this.
Anything less will destroy us in the end. rootology/equality 03:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's about damned time someone wrote something like this. To be honest, I don't think it will ever because a policy, because that would turn the way things work around here on their ear, but it is a good start if people will start treating everyone from admins to IP users the same when they commit bad behavior. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hear fucking hear. //roux 04:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you disagree with my proposal...
Why? This policy has no element of WP:CREEP, as it simply calls for application on all of us, of what is already policy. It's a meta-policy, perhaps. If you honestly feel not all users should be held to the same standards, I'd honestly like to understand your reasoning for that. rootology/equality 03:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I disagree, rather than think that it is not needed. Rules are already in place to deal with these matters and even if this was a policy, it would just be ignored anyway.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Policy should be descriptive. It isn't descriptive to pretend that all users are treated equally. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not descriptive, because not all users are treated the same today. That is the broken thing that this change corrects at long last. Policy proposals aren't descriptive; WP:3RR when written was a New Bright Thing that changed lots of things. rootology/equality 03:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Should I write WP:TWOLEGSBETTER then?
--NE2 04:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Jo, there are no policies or 'rules' today to enforce that all users are subject equally to all policies. We see it daily--someone slips through the cracks, because they're known, or known of, or an admin, or something else. This being policy is why it's so simple. If a situation comes up, where it's happening, and someone has archived the thread, or deleted the thread, or something else--you restore it, you point to this. If they bury it again you restore it again, and you point to this. If they do it again, you take it higher up the WP:DR train; all the way to WP:RFAR, and you simply say, WP:EQUAL, and that's that. If you're calm, and civil, and tactful, you can't be blocked or sanctioned or anything for insisting that the rules and policies of this site be followed correctly. The point is to make it clear that the bad old ways are not acceptable anymore. rootology/equality 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not realistic. We value High Quality contributors far above the stoned moron whose edits for 15 minutes straight are '$subject has a boner'. When a regular contributor flips their lid because of the morons, we should not treat them the same as the morons. Morons get an instant block, regs do, and should, get a reminder to log off and go for a walk. Regs deal with subtle and 'civil POV Pushers', and other situations where at least one side is counting on, and likely, intending to push the other's buttons to create a problem, to take advantage of the rules. Happens often enough that holding up a 'everyone gets the same under the rules no matter what' template, or policy, is a guarantee that sheer numbers of POV pushers will be a winning technique. If you can provoke at a one-to-one, you just need one more than your opposition to 'win'. The ability of people to discuss a situation at AN/I and consider the circumstances is what helps us keep the POV pushing and imbeciles to a minimum. ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- The lack of a policy to deal with civil POV pushing is a whole separate matter unrelated wholly to this viable proposal, and is actually a separate, just as simple idea I'm working on, where any violation of any Foundation Principles on English Misplaced Pages would be a blockable offense. That includes WP:NPOV. rootology/equality 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Geeze, that's more draconian than even I would support. NPOV gets violated as much by eager, earnest but innocent editors as it does by agenda warriors, more so in fact. Those new editors are still far better served by an introduction to our policies. Your hypothetical proposed proposal would instead assume everyone is on equal footings in terms of skill, language, and understanding befoer a single edit. That's not going to pass any community review. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, as written jus there it would be draconian as hell, that's why I'm not proposing we block POV pushers for POV pushing todya. :) That is however a problem that has to be fixed, someday, and one of the biggest problems we have. Saying we have to fix that is like saying we have to fix global warming before we fix pollution. rootology/equality 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Geeze, that's more draconian than even I would support. NPOV gets violated as much by eager, earnest but innocent editors as it does by agenda warriors, more so in fact. Those new editors are still far better served by an introduction to our policies. Your hypothetical proposed proposal would instead assume everyone is on equal footings in terms of skill, language, and understanding befoer a single edit. That's not going to pass any community review. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice theory
But in practice things will return to the status quo of IPs getting indeff blocks for uttering an epithet and admins rampaging about like enraged mastodons.Drew Smith What I've done 04:09, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 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)