| Revision as of 04:11, 22 May 2009 editGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →Nice theory: link← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:12, 22 May 2009 edit undoGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →If you disagree with my proposal...: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :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 ] train; all the way to ], and you simply say, ], 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. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 04:07, 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 ] train; all the way to ], and you simply say, ], 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. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 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 '$subject has a boner'. When a regular contributor flips their lid because of the morons, we should not treat them the same as the morons. Morons get an instant block, regs do, and should, get a reminder to log off and go for a walk. Regs deal with subtle and 'civil POV Pushers', and other situations where at least one side is counting on, and likely, intending to push the other's buttons to create a problem, to take advantage of the rules. Happens often enough that holding up a 'everyone gets the same under the rules no matter what' template, or policy, is a guarantee that sheer numbers of POV pushers will be a winning technique. If you can provoke at a one-to-one, you just need one more than your opposition to 'win'. The ability of people to discuss a situation at AN/I and consider the circumstances is what helps us keep the POV pushing and imbeciles to a minimum. ] (]) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
It's not realistic. We value High Quality contributors far above the stoned moron whose edits for 15 minutes straight are '$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. ] (]) 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 ]. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Nice theory == | == Nice theory == | ||
Revision as of 04:12, 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)
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)
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)