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)

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)

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)

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)