Wikipedia talk:Equality


 * Quick FAQ points:
 * I don't have time to read everything. What's the short version?
 * From the nutshell: "Treatment of an editor must be based on the behavior of the editor, without any regard to the editor's status."
 * What does this mean to each 'level' of user?
 * Is this practical?
 * Would this change how precedent works, or cause decisions to be made just on precedent?
 * Will WP:EQUAL change any other policies?

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)
 * I agree 1000%, but I doubt that this will come easy. Let me read through the current discussion, and see if I can think of anything. — Ched :  ?  05:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * requirements apply equally, and there needs to be a minimum bar but standards need to be higher for some. This proposal makes sure they are not lower which is a good start, but it may not go far enough. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 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? [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --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 Wikipedia 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 just there it would be draconian as hell, that's why I'm not proposing we block POV pushers for POV pushing today. :) 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)


 * I see a lot of problem with sock-puppets bringing up this one in deletion discussions, !votes, RfC, arbcoms, users demanding to have admin powers (if everyone is equal, everyone should have the same tools), users declaring moronic opinions to be equally valid to well thought-out ones, etc... Soon or after you'll have to realize that users are not equals. Some are better than others, some are smarter than others, some are nicer than others, and some are more important to the project than others. The appropriate policy is WP:AGF which covers all of the things this essay wishes to cover without opening the most epic loop-hole possible. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Standing of technical powers "buttons" is not covered in this, so anyone trying to say they should be admins because of this would be laughed away--it's like saying I should have the nuclear football like Obama since we're both human. Not how it works. But, if Obama and I both shot someone dead in front of a television camera in cold blood, we'd both be up for murder one. That's the point of this.
 * I've also realized not every user thinks they're the same--I've been here since 2005. The problem is, that users not being treated the same is an ongoing problem, disruption, distraction, and drain on our morale and resources. This doesn't democratize Wikipedia in any way, shape or form, and gives not one extra inch of influence in discussions to a single sock, or anyone else. It literally is just, "All the policies apply the same to everyone." If anything, sockmasters, especially if they're actual real users socking it up, are more fucked to be impolite if this comes to pass, since they sometimes get a free pass on socking today. rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 04:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's equality of opportunity, it's said, and equality of outcome. This article has an interesting discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A declaration of good will that does not work in real life is worthless. It's like stating that real world cops are equal to humans, except that cops shoot humans and walk away. Perhaps it's harmless, nothing more. NVO (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the precedent set in the West Bank case, and articulated by Jimbo. Admins have less latitude than editors, Arbs less still, Jimbo least of all.--MoreThings (talk) 12:24, 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. D rew S mith  What I've done  04:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See this. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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)
 * Make it 1498 to go. I'm an admin, and I endorse this message.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:10, 27 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 Wikipedia. All of the rest of you do, alongside us. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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)
 * The only aspect where admins can be said to "rule" is on stuff like routine admin actions (dealing with obvious disruption, major POV-push or advertising, speedy deletions, uncontroversial actions on protected pages...). Everything else, from community ban to 90% of deletion discussions, cannot be done without proper community input, and admins certainly do not deal in policy decision without community input! Furthermore, any user is free to come comment on discussion at the admin's noticeboard. It primarily exists because admins might appreciate the insight of other people who may have dealt with similar issues in considering a situation. Circeus (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @ 4:14 post: "Mailer? ... is that you?" — Ched : ?  07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard someone calling for me? ;) - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * because most admins will never support an idea that would deprive them of their elite status - Nice, because the best way to get support for a proposal is to not-so-subtly brand everyone who opposes it as an elitist, regardless of their actual reasons for opposing. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 27 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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. لenna  vecia  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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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". <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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 Wikipedia, since they can't type well enough to work the login or edit summary screens. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the concept Rootology has proposed, with two caveats: (a) do we need another policy? and (b) should IPs get equal status? Re (a) can we fit this in under an existing policy? (b) Whether IPs should get equal status is really tricky. Most of the IP contributions on pages I watch are vandalism. However I've seen IPs correct my lousy typing, and ask some very thoughful questions - and some kids, whose questions may look naive but these may be the next generation of editors. My inclination is that clearly Good Faith contributions get equal respect, even if it's respectful explanation of why their ideas won't work. OTOH we should be harder on vandalism, whether from registered users, single IPs or shared IPs. Then perhaps the unease about IPs will dissipate. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if anything Skomorokh's argument (04:23, 22 May 2009) is bass ackwards. Some new users have as much knowledge as established ones in their fields of interest. We don't want the "civil tenacity and social skills" of some established cliques to drive away new content producers. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW I think Jennavecia's proposal to abolish WP:CIV is worth serious discussion as WP:CIV creates problems like Civil POV-pushing, harrasing victims until they complain and then taking them to ANI on an incivility charge, etc. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Name
(ec X 2) I suggest moving it to Equal (because this isn't a civil rights article or project) and also include that God is not immune to this guideline. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 04:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimmy is a user. I dunno on the name. You think so? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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 ▼ echo 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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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 ▼ echo wuz here @ 08:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Take baby steps first.
OK, my thoughts: The first sentence On the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. In other words, pull that 4th pillar out and demand that everyone adhere to it. Possible links? That's my thoughts on the matter, and I'm stickin to it - unless consensus demands otherwise ;) — Ched : ?  06:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * choices
 * civility guidelines
 * proper Etiquette
 * a civil code of conduct
 * our core codes of conduct
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIV
 * Etiquette
 * 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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">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)
 * The various codes of conduct guidelines all, without except, come down to "be a decent human being". We don't expect people to follow 12 different and often slightly at odds behavior guidelines, we expect them to interact with and treat others as decent human beings, because without that, we cannot build the encyclopedia. When this breaks down is where the damage control and blocks (should?) start coming in. Circeus (talk) 17:33, 23 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 Wikipedia 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? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack. it is a simple fact.  I note that you have deleted comments I made on a talk page.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redacting offensive comments is an acceptable practice. If anyone cares, the diff of the content removal is available. { { Nihiltres | talk | edits} } 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's definitely evidence to suggest that infrequent contributors to Wikipedia add substantially to its content. For example, this 2006 article by Aaron Swartz makes that claim. Besides, vandals can simply register accounts. In any event, this argument is not particularly relevant to the subject of this page. Bring this to the Village Pump if you really think it deserves attention. { { Nihiltres | talk | edits} } 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I agree with you on a lot of points (especially the fact that our "efficient" RC patrollers mask a lot of problems with liberal doses of antibiotics), but that's a wholly separate ideological struggle and future policy shift than what this really simple proposal approaches. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the added value ?
Policies and guidelines says "Our policies are considered standards that all editors should follow". Administrators says "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia 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)


 * So why not just make the existing statements more prominent in their current locations ? Surely that is simpler, more effective, less contentious and quicker to implement than trying to create an entirely new policy page. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, let's try that - I have boldly emphasised all editors at Policies and guidelines. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all covered at WP:ADMIN. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IP editors' being equal is covered at WP:ADMIN? Beuracrats? Arbitrators? Non-autoconfirmed users? High-profile vandal fighters? FA reviwers? Bot ops? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be honest, this all began because one admin was accused of being incivil, and then a bunch of other admins were accused of failing to deal with it because of the first user's admin status. The fact is, this proposal (what is it to be?  A policy?) says and does nothing new.  Its principles are already enshrined in our code of conduct and various other policies, which all say the same thing: be civil; don't vandalize; try to play nicely with others.


 * Speaking of incivility, edit summaries like "Huh?" certainly fall under the policy. Apparently nobody is immune from occasional lapses.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how it began? Interesting. Anyway, no this policy doesn't say or do anything new... but right now the few places where this is discussed already are being ignored in some cases, like with IP editors (see my rather lengthy comment in the section below).
 * About the edit summary, I meant "Huh?" in a "Huh? It does?" type of way, not a "Huh? Are you out of your mind?" type of way, which I certainly don't think, although I can see looking at it now that it does look a bit incivil. My apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have been thinking on this proposal on and off for the past approximately 12-18 months in various degrees. The insanity of the past week--not specifically just Giano's situation, but my own pending RFAR involving AMiB, and various other discussions--were the catalyst for me to finally post it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 16:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The value of WP:EQUAL is simple: it codifies in one exceedingly simple and central location that makes crystal the principle behind it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Drilnoth, your edit summary really didn't offend me: I was just trying to make a point, which is that, strictly speaking (by a strict reading of the civility policy), it could be taken as a violation. Do you deserve sanctions for it?  No.  You're an established user and you're not engaged in a pattern of incivility or disruption.  Normally I wouldn't even bring it up (normally I wouldn't even think about it).  But if you were a new user or an IP, I might be likely to leave a note on your user page pointing you to the policy.  And there we have the important point: we can be no more sure of a new user seeing and reading this ... policy? than we can of them seeing any other.  It's up to established users to guide new users.  This would be just one more thing for them to read.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the odds of this policy page impacting IP users from the perspective of IP users needing to worry about it are about nil, for the very reason you just said: older users guide IPs on learning policy, not the other way around. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 16:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (@ Exploding Boy): Ah, I see. Thank you for your clarification; indeed a strict reading of WP:CIVIL would indicate that that could be considered incivil, although personally that specific comment is something that I wouldn't think about even of an IP user... and that's the important part. You said that you wouldn't have thought about it. Now, if a new user or IP did the same thing, is it a violation of WP:CIVIL? If it is a violation of the policy for one user it is for all. Now, new IPs and users are more likely to not know about the policy so reminding them is more important than reminding established users, but that is related to ensuring that everyone understands policy, not related to people violating policy. If an IP's saying that would have violated policy then my saying that violated policy, too. And that is what this proposal is about... a single place to unify the policy of equality which is currently scattered all about various policies and guidelines and, because of that, is often ignored.
 * (@ Rootology) Agreed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and no. I would expect an established user to be familiar with the way things work, and a new or anon one not to be.  When an established user who is generally congenial makes the occasional incivil remark, I might let it go because I know that it can be frustrating here sometimes and (a) pointing it out to them could easily escalate what is really a non-issue, (b) it isn't a pattern of incivility, and (c) my expectation is that they will self-correct and intervention isn't necessary.  I would be more likely to point out incivility on the part of a new or anon user because my expectation is that they don't know the way things work here.  On the other hand, an established user who lets loose with a string of invective might be more deserving of blocking than a new or IP user precisely because I expect established users to be familiar with the rules.  What it amounts to is that although all users are equal in principle, in some cases some users are more equal than others. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd say yes and yes almost. This--and any enforcement of it--will not come up that often I'd hope. But, where it comes up is the most key thing, that gives us problems--ongoing issues. Like I've said on this page (I think twice), the one-off situations isn't what this matters. Anyone may say something rude 'one off', it happens. No one should be blocked for that, unless a) it's wildly over the top or b) its just one piece of an ongoing pattern, in which case, block away. Asking even an 8th year user to not be rude, after a one-off, however, is not an escalation -- its expected, and if that 8th year user flips out over a gentle reminder, there's a far bigger issue underway than the scope of this proposal. Either he has a serious issue, or as I mentioned before, if it's ongoing, there is a systemic failure of WP:DR underway somewhere. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. We're just talking in general terms here, and I've certainly reminded well established users (yes, even admins) to be civil.  But what you illustrate is precisely the point: our existing policies already cover all of this.  What we're dealing with isn't a lack of policy, it's a reluctance to enforce policy.  For instance, I'm aware of one problem user who, in their short time here, has been blocked a handful of times, topic banned, mentored, generated pages of discussion, and still continues to be a problem user.  In my view we're far too willing to let problem behaviour continue because we don't want to frighten people away.  Creating a new policy isn't going to change that, however, and operating by consensus means, irritating as it is, that not everything will be dealt with in a satisfying way. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail exactly on the head of why we need this: this mysterious user has caused apparently tons of grief and discussion, but is still here. With other users that have generated similar levels of static, relative to their contributions, are they still here? Yes? No? Precedent becomes practice is policy--if we've punted other such users, than your example user reasonably should be as well. If he's 'protected', perhaps, or someone is unwilling to pull the trigger upon the next offence, the use of WP:EQUAL would be the perfect scenario for your unnamed friend. EQUAL, as an aside, isn't a 'new' policy, per se. There has always been the assumption I feel from the majority of users that we're all bound to the same standards, so this is more descriptive of where things should be. By writing it down solidly, it now has teeth, however, since people like written things. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<--But it already is written down, in several places, and this proposal really doesn't deal with such eventualities at all. No policy ever could, because, just like the law, policies have to be applied thoughtfully and with nuance. In application of the law, juveniles are given more leeway because they're considered immature, ignorant and inexperienced (in the best senses of each word), and known, respected members of the community with established ties are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, habitual offenders are often treated more harshly. It's more or less the same here, plus Wikipedia in general tends to take the view that problem users can and should be rehabilitated, and that everybody is human and makes mistakes from time to time. We also take into consideration that everyone here is volunteering their time. Aside from that, what we do is based on consensus; often, consensus doesn't go the way some users think it should. I fail to see how this proposal will solve any of the supposed problems it purports to deal with. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're not understanding the proposal. Reread it, right now. What problems do you think it purports to deal with, in it's extremely simple, almost WP:IAR level wording? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I'm perfectly capable of understanding even exceedingly complex written English. This proposal says nothing that isn't already said elsewhere, and does nothing new.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just popped in to agree that this is redundant to other policies. If "equality" as stated in the proposed policy wasn't clear already, the problem is with the wording of other policies, not the lack of an equality clause. Hairhorn (talk) 22:13, 24 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)

IP editors are mostly vandals. Those that aren't surely have the intelligence to open an account. End this Military Dictatorship. Peter Damian (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some constructive IP editors: 67.175.176.178, 199.125.109.102, 216.237.179.238, 24.20.69.240, and 76.117.247.55 (who even has their own day!), to name a few. There was also an IP user who helped out at the reference desk for awhile who was very helpful. S/he also had a custom signature that didn't look like that of an IP user, and s/he found that s/he was treated very differently before and after the signature modification because people didn't immediately go "Oh, an IP."
 * Correction: After typing all of that out, I realized that you said "mostly". I still disagree with that... a higher percentage of IPs are vandals than registered users are, but there are still many constructive IP users who don't want to create an account. Don't ask me why they don't want to—I don't know—but just because they don't have an account doesn't mean that constructive edits that they make should be automatically subject to more scrutiny and more automatically reverted. Take, for example, 204.153.84.10. How many of those edits which were reverted were perfectly valid? Quite a number. And that's the problem... when vandal-fighters revert legitimate IP edits which, if the IP user had created an account and made the edit as their first logged-in edit would not have been reverted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this means what some of you think it means . ..
Despite minor quibbles on wording (it is too verbose), I agree with this. Everyone is to abide by the policies, no one is exempt from them. After all, if some policy need not be followed by everyone in order support it's underlying purpose it has no reason being policy. But this proposal does not lead to the bright-line enforcement of other polices and I am afraid some the comments allude to that idea. If that was the intention, it has been written in a way that promotes only equality in responsibility rather than in consequence. If no one means to imply this idea, please forgive my misunderstanding. I am against bright-line enforcement. Frankly I am unconvinced that it works, or at best it works extremely inefficiently. But this proposal says nothing about enforcement and most of the other policies that mention enforcement or the consequences of failing to adhere to a policy focus on discretion.

For any who disbelieve the accuracy of my position on bright-line enforcement. Examine the main bright-line policy we do have; WP:3RR. Look at the contributions of people who have blocked under it in the past. Can you really find that 3RR enforcement is an efficient way to bring people into compliance with Editing policy? When an editor does stop edit-warring behavior and starts editing in compliance with policy can you find the 3RR block(s) to be a large factor in the change? Can you honestly rate 3RR as both effective and efficient in bring the large majority of editors into policy compliance? -- Birgitte SB  17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea behind this is that equality of consequence does flow ultimately from equality of responsibility--that's exactly why I wrote it this way, without saying, "You do x, you'll be blocked for y." It simply says what can't really be disputed: no one is exempt from BLP, or NPA, or 3RR (BLP & Copyvio exemptions aside, but that's a part of that policy natively), or what have you. By simply stating that, if someone tries to ever sweep something under the rug--which we've all seen time and again--this codification makes it impossible. Sure, they can sweep all the want, but if the community pushes back, this ideal and policy is a shield versus that. That's literally all that this is. It's amazing how everyone is seeing different aspects of this, but everyone has a just off-center (relative to each of us) view of it, but no one disputes what I have written outright. :) <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But just because it possible for Equality of Consequence to be based on Equality of Responsibility it doesn't mean the former inherently follows the latter. As I said I agree what you wrote outright, even though I disagree with your interpretation as to the results of it. I understand why that ideal appeals to people, but it isn't practical.-- Birgitte SB  17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we not do something because it's impractical due to the entrenchment, say, of the old timers? A long time ago, we wouldn't have had no IPs making new pages; no flagged revisions on the cusp, no abuse filter, no situation where the AC can override Jimmy; no situation where the active AC has defrocked it's own and former Arbs and closed off the backchannels to keep former Arbs from influencing cases, and so on. The old ways are gradually shifting and going away--this is one piece of the codification of it, and maybe could be one of the cornerstones to devalue things like RFA and cliques forever. What use is protection, if protection had no value? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said it was impractical because there are old-timers here. It is impractical in it's own right due to the nature of a wiki.  This has nothing to do with the "old ways".  The old ways are changing, we are improving all the time.  I am all for en.WP joining the rest of the WMF wiki in full self-governance.  If you look up my history, you will see I am consistent voice promoting the autonomy of the wikis, discouraging appeals to authority, and encouraging wiki's finding their own home-grown solutions.  I really like the proposal here on that point.  I just disagree with the path you are promoting past that point.  Supporting discretion, is not the support of cliques.  I don't support the abuse of discretion, but any path, even your favored choice, can be easily abused. Human nature leads to problems no matter what path we choose.  At least after all these years, we are getting familiar with the red flags hanging above abused discretion.  The changes you list above can be seen as reasons to continue on this path, as they are evidence that we are succeeding in countering those inherent flaws to the current model.-- Birgitte  SB  18:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Everyone is to abide by the policies, no one is exempt from them. " In the world of 1984 (see my remarks below), everyone must abide by the rules of the military dictatorship.  But we don't have to have a military dictatorship.  Overthrow the vandal fighters.  Power to the people. Peter Damian (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Velvet Revolution. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But everyone here also can have their input into the policies. That is not true in a military dictatorship. Vandal fighter mentality is a problem, but not the  problem.  Anyways vandal fighting is changing with the Abuse Filter.  The old mentality will inevitably change as well. We might as well give that time to pan out before making any further changes.  Or we won't be able to judge the cause.-- Birgitte  SB  17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Equality in a State of Emergency
In reply to Roo's point that the IP problem is not the same as the equality issue, I beg to disagree. They are deeply connected. IP editing means vandalism (we all agree). Constant vandalism means a perpetual State of Emergency and an almost military command structure. It is well known that in all states of emergency (hot war, cold war, revolution), people have to lose certain rights in face of the Common Enemy. Equality also suffers because all the status goes to Our Brave Troops who are gallantly defending us from the Common Enemy. That is exactly as it is here. We have a military class (the admins) defending us from a common and universally recognised danger (the vandals). We even have an intelligence service (checkusers) defending us from the ever present danger of the Sockpuppet. In such a situation, the civilian (the content contributor) will always be a despised second class. There will be no equality until the end of this State of Emergency.

Of course, many oppressive regimes have chosen to engineer an artificial state of emergency in order to perpetuate the power of the military and ruling class. Is there a parallel here? Peter Damian (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter, please provide something solid. Do you have any evidence of discrimination against someone who's primarily a content contributor, at the hands of a vandal fighter? Your rhetoric is empty if you can't provide any examples. { { Nihiltres | talk | edits} } 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit history of Epistemic theory of miracles you will see one such (look at the article creation stage). I had a long spell in the clink throughout 2008 at the hands of a high ranking Secret Service guy, but it is a condition of my freedom that I don't speak to loudly about this.  There are the other examples of editors like Giano and Bish.  In general, there is the whole chatroom run-by-IRC thing that I absolutely hate.  I now have a long list of people who are getting very vocal about this thing.  Also a pretty long list of good editors who have left Wikipedia altogether. Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue with this article was a mild knee-jerk reaction (I've had one myself while creating an article last year, and I'm an admin!). IMHO, I'd say if you firmly believed the article had a place on-wiki, you should have just continued writing it and trusted the AFD process, possibly adding a tag.
 * Tackling the wider issue (Or trying to anyway. I am not familiar with the intricacies of either of these cases, so please excuse me if I'm completely misinterpretating what might have happened), if an admin, because of the systemic problems caused by both the ignorance of the proposed principle and others (i.e. civil POV pushing) goes over the edge and becomes clearly not trustable with the tools anymore, it is a very sad state of affairs that we should have avoided occurring. Nonetheless if the user is not trustable, then they still should not retain the tool merely because they have been a standing example of an admin in the past. Circeus (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, in case it hasn't settled in about what policies this encompasses
All of them, depending on who are:


 * IP users/regular users: all the standard policies.
 * Admins: all the admin policies, plus the standard policies. For example, two admins would be held to matching standards in use of the protection, involvement, and blocking policies.
 * Checkusers: all Checkusers will be held to the same standards under the rules of Checkuser use, same as all lower-level policies.
 * Oversight: same as Checkusers, plus all lower-level policies.
 * Arbs, Jimbo: all policies, end to end.

The wording is simple and direct: all users, all applicable policies. Are you a user? In your role as a user, do you have policies? Congratulations--you're covered. The higher you go, the more you have to adhere to--just like in real life. Does that clear up anything? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From one point of view, this isn't accurate. IPs have to obey the CheckUser policy just as much as CheckUsers do -- they just find it a lot harder to break!  (Oh, and I support the proposed principle entirely, and indeed consider it fundamental to the way Wikipedia has functioned/should have functioned from the beginning.)   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Side note
While I completely agree with your proposal, a valued editor who has been here for years and never made mistake makes one all of a sudden, I'd be more inclined (personally) to forgive, as it shows that it is out of character and one mistake. If a new user does the same, I wouldn't know whether or not it's just a good person making a poor decision. Although I know we'd all assume good faith, 4 poor decisions and a million good ones is better than 5 total decisions made by a new user, 4 of those being poor.  hmwith  τ   18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and exactly! This isn't even remotely going to lead to parade of users who registered between 2004-2006 to suddenly be lined up, shot, and then dumped in an unmarked indefinite grave. If those users historically have been causing trouble, getting away with it, getting shielded by some clique or group or their prominent status and position... well, then, their protection functionally would be stripped by this being reality. Would that be a bad thing? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that would not, but that's not what the proposal says, it says to treat everyone equally, with no conditions considered. Mr.Z-man 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered below, in the Not Practical section. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle
Policies do apply to everyone, and to the extent that any exceptions apply the more experience and ops a user has the more that person should be regarded as expected to set the right tone, and no longer deserving of the extra good faith applied to new users who are unfamiliar with our standards.

The key with this initiative is to insulate it from gaming. Common sense says we don't regard inadvertent offense as an open door to any sort of vulgar reply, and that we don't regard a long history of habitual incivility as exactly equivalent to a one-off from another party. False equivalence arguments are commonplace at noticeboards; they are often submitted by Wikipedians whose reviews are either superficial or partisan. Equality in principle is not the same as reflexive 'a pox on both your houses', and that needs to be crystal clear. Durova Charge! 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not practical
While an interesting idea, inequalities are good in many ways. This proposal is contrary to 2 longstanding ideas - WP:BITE and WP:BOLD. We need an inequality between users on certain things. A brand new user vandalizing pages should usually be politely warned first. For a non-new user, its expected that they are familiar with the vandalism policy and should receive, at most, one warning before a block. Now if we want these users to be equal, should we act like morons and treat the non-new user as if they don't know better, or should we throw away WP:BITE and forget about increasing levels of warnings for the newbie?

This proposal is also contrary to one of the reasons behind IAR, particualy the first point of WP:IAR?: "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing." Unlike in the real world, ignorance of the rules is an excuse for breaking them. Treating people who truly are unfamiliar with our rules (compared to other "Web 2.0" sites, we have a lot of rules) the same way as people willfully violating them is a recipe for trouble. Either we'll end up treating new users worse than we do now, scaring even more away by throwing the book at them on their first offense, or we'll burn out the more experienced users by dealing with real problem users too lightly. As an ideal for an essay, this isn't too bad, but as a policy, this would be kinda scary to see enforced. Mr.Z-man 19:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the nutshell of this proposal sums up exactly why your concerns are met: "Treatment of an editor must be based on the behavior of the editor, without any regard to the editor's status."
 * No IAR conflict: You always IAR knowingly or unknowingly at your own risk, and can be even blocked or desysopped if you do it wrong, regardless of who are you. That's what this proposal says.
 * No BOLD conflict: see the lack of an IAR conflict. You can be bold all you want--but if you do it wrong, regardless of who you are, you're on the hook for it. That's what this proposal says.
 * No BITE conflict: if anything, this discourages BITEing newbies, because if you BITE them, you've violated BITE--do it again and again, even if you're the Master of the RC Patrol, and you'll be accountable. Even if you never were before. Issue warnings, deal with vandals, but do it right based on precedent and practice. If you do it wrong, you're on the hook for it. That's what this proposal says.
 * The policy--by requiring that we all be liable for actions regardless of who we, what we are, and who we know--doesn't conflict with any other policy. Does that answer your concerns? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What Rootology said. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't answer anything, actually. Are you, or are you not, proposing that the repercussions be the same for a new user who unknowingly violates a rule and an established user intentionally violating the rule? The whole point of the "you are not required to learn the rules" part of IAR is so that there is less risk for new users. We can be forgiving and educate them, rather than kicking them for not being perfect during their first edits, while for an established user, its expected that they are familiar with the rules, and can't play the ignorance card. Mr.Z-man 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) I think we're actually on the same exact page. No, I'm emphatically not proposing that we horsewhip and strangle new users--they get the short end of the stick always anyways, and even Jimmy or the AC can't change that with a decree. This policy--again--simply says that if you do something wrong, who you are has no bearing on the ultimate outcome and repercussion to you, of your actions. If anything, this makes life a tiny bit easier on IPs, if WP:EQUAL is held to, since under policy we can't be asses to the new people. If anyone is impacted by this, it will be more readily of an impact to us--the long-timers, who are expected to know better. I don't know how much simpler I can explain it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 19:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement that, to the question, "Is this user exempt from the community-established and accepted policy in question?" the answer will be simply, "No" doesn't appear to support what you're saying above. If anything it seems to prescribe less, rather than more leeway in interpreting policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is supposed to work in the opposite direction from what you think... admins and experienced users should be reminded of the rules the same way that anons are now (a brief note on their talk page) before any penalty is applied. Not newcomers being treated as long-established users and being penalized at the first problem. WP:BITE is essential to Wikipedia and this won't change that. In fact, if this was followed properly things would be less BITEy because anon's edits wouldn't be immediately as suspect to... umm... suspicion? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This would in effect protect IPs to a degree, and could even be argued to give WP:BITE teeth, let alone giving WP:AGF teeth. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 20:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what the aim is, but I simply don't see the problems the proposer sees. If anything, as I've suggested elsewhere in this conversation, we treat almost everyone entirely too leniently.  There are exceptions, of course, but that comes down to circumstances, interpretation, and consensus, none of which will be affected by this proposal.  Exploding Boy (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that all established users, regardless of who they are, should be responsible for their actions, and if those actions violate policy, face the penalties of those actions? If so, why? If not, why? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 20:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<-I believe I've already explained this, plus it's already enshrined in our current policies. But now it's "established users" specifically, and not "all users"? Both the equality of all users and the applicability of all policies to all users are already policy. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That still did not answer my question. My question is not "are we going to treat new users like crap" my question is: Are you, or are you not, proposing that the repercussions be the same for a new user who unknowingly violates a rule and an established user intentionally violating the rule? That is separate from what those repercussions actually are; treating new users like crap is just one of several possible scenarios.
 * This proposal has the same problem of many proposals (I really need to write an essay about this) in that it assumes a policy change will result in a social change. Just like Prohibition didn't actually stop people from drinking (and caused more problems than it solved), changing the policy to say "don't treat IP edits with suspicion" is not going to stop people from doing so. There's no policy that says to do so, people are doing this because of their own personal experiences. Policy telling them that they're wrong isn't going to change the minds of very many people. And in a way, their thinking is correct. While not all anons are vandals, there are statistics (somewhere) that show a significantly higher percent of anons are vandals than registered users.
 * While I agree that there shouldn't be differences in the way we treat experienced users, I strongly disagree that admins and other experienced users should be treated the same way as anons and new users. That is what I believe is impractical. New users should be allowed more leeway while they learn how things work. Admins and other users given positions of trust should be held to a higher standard to maintain the trust of the community and because they should know better. This proposal seems to be attempting to remove one bad inequality - the gap between "normal users" and "power users" - while being totally ignorant of the effects it will have on the inequalities that help to maintain the community, like the difference in how we treat new users versus experienced users. Mr.Z-man 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to explicitate Rootology's first comment: if you contribute appropriate content and are a decent human being while doing so, you're not going to violate any policy, The worst you can do is do beginner's mistakes that put you at odds with the Manual of Style, Naming Conventions, fork (creating an existing article under a different name) etc. As time goes, other editors are expected to help you learn the ropes. An editor that continues to ignore assistance proposal and fly in the face of the aforementioned conventions would stop being decent and enter disruptive territory. Heck, the same applies to established users re: Ignore All Rules. If you know what you can contribute and are a decent human being, then you should hardly have to ever worry about rule minutiae. Circeus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * None of which explains why this proposal is needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think this is realistic. If a tenured professor has a shitty day, he is less likely to be fired than say a substitute teacher who demonstrates the same behavior. It's not a matter of letting people get away with stuff because they are great contributors, it is that we are more understanding and empathetic towards people with whom we have established a rapport. The problem isn't the lack of equality, it's the lack of the practical application of common sense - which most likely cannot be solved with this essay. Law type!  snype? 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the exact point I made in the section above. I completely agree, and your analogy fits perfectly.   hmwith  τ   08:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to plagiarize you! Honest, I didn't see it. :P Law type!  snype? 08:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean that. I meant more something along the lines of "great minds think alike". :)  hmwith  τ   09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

would force decisions to be made on the basis of precedent
Here's the problem: in practice, Wikipedia's policy documents are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They describe consensus about how people should behave. If policies don't match consensus, people ignore them. It has to be that way, because since any Bozo who comes along can edit a policy document, the majority of editors can't even be sure about what the documents say at any given time.

But if you accept that, then what does "treat everybody equally" mean? It can't mean "always follow the policy documents to the strict letter of the law", because the policy documents aren't stable enough to be used that way. The only thing it would realistically mean is "treat each case the way other similar cases have been treated". But any attempt to do that systematically would paralyze the decision-making process. So basically, I don't see how this could be made effective without major changes in how Wikipedia works. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very easy answer. What are the repercussions today of violating our various edit warring policies--say you blow past 3RR to 7RR one day. Even if you're an admin, you're blocked (or should be) to stop you from edit warring; a preventative block. If you sock abusively--no matter who are you--you pick up a block for that to stop you from doing it. Let's use those two examples. This policy doesn't touch at all on what the other policies are, sock as WP:SOCK and WP:EW or WP:3RR. It simply says, "Whatever you do, you're responsible for it, no matter who you are." So, what this means, is that any user can be blocked for a valid policy violation, and that any user will be responsible for adhering to their valid policies that apply to them. I'm admin. I have to follow the regular policies, plus the admin policies. If I was a Checkuser, even the most veteran of Checkusers, and I violated the CU policies repeatedly, I get no free pass because of who I am--who I am, what I am, or who I know is explicitly out as a factor in whether I have to deal with the repercussions, under this policy. It doesn't affect precedent on a case by case basis or policy by policy basis, beyond saying simply, "If you screw up, your status, position, and rank is irrelevant in what happens to you as a result." <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about keeping stuff like the five arbitration where Jayjg (no prejudice, It's just fresh in my mind since it closed recently) was found to have behavior not quite, even far from becoming of an administrator? The ArbCom tends to be surprisingly cautious about removing administrator status, such a policy would help with that. Circeus (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me this may expose flaws in the use and implementation of other policies
This policy, WP:EQUAL, is stand-alone just like WP:IAR is, and doesn't actually alter any other policy by it's use. Since this policy is--to be meta--"policy neutral", it's implementation over time may turn up issues with how other policies are used, or have historically been employed, which weren't clear before since some people or groups had a free hand to do essentially anything before this. That is not a negative reflection of this policy, but a potential strength of it, if it causes policy problems elsewhere to be highlighted very brightly. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 19:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. If this does reveal problems (though I don't know what they would be), that's probably better than having a loophole that is occasionally exploited but not enough for it to be noticed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's assuming we have any problems with our policies. I would argue that the problem, if one indeed exists, is entirely down to the nature of this project, which is consensus-based decision making by an entirely volunteer-based workforce, and that's not likely to change.  Exploding Boy (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could be right, and I hope you are. This policy certainly won't change the nature of how Wikipedia is structured process-wise. Maybe socially, behaviourally, politically, and help to drive people into proper WP:DR... <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbose repetition in pseudo-legal jargon
I cut out all the various restatemens of the same idea, and the proposed policy is now a single sentence. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Tim's change. That sort of thing is exactly what I was thinking above when I said it was too verbose before.-- Birgitte  SB  20:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This said "must" and that is the change that I was supporting above. Since I am now confused about what Tim is proposing.-- Birgitte SB  21:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to have a stand-alone policy (which I don't think is necessary). All you need say is this. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines
What about adding this to the summary of the policies that is refers to? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, but what's to stop people from gradually over time stripping out the ideal of 'EQUAL' from the various pages, or claiming exemption in/on certain policies? Having it stand-alone, and wrap back to all policies, makes it as bulletproof as is possible--the written page is just a description; IAR would be IAR even if I deleted the page, but the page and hard blue link is what gives it weight and authority to most people, and that derives the value of the policy: the big POLICY word across the top of it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And the wording and intention are not the same. That page says "Our policies are considered standards that all editors should follow", which is not the same thing as WP:EQUAL at all. EQUAL says that you have to follow policy (including IAR) but that if you violate the policy, who you are is irrelevant in determining if a price has to be paid or if a preventative action can be applied to you. EQUAL is not a "follow policy" advisory and recommendation; it's a bold policy that says, "Who you are means nothing in the proper application of policy." WP:EQUAL gives all policies teeth; your wording nudges people to follow policy. Those are different things. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, reading over that page I can't see that a separate policy is needed. How about diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that this would fly in regards to that page?
 * "Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia that apply to all editors. Treatment of an editor in regards to policy violations must be based on the behavior of the editor, without any regard to the editor's status."
 * <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, since "status" isn't easy to define. Even mentioning such a nebulous concept, when all you need say is that "the policies apply to everybody", just confuses the issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading more of the talkpage (as I should have previously) I see this as already been discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Equality. I agree entirely with Exploding Boy, this proposal is nothing new, adds nothing useful and is just redundant instruction creep. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Higher standards?
User:Jimbo Wales recently blocked a sysop for 3 hours for 'Incivility unbecoming an admin'. A less experienced user might not have been held to such account.

Are admins held to a higher standard? If so, that isn't equality.

Equality plays both ways. Computerjoe 's talk 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we admins are held to a higher standard, and always have been. 1) We have to follow more policies than everyone else does; 2) we have to lead by example and practice; 3) higher-than-admin folks have still more policies to follow (CU rules, OS rules, Arb rules, etc.). If an admin breaks policy, it's much worse than if a non-admin does. See also: <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality  22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But then, that's not equal (and perhaps it should not be). Lady  of  Shalott  00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in theory we as admin are held to higher standards. In practice we are not, and it is notoriously difficult for an admin to lose this status. We are equal in that other have deemed us able to use these tools appropriately, but because of this, we ae held to consistently confirm by our application of them that indeed, we can use them to enforce policies, this is where the "more stringent standards" come in: because we are applying the policies, if we cannot follow them, the whole point is lost. Circeus (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think from the ArbCom decision below this section it seems that administrators and other people with official position are held to a higher standard. I don't think that necessarily violates what Wikipedia stands for. Remind me of the time that one of the girls my old job was fired. She was the supervisor and only came in late a few times. However the boss fired her because she came in late when she should have been an example. We were all pretty shocked by it, but it sent a strong message. Anyhow, I think the policies should be applied equally with those who are enforcing it not getting away with things that a "regular" editor might be charged with. Basket of Puppies  —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Computerjoe, I suspect you are using a different scope of "equality". By your example, WP:Don't bite the newbies would also be a violation of equality.  As I understand it, equality, as used in the context of this essay refers to the consideration given to edits, not to the responsibilities of editors. (Although now that I think about it, it'd be so delicious to find the opportunity to block Jimbo for committing "Incivility unbecoming a Jimbo".  I digress)-Verdatum (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dangit, my mind blurred this essay together with WP:No vested contributors. I dunno, the wording in this essay is confusing and feels WP:CREEPy, and redundant to WP:POLICY.  I suppose the issue is then "Yes, all policies and guidelines apply to all people, however, this (with a few exceptions) says nothing about the required action to be executed to a violator of these policies and guidelines." -15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A recent Arbcom statement seems to refute this
Refer to Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria (Finding of fact #8):

"Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response above to Computerjoe. Admins, and higher, are held to a higher standard; Arbcom in that decision is enforcing (or reinforcing, at last) that there are repercussions for even admins doing "wrong", testimony to WP:EQUAL being prescriptive. See also the about to be accepted A Man In Black RFAR; see also the recent JzG one; see also the current Ryulong one about to close. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 22:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is should administrators and functionaries be held to higher standards or the same standards?  Skomorokh   22:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I understand. At first, I wasn't sure whether this was reinforcement of a current policy or the proposal of an entirely new point of view. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh, when has there ever been any consensus or decision that Admins or anyone higher weren't? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 23:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a straight question, rootology: do you believe that administrators should be held to a higher standard than other editors, or that all editors ought to be treated equally? Because the two choices are logically incompatible.  Skomorokh   23:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal belief (which is more binary and extreme than the policy I'm proposing) is that if you or I--relative old timers--break policy x, and if an 1 day or 1 year guy would or did pick up a 24 hour block for that same transgression, it's obscene if we don't as well. My proposal explicitly doesn't speak to holding anyone to any 'higher' standard; that's in response to questions here on where the Arbcom clearly views the matter. They can be more extreme; it's up to them. My proposal is literally just a hard declaration that "who" you are can have no bearing ever on the consequences of violating a policy. In short--
 * The Arbs apparently believe that the further up you go from being a normal editor, the finer a walk we all have to do, but in a different way. My proposal, which has never been refuted in Wikipedia's history by a single spoken consensus, Arbcom decision, or any declaration, is that all users regardless of who they may be are bound by all our policies and the results of violating them--this is even simpler, since it means simply that if we screw up, blocking/sanctioning an IP/editor/admin/checkuser/arb/Jimmy is based on the behavior they have performed, never who they are.
 * This proposal boils down to that when we block/sanction/whatever, it's based only on the actions of the person, and with zero regard allowed for their username or their actual official "rank" on this website. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (@ Skomorokh) I think that there is something between; they aren't completely incompatible. In my opinion admins and other users with technical access beyond that of normal editors are and should be held to a higher standard, but if they break the higher standard they should be warned of it. If they continue to fall below that standard they may have their extra technical abilities removed, and if they fall so far below the standard that it is lower than your average editor then they should be treated like an average editor. Basically, consider it this way: There is One Standard that everybody must follow. Period. The first few violations mean that the user is warned. After a few violations of similar parts of the standard, blocks can be used. Admins (as an example) have a Second Standard which gives them the priveledges of adminship after a review. This Second Standard adds to the First Standard by saying that admins are expected to be even more trustworthy and civil than non-admins. They must use their new tools wisely and, even more so than non-admins, need to learn from their mistakes. If, after falling short of this Second Standard multiple times, the admin continues to fail this standard, they should have their adminship removed. If they are still above the First Standard, then they may continue editing as non-admins normally... but if they also fail that, during or after their adminship, they should be treated to differently from non-admins.
 * What I'm trying to say is: Admins are expected to meet a higher standard, but violating that higher standard doesn't result in the same penalty that violating the universal standard does. Of course, this is all just my feeling on the topic; I'm sure that plenty would disagree. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I fail to see how you can justify saying "Everyone should be treated equally" and then "but we should hold these people to a higher standard." Right now you seem to be using some circular logic: We should hold them to a higher standard because the consequences of failing the higher standard are greater. If we didn't hold them to a higher standard, and treated everyone equally, then the consequences wouldn't be higher. You can't have people held to a higher standard than others, then call it equality. Equality is not "everyone is on at least a minimum standard", equality is "everyone is on the same standard." Treating someone more strict than the majority (which seems to be desired here) is just as inequal as treating someone less strict than the majority (which seems to be what the proposal is trying to eliminate). Mr.Z-man 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like to point out my proposal doesn't even get into "standards", it's quite simple. See this edit below. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So admins shouldn't be held to a higher standard? Mr.Z-man 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, at least, this seems overly concerned with punishment rather than real "fairness" or "equality," and it seems to be trying to restrict people from applying common sense or nuance to the application of policy. By your stated rationale, a new IP user X who gets blocked for incivility and a longtime user Y, an admin with a history of productive and constructive editing and congeniality who loses his temper following a day of dealing with incivil users such as the likes of X, would get the same punishment (because that's what we're really talking about, WP:BLOCK notwithstanding). Does X deserve blocking for their behaviour? Maybe. Does Y? Maybe. But is giving them the same block really a fair or equitable application of policy? Maybe not. This is only one of the situations your proposal fails to adequately address. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You miss the point completely. The standard of this policy is "who" you are is irrelevant to your responsibility to follow policy, or your liability if you fail to do so. It has nothing to do with punishment; the above is responses to the hypotheticals. To use him as an example: If User:Admin12345 goes 6RR on a given page, there's no reason he shouldn't be blocked. User:Admin12345 by virtue of being an admin is never exempt from following WP:BLP. User:Admin12345 always has to follow WP:SOCK. The same as anyone else. This policy simply makes explicit that where it's User:Admin12345, User:192.168.1.1, or User:Jimbo Wales is irrelevant. Everyone plays by the same set of rules, irregardless of their "name". The policy doesn't need any granular breakdown. It's like WP:IAR. It simply is. No one, full stop, is exempt from any policy on this website no matter who they are. Since IAR itself is a policy, my proposal literally affects everyone. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 23:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think you miss the point. Some instances of policy violation are clear cut, while others are less clear cut.  Again, I fail to see what your proposal does that is new, not covered elsewhere, or useful.  Exploding Boy (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)The proposal also doesn't make clear how/if individuals' histories should be taken into account. From what I've read on the talk page, one of the main reasons behind this proposal is so that we don't end up with users who are "above policy", which generally happens because of their long history of dedication and content creation. But I don't see how you can call ignoring users' good histories equality without also ignoring their bad histories. To expand on EB's scenario, say User:A is an "average" contributor, User:B is a prolific FA writer, and User:C has been blocked many times for edit warring. Then they all make the same WP:CIVIL violation. None of their individual histories have anything to do with civility. The proponents of the proposal seem to believe that Users A and B should be treated the same, but what about User:C? We can give C a harsher punishment as he's had prior behavior problems, based on the current system of escalating pusnishments; but ignoring B's history while considering C's is hardly treating them equally. Or we could give all 3 the same punishment, but I don't see how that's actually desirable; we're being either overly harsh to A and B on their "first offense" or overly lenient with C by treating him the same as a user who's never had any problems. Mr.Z-man 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad state of affairs
The first time I saw this, I feel sad that we have to state and codify the obvious now. Back when I first joined, this is implicitly understood amongst everyone who contributes to Wikipedia. Adminship is just an extra responsibility. AC is just an additional responsibility. And looking at the title of it, the line "Animal Farm" just come to mind. It really comes down to the perception and attitude in how we look at and treat everyone else. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See here, and Seven Commandments, too, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the confusion
I think that there is some confusion over this. The first thing is that, at least in my mind, this would not change how new users are treated in comparison to more experienced users. We should almost always go easier on the new users, and I don't think that this proposal would change this.

What this does propose is that two users of the same experience level should be treated the same way regardless of "rank". If an admin and a non-admin or an admin and a member of the Arbitration Committee have roughly the same experience in editing, they should be treated the same way if they start breaking the rules a bit too much. However, a new user should not be treated the same way as a member of the ArbCom because they former probably isn't aware of much of Wikipedia's policy. Yes, many IP editors are also new users, but there are long-established IP users who, if they do something wrong, should be treated the same way as an equally established user (regardless of "rank"), and vice versa. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So its not complete equality, but only equality between users in the same "position"? Mr.Z-man 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that all editors who have the same amount of experience should be treated equally, regardless of who has more "hats" or community respect? If this is the case, that should be noted on the page. However, note that is not equality among all editors, but, rather, equality among users at the same level, as Mr.Z-man claimed above.  hmwith  τ   12:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand from this, Jimbo's talk page, and various policies and guidelines, the following shall be true: Administrators shall be held to higher standards as role-models, and yet regardless of history or tenure, they shall be shown no quarter or consideration in any type of dispute. hmmm ... kinda does reduce the appeal of RfA a bit I would think. But, irony aside, I think Root has his finger on a very plausible idea here. And as it's been mentioned above, it's a shame that we would actually need to spell these things out. A funny thing though, I recently responded to a comment in real life with "hey, a little AGF .. huh?". Problem was, I actually had to explain it. My point? All people, regardless of status, stature, tenure, or affiliation to WP should be shown common courtesy and respect, at least up until the time that they forego that by refusal to provide the same. I think if we stick to the civility and respect (aka NPA) issues on this - we can work out some good wording; however, if we try to extend this to the other items such as MOS, REFs, etc., it will likely go stale in time, and not achieve any community consensus. Just IMHO. — Ched : ?  19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly what we're trying to get away from with this proposal. — Ched : ?  05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant
What exactly is the point of this fork of obviousness? Take a look at Policies and guidelines (an official Wikipedia policy no less), line 1 paragraph 2 :"Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus and apply to all editors". Sure, we know that certain people, namely some rogue (or is it rouge?) admins, don't respect this basic idea, usually out of their belief that there are vested contributors on the project (which once you've been around long enough all too often resembles a quite tiny club instead of a worldwide collection of volunteers) who need to be cut a never ending piece of slack, but I don't see what another policy consisting of a single paragraph is going to do to change that. And the failure to uphold that line works both ways by the way - both in the moral failing of the admins who routinely ignore it, and in the admins who stand by and do nothing when it is set aside by colleagues so blatantly. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree. I agree that the main point - policies apply to everyone - is redundant. But this proposal goes one step further to say that policies apply to everyone equally. It attempts to use the shotgun approach to get rid of the one bad inequality you mention (vested contributors), while taking out all the good inequalities as collateral damage - allowing new users a little more slack, holding admins/arbs/etc to a higher standard. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Two objections
1) New users are not equal. They are protected by WP:BITE, and also sometimes targeted by WP:SPA.  Doesn't this mean this proposed policy is contrary to established custom and practice? 2) I object to this on grounds of WP:CREEP.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejected
However nice it might be if it were true, policies and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not proscriptive. This does not reflect how things work. I suggest it be rewritten as an essay or marked as rejected. Hipocrite (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Computerjoe 's talk 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus?
What's the consensus then? This discussion is quite confusing! Computerjoe 's talk 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be an essay for now, although my feeling is that a number of users didn't quite understand what this was supposed to mean. Maybe another time. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the downside is that we have no consensus today, the upside is WP:TIMELIMIT. I think the idea is great, but I can definitely see that what looks good on paper, doesn't always work in practice.  Hey, I'm willing to stop in from time to time to work on it.  (Ched notes that everyone is in awe of this .. lol).  The idea is here now, tomorrow is another day. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * addendum: yes I know I linked to a content essay. — Ched : ?  03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope
I hope we're not done here. This idea could go a long way towards resolving drama before it becomes drama. — Ched : ?  10:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a dead duck. Rootology's recent rant on Jimbo's page about why is nobody thinking of the children and implementing FR immediately showed his true feelings about the equality of all users on the pedia, IPs included. MickMacNee (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FR has nothing to do with "equality of how policies are applied to users". If the policy is that anyone without "FR Approver" status has to get approved, that's separate from "equality". Equality as I proposed it is that EVERYONE has to evenly pay the price if they don't follow policy--ergo, everyone MUST follow present policy--no matter who they are, as policy would apply to them. Every IP must follow every IP-applicable policy, or they have to deal with the repercussions; what the IP is irrelevant; it could be the White House or some random Comcast IP. Ditto for every non-admin user; it could be the guy registered in 2002, or the guy registered today; you violate 3RR, you both pick up the exact same block. Ditto for admins, ditto for Arbs, ditto for Jimmy. "No one is exempt".
 * If you think that protecting BLPs somehow intrudes on someone's 'rights' you're here for irrelevant and useless e-libertarian reasons and not to build a quality and ethical encyclopedia. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was interested what MickMacNee was talking about so, these are the comments that rootology made on Jimmy Wales talk page. Rootology has since retired. Ikip 06:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about how contributors "consistently and successfully violate policy without sanction"
See: Unequality shown in the enforcement of 3rr

Permalink:

Okip  12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition
I'd like to add some version of the draft below to this essay. Thoughts? comments?--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an egalitarian collaboration. No one person's views carry more weight than others regardless of their claims of expertise, number of edits or membership in a Wikipedia project etc.