Forum:Discussion:AEAE and neutrality

Much of this is food for thought that I’m looking for discussion on.

All editors are equal
Perhaps one of the most important of all of our policies is COD:AEAE, which establishes that all of our opinions and views are of equal importance and that we are all treated the same. However, while the title of the policy might suggest otherwise, it is important to understand that we are not equal in every single way. If that were the case, everyone would be given bureaucratic powers, and where is the order in that? That’s where the role of administrators comes in; the extra tools the community bestows upon us are namely to provide neutral mediation of discussions, and ensure that policies are followed.

Most recently, AEAE has been applied to topics that it does not cover. Nowhere in the policy does it mention equality in every regard. Despite what you might think, something such as highlighted administrator usernames would not be a breach of AEAE, and, had it gone through the War Room, might have been helpful for newer users. It is not a status symbol, and if it was considered as such, we might as well remove Template:Admin and everything on people’s userpages that indicates a player’s skill.

The all editors are equal policy is intended to prevent administrators from dominating the wiki (or even vice versa). In a discussion, an administrator’s opinion does not "count for more" because they are an administrator; it has the same amount of weight as every other view, meaning something such as a major policy change won’t automatically happen because all the administrators agree. That would resemble an oligarchy, which we are not.

So then where do we go in a topic such as Forum:Youtube channel, where for certain only a select group of people can be given the login? If you’re looking for true AEAE, then everyone would be given the login, but that’s foolish and near-impossible.

Neutrality
Back to what I was saying about how administrators are the mediators, that indicates something really important known as neutrality. Obviously, not everyone’s opinions will be equal if the administrator making the determination of consensus is bias. Simply put, if you participated in the discussion and gave an objective opinion on the matter, you probably should not be closing the topic. That doesn’t mean you count up everything like votes, however, because that implies we are a democracy, which we are also not.

The proper way to determine a consensus is to decide fairly which side had the best argument. All opinions should be heard, which usually means avoid striking through another user’s view. The number of advocates of each side can sometimes be a factor in consensus, albeit not the sole decider. If no consensus can be reached, then everything prior to the discussion is kept status quo.

Once again, however, I stress the importance of having a neutral administrator determine a consensus, as that will ensure the best outcome. 15:28, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Agree with both. Shotrocket6 15:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both points. 15:36, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

As do I. Dolten   Lets Talk  15:41, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both points. A Lonely Nomad 15:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts then on Forum:Youtube channel, where undoubtedly a select group of users would be given the login? 15:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that should be the case, though I won't be taking part in that project, so whether the input I provide should be regarded or not is debatable. 15:54, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the most useful need to be picked, disregarding weather or not they are admins/crats. Dolten 1164610-433px usmc logo svg large.png  Lets Talk  15:51, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most trusted and adequate users without serious offences should get password to don't ruin channel. 18:04, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Excellently put and well-written as always, Bovell. I completely agree with both of your points. On a side note, I can easily put in the user hilite javascript again, would you like me to raise that as a war room topic? Because I agree that it would definitely help new users, and doesn't go against AEAE in any way. 15:54, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both accounts. -- 16:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Very greatly written here, Bovell. I agree 110 percent. 16:09, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Administrators should be marked for easier contact and their tools should be marked, but administrators should be treated same way as other users. 18:03, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bovell has eloquently stated something which I have felt should be said for a long time, but was not sure how to say it myself. Thanks, Bovell. 18:22, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreeed on both points per all.  Talk 19:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar conversation IRL a short while ago in my Boy Scout Troop. the discussion was about respecting each other and equality. Naturally, someone or some group has to be above everyone else. Our Senior Partol Leader (The main junior figure of authority) was suprised at how he was being treated, in a good way of course, and his assistant commented that being the Senior Patrol Leader carried a little extra weight. My point here is that Admins, while not counting more in a discussion, will not be treated in the same way as everyone else, mainly because they're the designated authority group. Rambo362  19:29, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine to regard administrators with respect, but the line is drawn when that influences your opinion. Just because an administator makes a statement doesn't make it automatically right. 21:03, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with this. Also, there needs to be a stricter line for COD:AEAE blocks. In a not-so-recent flamewar including TMOI, TMOI got harrased by multiple people, and most weren't blocked. However, if this harassment would be done to an admin, they would all be blocked immediately. This is where AEAE comes in. I'm not trying to bring this up again, I am just using this as an example. I just feel there has to be more insight with COD:AEAE. Or is that what you're trying to say, that admins should be treated with respect and users don't? I'm just asking.  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 21:21, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll generally get the "King of Eliteness" view of administators out of users, which means that users thinks of the administrators as omnipotent beings that they must bow down to. Sometimes that means using an administator's opinion in an argument - "(Admin) said this so it must be true!" That goes back to AEAE, which states that everyone is treated equally, which means unless you plan on treating every single user as a demi-god, you should probably think of administrators as having equal weight in a discussion.
 * Additionally, personal bans like you mentioned are best dealt with by a neutral administrator that was not involved in the conflict. Even still, it is sometimes a good idea to get a second opinion from another administrator, who once again should not be bias. 00:49, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, personal bans cannot be happening, and if everything is to be fair, the block should be given (or indeed not given) by an admin who was not involved in anything that happened. This ensures a fair evaluation of the situation. 00:59, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Bovell's interpretation is 100% correct. I've always interpreted AEAE as a rule from preventing something like a user's opinion being disregarded because they are disliked by someone, and, as he pointed out, to make sure everyone is treated fairly. using it to say things like "an IP is 100% equal to a 'crat!" is a misunderstanding, along with the examples Bovell pointed out. Darkman 4 03:10, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * All users are equal, but that does not mean they are the same. IPs won't have the same tools as an admin, but they are equally allowed to become admins if they go through the correct protocol. Users may be punished differently for the same infraction because one might have a recent history of causing trouble. All users must follow the rules and policies -- an admin can be punished for violating COD:UTP just as much as a regular user can. That is the spirit of COD:AEAE.
 * Where we've had problems with COD:AEAE is when some users hold themselves differently to others and treat certain users differently. Occasionally an admin might threaten or inappropriately address a user, blurring the line between authority and abuse per COD:UTP. Occasionally a particular user may be blocked because he allegedly started a flame war while others who participated are excused. Recently I was stunned when an admin posted "Who gives a flying f---" in a War Room thread -- a clear example of the trolling and vulgarity that we would warn other users for.
 * The bottom line is that no user deserves to be treated differently, and no user should act as if they are superior to their peers. Some people might be more experienced, or have different skills, or have a better track-record, but we are all equal, and we should be treated and treat others as such. --Scottie theNerd 03:35, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * No one else actually cared about "Who gives a flying fuck?". I do not understand why you see the need to bring it up in now more than one war room topic. Not only is it unnecessary, it's plain annoying. It was supposed to get the point across that "No one really cares about that topic" as strongly as possible.  13:50, August 11, 2010 (UTC)