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)