Quality and talk pages

The "senior editor" would be a trusted user, selected for skills and experience, and for commitment to core polices (NOR, NPoV and V-policies).

I believe this is exactly opposite to what is needed to improve the quality of WP. It simply introduces some more administrators that can bully Talk page discussions when their "expert" status is misapplied.

A better approach is to encourage existing Administrators to focus upon conduct, not content. That means NOR, NPoV and V-policies should not be the focus, because they require judgment of content. Rather CIVIL, NPA, AGF, DIS and so forth should be the emphasis. If Talk pages become useful discussion pages, instead of being used for entertainment and ego satisfaction, the articles content will reflect sensible consensus instead of the opinion of the (possibly) arrogant majority or oligarchy. Prompt and unbiased policing of bad behavior (easily done without reference to content, and based strictly upon conduct) will catalyze actual discussion in place of the present Jerry Springer Show tactics. It also will bring in participants with something to say that cannot be bothered with a melee.

Brews ohare20:20, 22 January 2010
  1. You are repeating yourself
  2. "Prompt and unbiased policing of bad behavior (easily done without reference to content, and based strictly upon conduct)" may avoid "the present Jerry Springer Show tactics." but will in itself not avoid users from sabotaging discussions. It is quite possible to be completely unconstructive while maintaing a perfectly polite mien. - Brya 06:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Brya06:02, 23 January 2010
 

Yes, not all problems are solved, particularly deliberate sabotage. But some problems would be solved, possibly the worst.

Brews ohare07:45, 23 January 2010

Yes, but it is a separate point. Both policies could be pursued independently. - Brya 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brya04:46, 24 January 2010