Wikipedia talk:User prerogatives

Untitled

Older posts have been archived. Radiant_>|< 10:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First!

OK, new talk page, new person here, new format for page. Reasons for my edits:

1. Better appearance.
2. Replace first point (racial, gender) with "right not to be insulted". Reason: (a) not needed, recial epithets etc would be covered by "not insulted". Are we having a problem with women not being allowed on certain projects or whatnot? Unless so, not needed. (b) Likely to be misconstrued to refer to editing rights, e.g. "I'm being discriminated against as a Quux for putting pro-Quux material into article X".
3. Remove link to Jimbo. If this page becomes widely available, as it might, we don't want that there. People might tend to use that as a first result instead of last.
4. Some other stuff not critical to describe here. I thought "fork" was confusing, because we have forks WITHIN Wikipedia which sometimes aren't allowed.

There was a note on the page: "(Some Wikipedia users want to establish a list of rights to which each user is entitled. That proposal was roundly rejected; discussion can be found at this article's talk page and in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights.)". However, there is still a link to this page in the RfC. So which is it... is the discussion over, and if so why is there a link here?

Also I think the last two points, about content, belong somewhere else altogether, maybe.

I was going to put in this preamble but I decided that that would be too big a change from the previous version: "As a Wikipedia editor, you have the responsibility to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community has the right to impose sanctions, ranging from warnings up to an indefinate ban.

Wikipedia grants you certain rights. These may change over time, are not legally enforcable, and are subject to revokation in individual cases. In particular, if you behave in manner that is any reasonable person would conclude is indisputably, egregiously, and notoriously destructive, demented, or gravely insulting, any and all rights may be revoked without notice."Herostratus 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. What was rejected earlier was not the existence of a set of user rights in general, but a particular set of rights that were ill-advised, badly worded and non-consensual. The page as it stands now is a rewrite containing rights that do apply to all Wikipedians. But it could certainly be improved - just try to keep it not overly legalistic. As you correctly state, most of people's rights here are revocable if you abuse them. A select few are not (e.g. the right to fork and the right to appeal; although some people recently have been confusing the right to ask appeal with the right to have it granted). Radiant_>|< 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Right. OK, per your comment, added the preamble -- at the bottom, so it can be considered separately. I added it mainly to help quell objections to the list, by making it clear that some behaviors are so bad that you're just gone, and Jimbo etc. can ban you on sight, but added many adjectives to make it basically impossible for regular administrators to defend revoking rights except for absolute total flaming bad guys. Yes, also it has to go before the "Editor rights" section, NOT the entire document, because the rights to content are legal rights.Herostratus 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, please do not revert back to those recent changes. The U.S. Constitutional motif of much of the language is silly. Wikipedia is not an online-nation state or a democracy. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Writing "preambles" and speaking in terms of "rights" on Wikipedia is nonsensical. 172 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Backing up the list

I think each item should be backed up by a ref to a particular policy that supports it and that all items on the list should be based on policies. I have made some changes so far to bring things in line with that. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion/politics?

Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality or sexual preference.

What about religion and political affiliation? --Nerd42 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement that Wikipeida does not discriminate on the basis of religious or political affiliation renders the encyclopedia incapable of defending itself from the possibility of an organized effort on the part of certain types of political extremists and cultists to subvert Wikipeidia for their own ends. Further, the statement is in conflict with a number of past arbitration rulings. There was a sustained attempt in 2004-2005 to use Wikipedia as a venue for propaganda promoting Lyndon LaRouche, a neo-fascist con-artist. In response, the Arbitration Committee to put LaRouche followers under restrictions to which other editors are not subject. Therefore, restrictions against editors of certain political affiliations may be necessary. 172 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification request per User:172

OK, I got this message from a user:

I am still having a hard time following your rationale for the changes. Further, I doubt that it is more important that the page be "attractive" than simple. Propose your changes on the talk page before making sweeping changes next time. 172 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I messed up. I had thought that my comments under frist!, above, had constituted an explanation. Also, I didn't realize that my changes were sweeping, really. As I had said above, I thought they were pretty minor, so I didn't think it would be problem.

Anyway, I was going to write a detailed explanation per your request, but I see that you reverted me again, so enh. I can see from your user page that you are long-timer, are quite erudite, and do a lot of good work, so I'm not going to get into it with you, fine, have it your way, whatever.

Would you please do me one favor, though, and remove the RfC from the RfC list? I'm not gonna take the heat for that, you do it. I'd hate to see other well-intentioned people waste time on this, as I have, since its not going to go anywhere. Thanks! PS even though we don't see straight eye-to-eye on this, I do appreciate the many great contributions I see that you have made, and sorry to have diverted you from that on this matter, Wiki on! Herostratus 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words! I don't understand what you mean by removing the RfC from the RfC list. I'll take another look at the page. 172 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just meant, if the issue has been decided per the notice on the article page, why keep a link to this page in Requuest for Comment page, is all. Not a big deal though. Herostratus 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. with which I have no problems, and feel that no serious Wikipaedian ought to.
2. Whilst I would hesitate to press for "may" to become "must", I feel that on a semantic level this does more to discourage mediation than encourage it.
3. no comment
4. This appears a "fair" prerogative except that Wiki is often used as an "authoritative" source, yet (as is well known) contentious articles get mega-edited over short periods, and it would be simple, under this prerogative, for a selected download to be taken, to put Wiki-authority behind a completely specious and POV version of events.
5. This clearly conflicts with the principles #4, and amounts, as it stands, to an invitation to 3rd parties to hijack Wiki material and publish it as their own, by not including the article's full history.
6. I can only imagine that this tenet has been added by a Wiki-vandal. Rather, it ought to guarantee *other* users than the santioned, that a track will be kept on previously sanctioned users, and their sanction will be reapplied unless appealed should they ever return.

I remain, humbly, --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Rejected"

Looking at Wikipedia_talk:User_prerogatives/Archive#First Poll this seems very arbitrary and possibly biased by whoever wrote the new version of the page:

In the "first poll", it's still pretty close, 20 v 36.. and that's not that many people overall either, this hasn't had much publicity: I only just heard about it, linked from Snowspinner's ArbCom manifesto

I don't see how a Bill of Rights could do any harm, it seems like a good idea in itself, even if the first version of it wasn't so good. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A proposal needs consensus to become policy, thus a large majority of people must support it or it's rejected. The "Bill of Right" proposal has 70% opposition and therefore was absolutely rejected. It's important to keep in mind that polls are run only to gauge whether consensus exists. Once it's clear that consensus obviously does not exist, a proposal is rejected. Carbonite | Talk 20:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill of responsibilities

I feel strongly that any "bill of rights" should be balanced by a "bill of responsibilities". Rights given without responsibilities, allow people licence to act like idiots and promote their agenda (political, religious or otherwise) to the detriment of most readers. simonthebold 10:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Right to Appeal a Block

Can we add this? -Unsigned

Any registered user has the right to quickly appeal their block to a 3rd party Administrator.--God of War 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No context

I have NPOV tagged this section because of the assertion, which appears unsubstantiated and therefore presumably is an expression of opinion rather than a statement as to fact, concerning Lyndon Larouche. I am also concenred that, phrased as it is, this represents potential defamation. However, I have restrained myself from making any direct edits as I am too far distant from the circumstances to make an informed adjustment. --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) [originally posted to Wikipedia talk talk:User prerogatives -- RHaworth 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]

I have restored the text to the talk talk page to conform with the protocols of the NPOV tag. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when someone (or more than one -- I can't work out the 'history') has removed not only my comment, but also the NPOV tag, changed the entire text of the main page, apparently changed it back, and commented that the entire exercise is a waste of tiem because the entire issue was already defeated. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Useless

This policy appears to be completely useless and redundant. The existing policies on civility, etiquete, and 'no personal attacks', particularly the principle of discussing article content rather than any attributes of editors, means there's no basis to discriminate on any of the listed grounds, or on the basis of religion or politics either. I have no idea what happened with Larouche and friends, but I have a hard time believing there has to be a brand new 'anti-Larouche' policy because of it. The rest of it seems pretty self-evident too. Of course people can stop editing. Of course they can use the various conflict resolution methods that wikipedia has established to resolve conflicts. Seriously, what problem does this address that isn't already addressed by existing policies and guidelines? Wesley 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The problems is the existing policies are too ambiguous, really.. This is made clear by the very fact that this is not already policy and that it was forcibly moved from "user bill of rights" to here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the User Bill of Rights before the vandalism seem less useless and redundant? [1] (SEWilco 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

Second poll

• Closed per the below, and WP:VIE. Radiant_>|< 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Wasn't this already defeated? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it was, with 70% opposition. Also, all candidates in the ArbCom election have been asked if they support this, and the overwhelming majority doesn't (and several of the few that do support it get oppose votes by people who consider this a strong lapse in judgment). Finally, SEWilco has ignored or refused to address any of the many objections to and faults in this proposal, has been revert warring about it, making personal attacks on people who disagree with him, and is under ArbCom injunction for being a rules lawyer. This page has now been reverted to Cryptic's version that is merely (potentially) redundant, rather than extremely objectional. Radiant_>|< 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point exactly. Thanks Radiant!. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is useless. #1 can go in a different policy. #2 is part of the dispute resolution policies, #3 is already the case, #4 is also already the case -- except, it's an incomplete picture: sometimes Images are on Wikipedia under 'Fair use Terms', or some anon user other than the rights holder copy+pastes text into Wikipedia without permission. The document is somewhat ok, but I do not believe it would be a good idea to accept it as an official policy: my suggestion, is that the proposal be dropped, and it can be made a regular document. The User Bill of Rights was even worse... Wikipedia policies do not create a formal rule of law, nor should they. --Mysidia (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion draft/new proposal

1. Wikipedia is committed to handling all disputes involving editors under fair procedures which provide every editor whose actions are questioned with notice of the complaints and an opportunity to present his/her views on the matter. Editors must be notified of the reasons for proposed actions and given a reasonable time to respond before action is taken.

Even when summary action is taken in extreme cases, Wikipedia will provide every user with an open avenue to dispute such actions reasonably and in good faith.

2. Wikipedia policies must be enforced openly, uniformly and objectively, without regard to the identity of the editors involved, both those bringing complaints and those against whom complaints are brought. When formal decisions are made, particularly by the Arbitration Committee, every administrator is bound and expected to enforce such a decision whenever the need to do so comes or is brought to his/her attention. Administrators should be careful to avoid conduct which may encourage other editors to attempt to evade or otherwise fail to comply with Wikipedia policies.

The widespread perception that administrators do not apply policies evenhandedly is reinforced by the regular failure to explain the reasons for their actions. Indistinguishable complaints against users are frequently acted on differently, when they are acted on at all. Administrator decisions in taking actions on matters where editors' input is taken, such as 3RR reports. vandalism complaints, personal attack complaints, and even AFDs and RFAs are often perceived as inconsistent. Wikipedia should provide appropriate, objectively framed, explanations of all such decisions. When significant differences between administrators arise, policy differences should not be settled privately, but should be openly placed before the entire set of editors for discussion and resolution.

3. When Wikipedia's general policies are reduced to specific rules, those rules shall not be applied retroactively. It is, except in extraordinary circumstances, inappropriate to take action against any editor who makes good faith efforts to conform his/her conduct to both Wikipedia's specific rules and general policies.

There are many ways for editors to disrupt Wikipedia and to evade policies. But if new standards are set to reduce disruptive behavior, those standards cannot fairly be applied to past actions which editors believed in good faith were appropriate. If, for example, the 3RR rule were reduced to 2RR, the new rule should not be mechanically applied to actions which took place before editors were given working notice of the new rule.

4. All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to openly discuss and report what they believe to be inappropriate use of authority by administrators. Administrators shall not retaliate against editors who do so, and shall not, except in extraordinary cases, take action to resolve disputes against editors who have criticized their actions, or encourage other Wikipedians to act against those editors. In particular, every editor is entitled to participate in good faith in dispute resolution processes without fear of adverse action for doing so. It is particularly inappropriate for administrators to denigrate users for invoking the terms of Wikipedia policies in good faith.

This standard is a shield, not a sword; it does not entitle an editor to disqualify or force recusal of an otherwise appropriate administrator by criticizing him/her after a dispute resolution process has begun.

5. Just as administrators should not ordinarily take action against editors with whom they have or have had significant disputes, administrators should avoid even the appearance of assisting their friends and Wikipedia associates in disputes. Whenever such an editor asks for intervention in resolving a dispute, the potential conflict of interest should be clear. The administrator involved should direct the requestor to an open, universally accessible forum like the Administrator NoticeBoards.

This standard should not, as a general rule, prevent any party in an particular ongoing dispute from requesting action or assistance from an administrator who is already appropriately involved in that specific dispute.

6. All enforceable policies must be public, must be reduced to written terms, and must be accessible to all editors. All binding policy interpretations, particularly those made by the Arbitration Committee, must be incorporated into the appropriate policy pages as quickly as is practicable.

Monicasdude 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Section 2

I have a generally positive attitude to Monicasdude's proposal. I know that Monicasdude added section 2 for the protection of editors from bias and capriciousness on the part of admins. However, I am concerned that section 2 would lead to the creation a disciplined "machine" which, rather than affording good faith editors more protection, would actually reduce their protection. --BostonMA 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I look back quickly, this started out as section 4 of the original (?) version, which read "Arbitration Committee members and Administrators will support and enforce policy, precedent, and rulings equally for all users and those involved in cases. All users are equally protected and affected by rules. No favoritism." Are the references that I added to "uniform" what trouble you? It should be easy to try to work something out on that point. Would "consistent" be a better term than "uniform." Tell me more. Monicasdude 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to require admins to apply policies fairly. That is, the standard that each admin applies when deciding upon a block, should be applied without regard to who is being blocked, or who notified the admin of the offending behavior. However, the section that I have concerns about is this:

When formal decisions are made, particularly by the Arbitration Committee, every administrator is bound and expected to enforce such a decision whenever the need to do so comes or is brought to his/her attention.

I am concerned that language which states that admins are "bound" will provide a "legal" basis for driving out admins who may be fair and even-handed, but who may not be willing to enforce all the decisions of arb-com. And, if not driving such admins out, at least deterring new editors from becoming admins if they are not willing to enforce all of arbcoms decisions. I think the diversity which exists among admins affords some protection to editors which would be sorely missed if it were to be replaced by a uniform discipline.

I agree that admins may fail to enforce arbcom decisions because they are playing favorites. However, my fear is that the proposed medicine is worse than the illness. --BostonMA 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an archive copy?

It seems that any trace of the original Bill of Rights proposal has been deleted. Did anyone archive it? I think that it has genuine historic importance for Wikipedia. --172.195.224.212 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)