Wikipedia talk:User prerogatives/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User prerogatives fork

This article, Wikipedia:User prerogatives is a fork of Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights, and the latter has been a target of vandalism involving a contradictory change in subject.

  • The "User prerogatives" version is a summary of some existing Wikipedia rules.
  • The "User Bill of Rights" is a suggested policy for protecting users from arbitrary abuse of power.

Much of the following discussion took place before the list of rules was spun off, and refers to the original text which were a few variations on the following:

So we can build a better encyclopedia without capricious interference, we should know what rules apply.

  1. A rule of law is created by Wikipedia policies, Arbitration policy and Arbitration precedents.
    The rules should be written down so users can know what to expect.
  2. No ex post facto laws.
    A rule cannot be used retroactively to indict an editor breaking it before it was created.
  3. Arbitration Committee members should follow policy and precedent rather than altering it.
    The Committee should follow the rules and not create new ones. New rules only apply after they are made official.
  4. 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.
  5. All Administrators must enforce Arbitration Committee rulings.
    Administrators are added to list of those on whom Arbitration rulings are binding.
  6. Users will be notified of the specific reasons for arbitration or other actions.
    To protect users from arbitrary actions and so a proper arbitration can take place.
  7. Regulations apply to all Wikipedia users including those with special authorizations.
    Rules apply to everyone.
  8. Users may not be penalized for simply participating in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process where such participation is made in good faith.
    No retaliations for using dispute resolution in good faith.

(SEWilco 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Zen-master ban

{{User article ban}}

I suggest the above ban is silly, malicious, and pointless. There is not a single reader of wikipedia, which has in any way been disrupted in the normal encyclopedic use of this site as a consequence of Zen keeping the consensus process open - while there is ample evidence that keeping it open has invited more thought, and thoughtful comments on this page, which would have been irretrievable lost were it to be quashed by early archiving. Shame on the Admin. Benjamin Gatti 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The ban is not pointless. Zen-master violated the terms of his probation by acting in a disruptive manner (he also violated the letter and spirit of a rule (WP:0RR) that he claims to follow). The ban is only for two weeks and only for the article page, so he's free to discuss on this talk page. This isn't the first page that Zen-master has been banned from so there's already a pattern of abuse here. Carbonite | Talk 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Zen participates in controversial subjects - having a risk of banishment equivelent to the risk of Joe Pesci being cited for contempt in an Alabama courtroom in no way justifies a ban on a proposed policy page under the rubric of "disruption". Disruption requires a victim to have been disrupted - now if you can name a single soul who was disrupted from the course of their ordinary activities as a consequence of keeping a policy proposal open for a few days - than you can talk - but that mumbo-jumbo - he did it before crap - is a waste of perfectly good letters. Save the keyboard for something useful. Benjamin Gatti 16:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, the core concept of the real Zero-revert rule, not the despotic version you made up, is that it is self-enforced. You didn't like that because it disallowed you leverage to use against other editors. You tried to change it, hijack it, move it to user space, and eventually merge it with another article exactly the opposite of its original intent, but you cannot claim in good faith that Zen-master agreed to live by your Revert Only When Necessary guideline. Who would agree something so moronic? Are we to believe that Zen-master pledged to only revert things when you and your buddies decide after the fact that it is was necessary? And that if you didn't deem the revert necessary, that you can use the revert to ban him from articles?

No Carbonite, you do not have the right to ban people from articles and then make up lies about why they were banned and spread them in places where the accused is unable to defend themselves. In a system as transparent as Wikipedia, everyone can see what you are doing and we refuse to grant you the power to do so. You may not use your administrative powers to ban people who disagree with you on an article. You may not make up lies about other editors and spread them in places where you have banned them. Either desist immediately and undo the damage you have caused, or relinquish your administrative powers. --Peter McConaughey 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left Carbonite a message on his/her talk page about this. I hope this ban gets overturned since it is totally unwarranted. Ronline ✉ 09:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the roller-coaster of support, too bad nothing came of any of it. zen master T 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Motivation

Having experienced arbitrary behavior by Arbitration Committee members in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, I noticed several gaps in Wikipedia policies. (SEWilco 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

  • The more I think about that sentence, the more I trouble I have assuming good faith about this proposal, as it seems more and more to be made in retribution against the ArbCom and an attempt to retroactively overrule it. The Literate Engineer 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope. This proposal specifically includes a prohibition against retroactive rulings. I was well aware it thus blocks itself from preceding cases. (SEWilco 04:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Action on Arbitration Policy

As there is no means for significant modification to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, I urge people to return the Arbitration Committee to hearing only emergency cases while a new policy is created, by voting No on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote. (SEWilco 16:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

WP:NOT a prison camp

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia.

SEWilco's increasingly disruptive actions–culminating in this grossly misnamed 'Bill of Rights'–are not aimed at improving Wikipedia or creating an encyclopedic reference work. Instead, he is campaigning to develop a framework within which administrators who fail to slavishly administer punishments for minor month-old parole violations would face sanction.

This is patently absurd, and contradicts both our ideals as an encyclopedia project and the very notion of what a 'Bill of Rights' ought to represent.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, you should assume good faith and not impune motives. Focus on the substance not the author.--Silverback 08:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
What is absurd is getting called before the Arbitation Committee, not being told what the subject of arbitration is, and the Arbitration Committee not even following their policy to explain why they voted to start the action. (SEWilco 20:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
I concur completely. I'm involved in an Arbcom case right now where several arbitrators are friends and political acquantances of the editor who brought the case (naming 5 different wikipedians from unrelated disputes he's had all over the encyclopedia, no less!). Right now the Arbcom is voting on the finding that I "harassed" the accusing editor that they're friends with for doing nothing more than objecting to his POV pushing on the talk page, asking him not to engage in personal attacks, and bringing an RfC against him when he continued personally attacking me and other editors despite those posts. The finding is just plain absurd as the Arbcom won't even specify (1) exactly what rule I broke or (2) how my posts broke it! And if anybody wants to see this for themselves, here are the diffs that were cited in their finding that I "harassed" a user who was posting messages like this about me all over the talk page and to other users: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Now, if anyone can tell me what is even remotely "harassing" about any of those talk page posts of mine, made in response to an editor who was making unprovoked personal attacks on me and demonstrating extreme incivility in his conduct, I'd be glad to hear them because I sure as hell don't see anything constituting "harassment" in them. What I do see are detailed objections to POV pushing and reasonab;e suggestions to the offending user to review Wikipedia's no personal attack and civility policies. But the arbcom has ruled differently in a proceeding that is entirely void of transparency and substantive evidence [5]. If a "bill of rights" procedure would help rectify shoddy, corrupt, and rigged Arbcom decisions like the one I just experienced, then I'm all for it. Rangerdude 05:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect this page

I think this page should be redirected to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Carnildo 22:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think it is possible, you might try to write Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee. It should make an interesting read, please keep us informed. (SEWilco 04:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
I just did. Tell me what you think. WAS 4.250 16:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You're thinking of "defy all rules", which isn't the same thing. Chris talk back 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I support redirecting to Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee! Kaldari 16:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question?

For the sake of argument, not knowing him (pardon me for this), I'll temporarily stipulate that SEWilco is a malcontented nut. However, does that make what he has written bad? The plain text expresses good ideas, doesn't it? I think I support this thing. Xoloz 07:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll stipulate that I am a contented and useful nut. This topic arose from my arbitration experience but is intended to provide improved protection for all users from arbitrary actions. I mentioned my case as an example for those needing examples of a need for such protections. Those familiar with the concepts behind rule of law and bill of rights will recognize some of the concepts. (SEWilco 07:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
That's a thoughtful and humorous response, and it garnered my attention. After examining your circumstance, it appears that many administrators objected to your repeated requests for enforcement actions against another editor with whom you have been involved in a dispute. As such, they probably object to this proposal because they fear you might use it to "bludgeon" them into enforcement actions of questionable merit. In one respect, such concern is very reasonable. As a party to the dispute from which the enforcing warrant arises, you are not in the best position to treat your opponent equitably, and fears you might "stalk" him (even without maliciously intending to do so) are not unreasonable.
At the same, someone should monitor the enforcement of the dual bans to ensure equal treatment of all parties involved. Perhaps any complaint made by you for enforcement against Mr. Connelley should first be screened by a member's advocate, mentor, mediator, or other intercessor to ensure its soundness, and to provide for its expression in an appropriate, dispassionate, and non-disruptive manner?
These are just my thoughts as a completely novel party to this question. I do think your proposal has merit, and it would be seriously considered by the community, but for the contentious position in which you are now placed. Because WP is a privately-owned encyclopedia (and not a state), it has a lower tolerance for Socratic-style "gadflies" than public systems of justice. I do think this regrettable, but it is more efficient. Anyway, the proposal is good one on its face, and I do think you should pass it along to all candidates running for ArbCom. Xoloz 10:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
We're all at risk no matter what happens to my case, and it was best to get this process started while I still have access to Wikipedia. I'm not concerned about my case, but if I "lost" something in it then creating this proposal afterward could be interpreted as a direct complaint about my case. This proposal stands on its own whether I'm involved or not. (SEWilco 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
I asked all the remaining candidates about it now. (SEWilco 05:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Practicality

This proposal is worthwhile but I wonder about practicality. If the current set of rules aren't being enforced or are enforced inconsistently what guarantee is there this proposal will improve the situation? The current set of rules are also already being interpreted in opposite ways, we should perhaps, in parallel, attempt some sort of improved clarification of existing rules. I think part of the problem is the heirarchy between admins and non-admins which seems to have created an "admin knows best" complex. Also, many editors on wikipedia seem to edit from the perspective of defending "their" point of view, rather than seeking neutral presentation and a greater understanding. If each user had the same or nearly the same level of "power" within wikipedia I think (hope) some of the problems would cease. Whatever set of rules we come up with should try to encourage debate and true consensus, not factionalization. I think the biggest problem on wikipedia currently is censorship, a small group of editors can delete or lessen a cited point of view from an article quite easily, somehow we have to encourage people to accept views critical of their pet subject and have a way of mitigating it when editors are excluding information. Rather than asking editors to check their POV at the door perhaps we should aim a little lower and simply ask editors to not try to present their POV (which invariably creeps in) in absolute terms. Presenting a subject using needlessly literal or absolute language often leads to the exclusion of other viewpoints, subtly at first perhaps. It just occurred to me the "eliminate POV" mantra some editors seem to gleen from the NPOV policy may be partially to blame for censorship, instead of encouraging people to try to eliminate POV it would be better if we encouraged people to caveat it, especially our own. zen master T 07:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is intended to protect users from unpredictable abuse of power. My suggestion above of reversing the Arbitration Committee's range back to only emergency actions will minimize damage until the AC can be improved. (SEWilco 07:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
The problem I keep encountering on Wikipedia is that administrators and Arbcom members are allowed to break the rules at will with only a minor slap on the wrist if anything at all. Meanwhile regular editors get heavy penalties and outright bannings for charges that are neither clearly stated or documented. My recent Arbcom case involved an administrator who was adding David Duke and other white supremacist quotations to political articles in a blatant attempt to smear their subjects with guilt by association attacks. The evidence of this is documented here. It shows that admin doing this on 7 different unrelated articles, one of which he added or reverted to attack terms at least 20 times. Despite this overwhelming evidence of inappropriate behavior, the admin was allowed to say he was sorry for only the first of these incidents and the only penalty proposed against him was a 1-day banning here, which 4 arbcom members thought was too harsh! Meanwhile they penalize regular editors such as myself with harsh far-reaching probation or parole periods lasting up to a year for "offenses" that are not even clearly stated or supported by any evidence. In this same case the Arbcom also virtually ignored evidence of another admin engaging in widespread personal attacks against me and several others (including the addition of "Ignorance" to another editor's homepage list of expertises [6]), a legal threat, and repeated inappropriate use of page protection to protect her own article. Rangerdude 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


So, do you think that the old system–Jimbo arbitrarily imposing judgements–would be less likely to result in 'abuse of power'? What I've seen suggests that he's much less tolerant of rules-lawyering and incivility than the ArbCom—be careful what you wish for.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite possibly it would. I'd rather live under 1 dictator that I knew where he stood on wikipedia's policies than 10 who arbitrarily ignore those policies when their friends are involved. That's the system we've got now, and it's broken beyond repair. Rangerdude 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco, are you arguing the arbcom is abusing power by doing too much or doing too little or making the wrong decisions in some cases? zen master T 07:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. All three of those types of abuses or errors. Whether to call something an "abuse" or "error" is difficult, as sometimes it depends upon unprovable intent rather than action. But the users should gain protection from interference with this policy whether specific problems have occurred in the past or not. (SEWilco 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

First Poll

This article is a forked variation. Actual poll is at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights#First_Poll

Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

This is a poll on the concepts in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. As a new document, modifications are expected so this is not a request for approval of a specific version.

Yes this article is needed

  1. Approve. (Article creator) SEWilco 07:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Approve. Nothing controversial here. Paul Beardsell 10:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Approve. This proposal for a 'covenant' for Wp users is a noble one. Discuss ideas, refine them and text, and then implement with a Wikipedian consensus. E Pluribus Anthony 17:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Approve. This is long overdue and will help make Wikipedia's dispute resolutions more balanced and transparent. Rangerdude 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Approve. These are all common sense rules anyway that can be drawn by inference from other articles, but, in light of recent events, I see nothing wrong with putting them down in one place. --InShaneee 05:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Wikipedia badly needs checks and balances. Sam Spade 16:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Approve. Without some corrective measures, Wikipedia is well on its way to becoming a soapbox for propaganda. --HK 15:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Approve. There is nothing inequitable about the proposed 8-point User Bill of Rights, regardless of what one calls it. In order for the Arbitrary Committee to mature and grow into what might in future be termed an Arbitration Committee it needs something to give people confidence that it will be just and operate within a defined terms of reference, which it doesn't have at the moment. This looks like a good start. Matt Stan 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Approve, but with modifications. I believe that there should be a degree of accountability and nuetrality amongst sysops and ArbCom members, as this is one of the current problems I have noted with Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure this article is there just yet... --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Approve. Consistent rules and definitions are a good thing, or at least enough consistency so rugs aren't pulled out from under people mid-stride. zen master T 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. King of All the Franks 18:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Approve Arbcom decisions will be only as persuasive as the ruleset from which they spring. The choice is between a defined and mutually binding ruleset and/or a prurient little boys club in which the rules are made up as you go along. The later is an open invitation for sycophants and idiots - not a safe place for serious minds. Benjamin Gatti 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Approve. A vibrant, free community is necessary for Wikipedia's growth. And, the ArbCom unfortunately often passes motions that go against free principles. Ronline ✉ 11:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Approve --BostonMA 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Approve consistent application of rules set by a binding code of conduct. TDC 17:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Approve The arbitrary actions of administrators and the arbcom just proof the point. --MichaelSirks 20:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Approve The feelings of editors do not matter but without editors rights the articles will suffer. --MACMILLAN 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Approve. Editor rights are important; if some say they aren't now, they may be right, but it most certainly will become an issue as the project grows further. Nightstallion (?) 07:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Approve. First, if people don't want Wikipedia to be anarchy, they should accept a regulation by something similar to the rule of law. Second, some of the existing forms of regulation are too vague and variable in their application. DrKinsey 06:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Approve. As we learn how to improve Wiki, we also need to know where we stand with respect to what is allowed, what not, what appropriate, etc. There needs to be some additions to # 1 such as not censored for minors, but try to write for right audience,; Not discriminate on basis of profession, parent's profession, national ancestry. How about legal status, like illegal immigrants, felons? User:AlMac|(talk) 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is a forked variation. Actual poll is at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights#First_Poll

No this article is not needed

  1. This is silly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a democracy. 172 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Definitely not a good idea. Some of the goals behind it may be good, but this will never work. It's far too legalistic and bureacratic, too much a departure from how things have been done before. Friday (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Noble goals, but I object on the grounds that it's yet another example of process over product. We need fewer rules, not more. Chris talk back 21:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. I'm not convinced any problem exists for this to solve. The Literate Engineer 08:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. I agree totally that the problem exists (that this is supposed to help with). I disagree that it will do anything at all to help. I see the judges making up their mind before the evidence is presented and saying things that sound like they intend to not ever read the evidence anyway. More paper rules will do nothing. They will ignore these rules too. This is cyberspace and I think Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee is a better solution. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, no one is stopping you. If you are here for some other purpose, I suggest you use wikipedia to find another resource in cyberspace more suitable. WAS 4.250 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. I don't think this is a good idea. Arbitrary application of rules potentially goes against the principle of "assume good faith". Administrative actions should be focused on keeping the project working smoothly, not on some concept of "punishment" or "sanctions". Some of the principles here are good ideas, but the concept of "fair play" here isn't as important as the concept of keeping wikipedia running smoothly. Triona 10:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. m:instruction creep, and WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Out of this, I could only agree with rules 6 and 7 (I am quite enthusiastic about 7). The rest seem faulty, either on their face or in the details, and I would not support them. --Improv 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Whilst well intentioned, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we just don't need this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Chuck off everyone that's not here to improve (or protect) the encyclopaedia, and let everyone else get on with their hobby, jguk 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. First, I am not convinced that a bill of rights is needed. Secondly some of the current rules are unworkable for example: a) rule (5) creates a duty on administrators that is inappropriate for volunteers - e.g. an admin receives an email from a user - they now must go to wikipedia and enforce the ruling and it creates an undue burden on admins to follow RfAr rather than build an encyclopedia; b) rule (1) attempts to establish a "rule of law" but there is no power to enforce - the current banning/etc i.e. using the right of freedom of association to enforce the rules is enough; c) rule (3) is unworkable in a dispute resolutioni - stare decisis is good but not absolute; and d) some of the rules are already covered in existing policies. Trödel&#149;talk 15:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. This page arises out of SEW's personal dislike of the arbcomm; which in turn arises out of his being on the wrong end of a case. Hard cases make bad law. William M. Connolley 16:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC).
  13. Unecessary bureaucratic proposal, possible sour grapes motivation per William M. Connolley. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Almost all of it is either common-sense stuff that we already do anyway, restatement of existing policy/semi-policy, and/or unnecessary instruction creep. The assertion that WP policy constitutes a "rule of law" is just silly: WP is not a country, it is a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Too bureaucratic. Wikipedia is very much a work in progress in its early stages, and it's much too early to consider Arbitration Committee precedents to be set in stone. What works for a small village (everyone leaves their doors unlocked and everyone knows everyone else) doesn't work for a big city, and Wikipedia is evolving from small village to big city to (?), and flexibility and creativity is needed going forward. Also, as written, this is a bit of a misnomer: it focuses solely on arbitration and nothing else, and it almost reads like it was written with some specific past grievance in mind... it doesn't read like a general bill of rights as the name would imply. -- Curps 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Not worthless, after all, the lotus has its roots in mud, but poisoned by its vindictive origins. Fred Bauder 09:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. What distinguishes the rule of law from the rule of lawyers? Shimmin 12:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. A solution in search of a problem. Nandesuka 03:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Unworkable and likely to be abused by Wikilawyers. Carbonite | Talk 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. No, we're writing an encyclopedia not setting up a cyber nation or something... And as a result, sometimes you have to ignore the rules! Dan100 (Talk) 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Ambi 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Neutralitytalk 05:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. — Dan | talk 05:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. SarekOfVulcan 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC) I think that we need to have more flexibility than this document allows.
  26. This would just create more rules to ignore. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. There might come a point in the future when checks and balances are needed, but currently, we are a young community where hierarchy has yet to pose any serious consequence. Try again in twenty years, perhaps. -- Natalinasmpf 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Might as well formally reject it. --Carnildo 08:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. No. The few good things to be read here should already be in place by other means (or can be added as amendments to existing policy), and the others should never be put into place. These statements place a straitjacket on a body, the ArbCom, that exists to be flexible in putting solutions into place where the existing labyrinth of policies wasn't sufficient for the community to do so, as well as on the volunteer administrators who have no obligations to perform any duties, but only to act within policy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. As per all the good reasons already expressed; I'll just add - fork, please, many have, many will - proposals like this are not how things are handled on this site. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. I support Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee instead! Kaldari 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Rulecruft. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Wikipedia is not a democracy. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Not needed --Jaranda wat's sup 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. The prime directive of Wikipedia is to write a free encyclopedia. The "community" exists in order to support that goal, not the other way around. FCYTravis 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is a forked variation. Actual poll is at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights#First_Poll

Neutral

  1. Reform is desperately needed, and this seems to be a good faith effort at face value to try and head towards that reform, despite SEW's experiences with the arbcom and the opinions of both sides. However, I have little faith at this time that it'll be enforced properly since almost every policy and guideline on Wikipedia not only contradicts each other depending on the situation, but users can also change the policies/guidelines at will as well as gathering a gang of fellow minded editors to create a "consensus" to discourage other editors from opposing them -- creating a situation where users would quote the same part of this article for two diametrically opposed sides of an argument, just making the current problem worse. Focus on the root of the problem, not this. karmafist 08:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is a forked variation. Actual poll is at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights#First_Poll

Discussion

I think it is too early for a poll, more polishing is needed. This User Bill of Rights should not be needed, since it is mainly outlining the basic principles of any system that aspires to be fair and not really new rights. But I can see why the community might feel that it is needed given the current culture and practice. I am especially concerned about the arbcom making new rules, that probably should be new precedents, which are derived from and clarifing or interpretative of existing policy. The arbcom should not be a rule making body.

The current version seems especially concerned about basic fairness in terms of being notified of violations before abjudication. I assume this is from the arbcom practice of considering the behavior of all parties, not just the name accused. This practice probably stems from the arbcoms origins as part of the "dispute" resolution process. Obviously, in a "dispute", there is more than one side, and fault does not always chiefly lie on the side being named in a dispute process. This practice may be unfair to parties that are not aware of it, and so are surprised when their behavior also is being reviewed and possibly sanctioned. It is especially unfair, when a decision and sanction is arrived at without much notice.

However, the basic practice makes sense, in terms of efficiency of the arbcom, behavior of both sides of a dispute are often intertwined, and so the arbcom becomes familiar to some extent with the evidence against or excusing all parties. However, this practice can be unfair, if sufficient prior notice is not given that a new violation is being considered. Without notice of the violation, the newly accused party does not have time to balance or supplement the evidence that may have been gathered with quite a different purpose and violation in mind. The arbcom, may still not be familiar with all parts of the history that may be relevant to the new violation they believe they have detected. It the interest of fairness, the arbcom should give notice to the parties when a not previously alleged violation is being considered. This does not necessarily mean that the notice has to be on the alleged violators talk page, it can be in the workspace or on the proposed decision page. However, once notice is posted there, there should be a period of days (three to five minimum?), before even the posting arbitrator votes, in order to allow evidence and other possible interpretations to be gathered by the parties.

The Request for arbitration page should be updated to give fair notice of this practice and what pages should be watched in order for a party to protect his interests.--Silverback 09:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Notification before abjudication would be nice, although the part about being notified of the specific reasons for actions was created due to cases where the only description was something like "the user's behavior". For an active user, try to figure out what that means and what to defend. See also due process and the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[7] (SEWilco 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
A bit of spit and polish wouldn't go amiss. But I'm in favour of it as it stands, if necessary. Paul Beardsell 10:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The poll is labeled as being preliminary. It is a way of getting some feedback from those whose comments have already been made by others. (SEWilco 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
This article is a forked variation. Actual poll is at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights#First_Poll

Erm...

I'm not sure this is necessary. I disagree with the bit about ArbCom enforcement (Of course, admins should enforce the injunctions, but all admins don't have to, just like all admins can delete pages and block users, but not all of them do. I think that's just SEWilco continuing to have an axe to grind) Otherwise, it's a decent idea to have this sort of thing, but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it.--Sean|Black 04:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean, forget whether or not you can detect some agenda: These basic principles proposed should be adopted. No? Paul Beardsell 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Required admin enforcement is part of the ArbCom policy that "violations will be taken seriously" and equal enforcement of the rules. The ArbComm should not create rulings which should not be enforced. (SEWilco 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
Sean is probably right this policy isn't necessary. However, I think wikipedia should become decentralized with multiple git repositories all over the place to ensure integrity and to hopefully eliminate funny business. The wiki concept is fundamentally way more locally oriented and peer to peer than hierarchical anyway. zen master T 06:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
If you don't think this policy is necessary, please tell me whether this diff [8], which I posted to an article's talk page in response to the POV pushing issues it details, constitutes "harassment" of the editor it was directed to, or a violation of any other related wikipedia policy for that matter. I ask you this because the Arbcom, which includes several arbitrators who are friends with that same editor, recently ruled that it was and voted to place me on probation for a year because of it. Rangerdude 06:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Rangedude, by "not necessary" Zen-master does not mean that the proposed policy would not prevent any abuse. What he is saying is that the whole hierarchy (ArbCom etc) should be swept away. Agree with him or not: He is not voting against - just saying the policy would not be necessary in a Wikipedia with no hierarchy. Paul Beardsell 07:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I'd also be for eliminating the wikipedia heirarchy. Right now Admins and Arbcom members are "above the law" when it comes to wikipedia policies and guidelines. If anybody doubts this ask yourself (1) how often are Administrators involved in article disputes where credible and documented instances of inappropriate conduct on their part have been reported, and (2) how often are Admins penalized for inappropriate conduct? The answer to (1) is almost daily. The answer to (2) is virtually never. Rangerdude 08:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbcom claims some of its powers come from the users through the Arbitration policy. Users can withdraw or confirm their approval by voting at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote. (SEWilco 16:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
Doesn't have to be the complete absence of heirarchicy (though maybe), just more peer to peer technology wise, with a series of local heirarchies each separately verifying integrity and changes. Each local wiki can try things differently and overall we will see which policies work and which don't. zen master T 18:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is a forked variation. Actual poll is at Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights#First_Poll

Some problems with this wording

Oh my,

  • this would cement admins into the "golden cage" we've been talking about at the village pump today! We might want to discuss that.
  • The proposal would also destroy current (at least hopefully still working) methods of policy creation, and give wikilawyers the final victory.
  • It gives the arbitration committee the ability to create rules, where before it couldn't really.
  • It gives the arbitration committee the right to enforce policy, where before it had no such right. (it can only rule on policy now)

Essentially,as is common when adding more rules to a complex system of rules -especially when those rules are poorly understood- it'll likely achieve the opposite of what it intends.

I do agree with the intent of making wikipedia a fairer place though. <scratching head> Hmm... but how to do that? Kim Bruning 04:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Are there such a large number of ArbComm rulings that it would trouble Admins? Particularly as the first Admin which acts would remove the need for others to do so.
  • This proposal does not affect policy creation. It affects policy application. One change is that ArbComm can not create policy and apply it within a single case; within the case they can create policy and in future cases apply it.
  • The ArbComm already creates rules through their interpretation of policy into their Precedents.
  • The ArbComm already enforces policy through various restrictions upon users.
  • WP:TRI is not policy. Its linked parts which are policy are already used by Admin and ArbComm.
The intent here is primarily to restrict abuse of power and encourage equal application and equal protection. This isn't the Magna Carta; I haven't addressed the King nor Foundation because the business agents are not "users". (SEWilco 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Administrator favoritism

Re: "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."

This is a solid and important principle. I'd also add something explicitly stating that administrator status does NOT entitle you to any special standing or leniency in the case's findings. I've seen cases many times when an admin and a regular editor were both accused of breaking the rules. The admin almost always gets a minor and meaningless "warning" such as "Admin so-and-so is cautioned not to engage in personal attacks" whereas the regular editor gets strictly penalized, such as a month banning or a year probation for the same or even lesser offenses. In some cases Arbcom members have even assured Admins that their violations will be treated with leniency because of who they are, such as the following statement to an admin by Arbcom member User:Fred Bauder:

Even a blind pig may find an acorn from time to time and Rangerdude has shown you have made a few missteps, for example I believe you interpret NPOV wrong when you express the view that favorable and unfavorable material ought to be "balanced" and use that as an excuse to remove well sourced material. This wrong-headed notion is not limited to you and might even be agreed to by some or even most arbitrators. It is understandable that you might commit this error. Point is, don't panic. A long record of responsible work is not going to be ignored just because you are in a mud fight with a POV pusher. You also protected a page that you were actively editing. It is not clear why, no one had removed what you had contributed, nor was protection called for by any arbitration decision, but you did it. Rangerdude would have it that a grave violation has occurred. This would be true if you were edit warring at the article and protected the article in your version, but that is not what happened. Fred Bauder 15:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [9]

In the same post Fred Bauder acknowledged that the admin he was addressing had broken the rules by attacking me personally, as I was the one who introduced evidence of it - "Even a blind pig may find an acorn from time to time and Rangerdude has shown you have made a few missteps."

This is just like saying to admins who break the rules "yeah, you misbehaved but we're gonna let it slide because of who you are, and that makes you better than the regular old editor who posted the evidence of it." The Arbcom is also very selective in describing its own functions. It purports only to resolve disputes and not to punish, yet it selectively imposes harsh penalties against regular editors on a regular basis (though never Admins). Just the same, it uses the term "wikilawyering" out of convenience whenever it wants to dismiss a valid objection to the way its conducting a case. If a regular editor points out something wrong with the case or the evidence being offered, they call it "wikilawyering" and yet they'll let admins off the hook for blatant misbehavior on the slightest technicality. Rangerdude 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That administrator status does not entitle you to special standing is already covered by "Regulations apply to all Wikipedia users including those with special authorizations." (SEWilco 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Nature of the ArbCom

I won't address this proposal directly—it can do with a few tweaks to the wording, but the underlying sentiment is more interesting. This talk page is not necessarily the best place to put my comments, either, but what I have to say ties in with the earlier remarks.

What follows is my personal interpretation of the status quo. It may or may not harmonize with your own observations and/or existing policy, but it seems accurate to me. Keep in mind that I have never been personally involved in an arbitration case, and that I've just returned from a two-odd month break, so my view may be off.

Multiple complaints have been voiced, most prominently that the ArbCom is lenient to users with longer histories of service, especially administrators, and that the ArbCom is eager to interpret policy and mete out "cruel and unusual punishment" as it sees fit, with relatively little regard for formal standards.

I think the ArbCom does do all of this. I think there is no justice on this wiki. I don't think it's stated clearly enough, however, in the sense that people are not clearly told there is no justice on this wiki before they can judge whether that's a good or a bad thing.

Every single case brought before the arbitration committee is one too many, since it indicates that the regular processes of our wiki, including informal dispute mediation, have failed. The ArbCom was envisioned as a last measure, "to here and no further", the people who have to cut the Gordian knots for us. As the wiki grows larger, more people can be expected to come into conflict with each other, and less people can be expected to trust in a group of volunteers (no matter how well-intentioned and tenured) handing down decisions, or to understand why they are doing it the way they do. Informal efforts at dispute resolution wither away, being seen as nothing more than a prelude to a final solution, and that final solution is the ArbCom. Deliberate escalation to resolve conflicts grows common.

The problem of the ArbCom is that they give the impression of being a fair, unbiased court when they clearly are not—I must stress that I'm not being disparaging here. They are more akin to a military tribunal. Being fair to everyone involved is a worthy ideal, but not what the ArbCom is there for. The ArbCom serves as an upper bound to the length of conflicts: once the ArbCom is involved, the dispute is effectively over, or will be soon, one way or the other. They make decisions with the goal of ending the dispute as resolutely as possible in mind. They are fair and unbiased insofar as they honestly strive to make Wikipedia a better place by removing (not necessarily defusing) conflict, not to give individual editors their due.

This also explains the "unfair" rulings against editors: the less likely you are to prolong the conflict after the case is over (and this is so if you're an experienced user, in particular an administrator) the less severe the measures taken against you will be. And this, in turn, explains why some people appear to get away with murder, repeatedly: it has less to do with how friendly they are with the ArbCom members and all the more with how much conflict they defuse (informally, or by having ArbCom cases brought against them). I think it's important to stress this: the ArbCom does not play favorites in the sense that it's corrupt; it plays favorites inasmuch as this furthers its goals of making Wikipedia a quieter place.

If seen this point mentioned above too: hypothetically, if Jimbo decided to rule on every ArbCom case personally, people might be more inclined to accept his decision even if manifestly unjust. We expect nothing less from a single person with a vested interested in keeping the wiki running no matter what. If Jimbo was unfair, we could live with it. We don't accept the same from a group of people supposedly elected by us who are described as upholding policy supposedly written by us.

"Wikilawyering" is frowned upon because a military tribunal is not served by having a myriad rules and regulations in place that would prevent effective action for the sake of upholding the glamour of justice to civilians. They need policy and precedent only to justify their actions objectively—not to give the impression of fairness (which is secondary) but to avoid the impression of arbitrariness—the idea that the ArbCom can make rules and punishments up on the fly. They don't want to do this because pointing to existing rules is a lot less controversial than defending ipse dixit decisions, and it also gives the ArbCom more certainty to decide—but if they have to fly by the seat of their pants a bit to get things done, they will.

There are no suggestions or advice in the above; just how I see it. JRM · Talk 13:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This little essay by JRM is, I think, extremely insightful, and I urge those interested in the topic to reread it, because there are a lot of important truths within. Steve Summit (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. You make some interesting points. Why not follow an example from the real world here, and replace the arbitration committee with a jury selected of peers? That way, 9-12 different people would be selected from a list of volunteer judges at random for each arbitration case. Then there is no power accumulation, no systematic partiality, and no "military tribunal" as you put it, just people judging their peers. This would also distribute the burden of arbitration so that more focus can be placed on a case, and thus more rapid decisions can be made. This sounds to me much more like the wiki way. What do you think? FRJohn 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Two sentences, "They are fair and unbiased insofar as they honestly strive to make Wikipedia a better place by removing (not necessarily defusing) conflict, not to give individual editors their due.", and "I think it's important to stress this: the ArbCom does not play favorites in the sense that it's corrupt; it plays favorites inasmuch as this furthers its goals of making Wikipedia a quieter place." Both of them tell me that that 1) the ArbCom works fine, and 2) a "user bill of rights" is neither necessary nor desirable. I don't believe that we editors do have "rights" here and I don't believe that we should have any. I oppose this "bill of rights" in full, and expect to oppose any alternative "bill of rights". The Literate Engineer 17:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what JRM says; I suspect that it can be condensed further to read "The ArbCom's role is to keep the people who can't abide by WP:DICK from interfering with the rest of us writing an encyclopedia." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Regretably, the ArbCom has lately shown a propensity for overlooking WP:DICK offenses, when the offenders have a strong shared POV with members of the ArbCom. The ArbCom must not indulge in double standards, or all of its decisions become suspect. --HK 16:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a change

I don't agree w legislating from the bench. If you do, I suppose you'll revert me, but how many of you want our judges making up our rules? How about some checks and balances? Sam Spade 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your changes [10] are OK with me. I was thinking of rephrasing that to refer to Arbcom Precedent rather than Policy, as the Arbcom claims to merely be interpreting policy. (SEWilco 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

cool, thanks. I really appreciate what your doing here, btw. Sam Spade 16:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In both cases, the new wording is no improvement, in my mind, over the original wording. Both those two "rights" strike me as attempts to emasculate the ArbCom by binding it to "following policy and precedent". Well, great, except that "following policy and precedent" is to my mind never anything but a euphemism for "agreeing with me." Those two "rights" have soured me to the entire proposal. The Literate Engineer 08:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want them to agree with policy and with themselves. If they don't follow policy or their previous decisions, you don't know what you can do or why you may get blocked or dragged into Arbitration. I'm in Arbitration and they won't tell me why...without even answering a question which the Arbitration Policy requires a reply to. (SEWilco 09:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

WP:NOT a bureaucracy

This is another example of excessive legalism rearing its ugly head, as it has a nasty habit of doing here on WP. Chris talk back 14:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"In particular, Wikipedia is not a system of law". But it's too easy to dismiss it with that. It's more effective to ask yourself why people felt pressed to draw this up. I doubt it's because they like making up rules so much. JRM · Talk 15:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
JRM is correct. This is not about adding more rules - it's about reigning in the Arbcom, which is the true source of excessive legalism on wikipedia. The arbcom currently conducts tribunals to penalize users it doesn't like (or prop up those its members like) through fraudulent pseudo-legalistic proceedings that purport to enforce the rules but in reality simply bend them to apply to whoever they want in whatever way they want. Rangerdude 18:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Are you back in town, JRM? :-) Kim Bruning 15:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I never left. But everyone needs a vacation now and then. ;-) JRM · Talk 16:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
So how do you propose specifying limits on abuse? I tried to keep it simple. (SEWilco 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
Mu. That is a fallacy of many questions. Chris talk back 16:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the best way to put limits on abuse in general is to keep policy simple in general :-) Gosh, but that's been a tall order. Kim Bruning 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I second the remarks by Chris and Kim. Whatever the problem, this is not the solution (and also note that Wikipolicy is descriptive rather than prescriptive). Radiant_>|< 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Third the motion, Chris and Kim are correct - we don't need more complicated rules here. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it just me or does this logic - we don't need no stinkin badges - more than a bit reminiscent of the south during the reign of the Klan? Rules that are written and applied to every one - are the only kind of "rules" there are. A rule which states that a handful of us-guys can push people around as they like - has nothing to do with rules - that's simply selective anarchy. Benjamin Gatti 03:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First, a Code of Conduct for the Arbitration Committee

What I see on the project page is asking the ArbCom members to act in a certain manner that seems to me is more of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct issue. Unless I'm blind, and believe me I searched, I found no guidelines for their conduct anywhere. To me, this should have been a fundamental and established before anyone was appointed and that they should all have been required to acknowledge it when they accepted to serve/were elected to the Arbitrastion Committee. Jimmy Wales stated that this is a "judicial sort of committee." No democracy, such as the U.S., U.K. etc., has a body sitting in judgment of others and/or ruling on policy, that does not have a written code of conduct. At User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question, I suggested to Mr. Wales that he form a policy review/referral committee. My message for him was this:

  • On Talk:Alan Dershowitz you asked to "verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article." Wikipedia policy and guidelines were apparently designed to provide rules and guidance so as to ensure content integrity which in turn should be a clear reference point to eliminate or at least minimize unnecessary discussion. However, the reality is that these policies and guidelines are frequently ignored or given their own spin to suit an agenda. Policy isn't worth much if there is no mechanism to enforce it, hence my sincere question is: Why not draw upon the considerable (volunteer) expertise of Wikipedians who have demonstrated the capabilities and an NPOV history, along with any volunteers from those who made the substantial effort to create those policies and guidelines, to form a policy review/referral committee? The formation for such a Committee could be done in the same manner as you proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll.
    • Committees suck. Even for just simplifying policy, a wikiproject basically completed the entire operation before the policy simplification committee formation proposal was fully reviewed. ;-) That fast! Welcome to the wiki world. :-) Would you like to start a wikiproject? Kim Bruning 16:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • A Wikiproject to deal with this very real problem is the best solution I've seen so far. But three points: (1) The ArbCom has no more power over you than you choose to let it have. (2) The POINT is to build an encyclopedia, not create a wiki-legal system. (3) People kicked out DO come back under other names, and if they don't cause trouble NO ONE CARES. WAS 4.250 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that even User:Fred Bauder, agrees stating: "My thought is that the concern he raises is important and should be taken seriously."

- Ted Wilkes 17:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'd only support this if it can be achieved with a net reduction in rules. That is, more rules and policies are simplified in the process of setting this up than is required to put it into action. Chris talk back 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
A net reduction you say? :-) Kim Bruning 21:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
People need lives; this is so not needed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 19:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I find that a vacuous statement. I have a busy life, but decided to take the time to edit this page on my friends laptop in a small village near Aachen, where I was visiting him yesterday. I thought it was that important. Now I am back home and noticing your comment with a curious mix of absurd humor and annoyance w your hubris. Some people do have lives, so kindly step out of our way while we get things done ;)
Sam Spade 15:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if you feel that way, I think I know you from somewhere. I never got in the way, but I do feel that all these organizations Wikipedia has are justs templates to create cliques and detract from the work, such as the CCW or all the rest. So, I am sorry if you think I am proud. Thanks for the comments, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 17:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm finding that the Arbitration Committee abuses are interfering with getting real Wikipedia work done. One admin even blocked me for adding citation details. Limits are needed. (SEWilco 09:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

One More Opinion, worth what you paid for it

On the one hand, all of the stated principles in the User Bill of Rights are good ones. On the other hand, I am not sure what the specific intended benefit would be, or what particular wrongs would be corrected. As a statement of policies to be taken into account, as are all policies, by the ArbCom, I agree. But I am not sure what in particular would be the benefit. The ArbCom already has the objective of being fair, and these policies basically define fundamental fairness.

In the unlikely event of a review of an ArbCom decision by Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, violations of the Bill of Rights would be grounds for reversal. I am not aware that Jimbo Wales or the Board of Trustees has yet formally reviewed an ArbCom decision (and they stated that they did not expect to do that).

What I do find troubling is some of the comments that are being made in support of this Bill of Rights, such as the idea of sweeping away levels of bureaucracy. What would the effect of that be? At this point, I think that what Wikipedia needs is swifter dispute resolution starting at the time that the dispute arises, and continuing up until final decision. Sweeping away bureaucracy would mean either doing away with admins, or doing away with the ArbCom. Doing away with admins would leave Wikipedia nearly defenseless against vandals. (I agree that there have been too many abuses of power by admins. That only calls for better monitoring of admins and stricter review of admin actions by the ArbCom, not of doing away with them.) Doing away with the ArbCom would either throw the job of banning users back to Jimbo Wales, who is too busy for it, which is why he created the ArbCom, or would leave Wikipedia nearly defenseless against bullies and flamers.

I will also add my own opinion about ArbCom decisions. I agree that some bans of new users have been too long, and some blocks of old users have been too short. However, I think that the ArbCom does a difficult job as well as could be expected. I also think, and some Wikipedians may disagree, that the overall problem with bans is not that there are too many, but that there are too few, and that they are not imposed in time. Wikipedia needs quicker action taken against trolls, edit warriors with contempt for consensus, bullies, and flamers.

Wikipedia readers need a Bill of Rights too, and their rights include the prevention of vandalism and exclusion of lies. The Seigenthaler case illustrates that their rights are not always being honored.

Exactly what wrongs would the Bill of Rights redress? Robert McClenon 16:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it attempts to define character and fairness for those who don't seem to get it. However, I'm not sure you can legislate these things, there has to be a cultural support for this. While I generally respect Fred Bauder, his statement above essentially excusing violations by an admin were disappointing. It contributes to the cultural perception that some are above the law, the IAR cowboy admin culture. We don't have many rules at wikipedia, and the way to keep it that way is to enforce those that we have in a fair and open manner. A confusing proliferation of rules will just result in less respect for them. --Silverback 11:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The wrongs are primarily those due to inequality and not following the rules. A ruling may seem fair when issued, but is unfair if it is selectively enforced upon only some participants. In my Arbcomm case, they won't tell me what do defend and aren't even following Arbitration Policy requirement to explain the votes to accept the case; part of the case seems to be due to my reporting selective lack of enforcement of a previous ruling. (SEWilco 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

As an example of the sort of wrong that the Bill of Rights ought to redress, I am appending what I posted yesterday at the Village Pump [11]:

"I would like to call your attention to a development at an ongoing ArbCom case, that will set a precedent which could affect all Wikipedians. Fred Bauder has proposed that I be penalized for criticizing the fairness of the proposed decision as it applies to other affected parties [12]. Please note that there were no findings of fact against me; this is a case involving numerous parties, and my involvement was peripheral. I could have kept my mouth shut, and gone on editing with no penalty. However, I found the conduct of the ArbCom in this case to be outrageous, and felt that I should say so in the manner of J'accuse. Others felt the same (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop.) If you are uncomfortable with a precedent being set, that Wikipedians can be penalized merely for criticizing a decision of the ArbCom, the time to speak out would be now.--HK 21:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"

And now that things have degenerated even further, I am posting a copy of this:

HK's closing statement

(from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others)

This ArbCom decision sets a precedent that will have a lasting and highly destructive impact on the entire Wikipedia project. For the first time, to my knowledge, the ArbCom has taken it upon itself to administer penalties against Wikipedia editors with no finding of fact and no explanation.

Since presumably this page will be archived, I will spell it out. In this case, I was the sole respondent that was not mentioned in the Findings of Fact[13]. There was no discussion of any misconduct by myself. I roused the ire of the ArbCom simply by declaring, on the workshop and talk pages, that I felt that the penalties being proposed for the other editors involved were inequitable.

The original wording of the penalty against me tells the story:

  • "15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation."

Then, in an act of cowardly CYA, arbitrator Raul654 simply removed the explanation (edit summary: "removed controversial part" [14]), leaving a penalty with no explanation whatsoever:

Lacking a better explanation, I must conclude one of two things:

  • That I am being penalized for questioning the fairness of the ArbCom. Wikipedians must not countenance an ArbCom that will dole out penalties for the crime of lese majesty.
  • That this and other penalties in this case are simply a malicious expression of disapproval of the POV of the affected parties, in complete defiance of the the NPOV policy, which is heralded by Jimbo Wales as "absolute and non-negotiable". If so, then the ArbCom has abandoned its mandate and simply become just another clique, but one with the power to enforce an institutional POV -- and to stop Wikipedia from becoming a soapbox for propaganda, Wikipedians must prevail upon Jimbo to appoint an ArbCom that will adhere to a much higher ethical standard. --HK 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This statement is quite twisted coming from someone who is here only to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for propaganda, Lyndon LaRouche propaganda. Fred Bauder 10:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If Fred (who, as you may know, is currently a member of the ArbCom) thought that he could make a case for the above statement, he could have presented it as a finding of fact in Nobs01 and others. But he can't, so he didn't. The User Bill of Rights is badly needed to prevent ArbCom members from using their position to pursue personal vendettas. --HK 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I say...

... be like Australia, have no bill of rights! </joke> What does this hope to achieve? Whatever happened to common sense?! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat, Jimbo is a money-grubbing dictator, and the ArbCom is there to ensure justice for all. But the earth is an oblate spheroid, Jimbo is the president of a not-for-profit foundation who prefers to leave us to our own devices, and the ArbCom is there to make sure conflicts are not prolonged endlessly and disrupt Wikipedia itself.
Efforts like these are in fact started by some "common sense" people, who think the ArbCom is there to be fair, and have been burned by their assumption. It's not. Deal with it. JRM · Talk 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh

This is a terrible page committed to putting process ahead of product for once and for all. In all cases, the moment we see that something isn't working we ought be able to turn on a dime and fix it. That's the entire point of the wiki process and how this community was built. Sludge like this that serves to paralyze debates in tortured indecisiveness for all eternity are the opposite of helpful. Phil Sandifer 03:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line

If you are here to advance your point of view at the expense of doing the work necessary to build an encyclopedia, you will receive rough treatment at the hands of the Arbitration Committee.

If you cannot or will not seriously negotiate disputes with other users, either as individuals or with the help of a mediator you will fall into our clutches. We will impose a solution. It will be reasonably fair, but calculated to end the dispute. It will be a much worse decision than the one you could have worked out with your opponents by arriving at a consensus. Fred Bauder 10:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean "our" as in arbitrators or "our" as in administrators? The distinction isn't always adequately made as is seen in the case of Marsden. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that matter could be handled at the administrator level. If it is not we will hear the case. Fred Bauder 00:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Can I, as a not directly involved party, petition the ArbCom to hear this case? -- Dissident (Talk) 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently speaking as an ArbComm member above: "If you are here to advance your point of view at the expense of doing the work necessary to build an encyclopedia, you will receive rough treatment at the hands of the Arbitration Committee. If you cannot or will not seriously negotiate disputes with other users, either as individuals or with the help of a mediator you will fall into our clutches." Or, as in my case, if I am doing the work necessary to build an encyclopedia and I am still negotiating disputes with other users, I will nevertheless fall in the clutches of Fred Bauder's Arbitration Committee. Interesting choice of phrasing, too. (SEWilco 01:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Wow, I can't believe this lost

Must have been some pretty pursuasive arguing to defeat this. --Nerd42 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are being sarcastic as I am also unable to discern the rationale for why 20 people voted against a "user bill of rights". The first no vote by user 172 stated "This is silly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a democracy" which I suppose makes sense to people against democracy as non-democratic forms of governance are usually at odds with things like a user bill of rights. Separately, this proposed policy is still open for voting and discussion as far as I am aware so "lost" would be inaccurate or premature. zen master T 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
My rationale's pretty simple: I do not believe that wikipedia editors have or should have rights, end of story. I also am opposed to a number of the particular elements of this list, as previously mentioned. And I believe this is predominately a matter of vindictiveness against people who were brought before the ArbCom and appropriately punished. Any time a case goes before the ArbCom, it means that someone is flat-out wrong and so recalcitrant that they cause a dispute to be unresolvable through negotiation of the involved parties, through an RfC, through mediation... such person deserves whatever punishment they receive, as they are a proven disruption and threat to the encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 02:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps phrasing this as a user's bill of rights was a bad idea. It's supposed to be more ilke the Magna Carta - forcing the administration to follow it's own rules. --Nerd42 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose user The Literate Engineer's position that editors should not have rights logically follows from user 172 and others oft-repeated mantra that wikipedia is not a democracy. I also interpret this proposal to require everyone to consistently follow the same rules, or at least not to pull the rug out from under people (fortunately some rules pre-date and are uncorrupted by the "cabal"). This seems like another example of the "system of punishment" that Peter McConaughey was talking about. zen master T 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
172 is correct: please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, if wikipedia isn't a democracy then what is it? Some editors on wikipedia have corrupted "consensus" to mean "majority", and often a small highly coordinated perhaps sockpuppet majority at that, yet wikipedia still isn't a democracy. Jimbo's January 2005 email only states that wikipedia isn't an "experiment" in democracy but that does not exclude democracy. I interpret him to be saying that contemplating our form of governance is secondary to making a great encyclopedia, but not excluded. Everyone that thinks "consensus" is "majority" should read that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" sub section: "[Wikipedia's] primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes". zen master T 16:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The United States isn't a Democracy either. It's a democratic Republic. Just because Wikipedia shouldn't be a democracy doesn't mean it shouldn't be somewhat democratic. --Nerd42 17:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of scope for democracy among those who support creation of a reliable encyclopedia. And for fairness in how we deal with one another. The problem comes with adequately dealing with disputes where one or both sides INSIST on having their own way. That can involve POV editing or some formatting issue. Basically we will say, "No, you can't have your own way when everyone else is complaining" The key is to listen to what others are saying. They may be wrong, but don't try to overpower them with reverts, or any other tactic. Use reasoned discourse. Fred Bauder 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I couldn't believe this lost either. Then I saw this comment just above: "My rationale's pretty simple: I do not believe that wikipedia editors have or should have rights, end of story." Uh-oh. In other words, I can come here as a volunteer and work on useful stuff as much as I like, but if an administrator doesn't like my username or whateverI can be banned for life without notice, reason given, or appeal. UH-OH. Let me point something out: In any organization -- ANY organization -- people with the desire to exercise power arbitrarily will tend to get it and harm or destroy the organization unless prevented. Because they get the biggest charge out if it and so strive hardest for it. In most organizations, the top people's desire to make money or do whatever else the organization was set up to do puts a big damper on the little Napoleons (although not perfectly -- we've all had bosses who...). But its not guaranteed. So, um, yeah, I think its a good idea. Ya think? Herostratus 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  • I support this, but I will not call it a "proposal". It is long past time for the Wikipedian Community to establish a set of statements that supercede all proposals, policies, guidelines, chit-chat, and dicta from above. These statements -- in whatever form -- must preserve the integrity of the Project and defend the Community from the evils that infest it. This page makes a good beginning.
The Wikipedian Community is not Wikimedia Foundation. We do not have to obey our masters. WMF has powers; so do we. Wikipedia is not a democracy? Perhaps it's time for a revolution. — Xiong熊talk* 23:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL WikiRevolution. Or even better: Wiki Wiki Revolution. --Nerd42 03:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You're as free to fork Wikipedia as anybody else. --Carnildo 03:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The freedom to sell cars on the other side of the street does not release the other car lots from "truth in advertising" restraints. If Wikipedia has gathered users by advertising an open, fair, and egalitarian environment, than it has a lawful obligation to perform. Benjamin Gatti
This is probably why Wikipedia never advertised this, and never will. This is "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", and unless you want to argue we can't block vandals, this is accurate enough. If you're looking for "fairness" and "egalitarianism" and "lawful obligations", try real life, not an Internet project (though you may have trouble finding it in real life, too). You are donating your contributions to Wikipedia. It owes you nothing in return, except for credit. If this deal seems harsh and unprofitable, that's because it is. There are ways of changing Wikipedia, but none of them involve a claim of being short-changed on the deal, since there isn't any.
All this does not contradict the possibility that Wikipedia could be better off if its community changed the way it interacted with editors. That's a legitimate concern. But let's not pretend Wikipedia has some sort of moral or legal obligation to this. It doesn't. It might have a qualitative or procedural obligation, but as far as morals go it's all a godless communist conspiracy. Obviously, this does not prevent its users from having productive and pleasant interactions, and it doesn't prevent them from having unpleasant ones, either. But shifting it all on the abstract "Wikipedia" or claiming the Foundation is to blame for not stepping in and regulating the community better is barking up the wrong tree. Xiong is right when he says we, the community, have the power. And everyone's free to try and move it, and that's what this proposal is about, too. JRM · Talk 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that the word encyclopedia is itself a contract, and that the wikipedia is therefore bound (mostly in the tradition of a social contract - not a specific legal framework) to be that, and to that end, is bound to treat controversial subjects fairly, accurately, and without censorship. Where it censors disfavors, or derides unpopular facts, it becomes the Op Ed page. Benjamin Gatti 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That is an entirely different matter. Of course Wikipedia has a (non-legal, but moral) obligation to readers, and it implements this through its editorial policies. The key understanding here is that these policies do not grant contributors rights; if anything they impose limitations. There are a few non-negotiable policies that define Wikipedia, and these are what "encyclopedia" represents. How we implement those policies is another matter. Most content disputes on Wikipedia boil down to how effectively they are upheld in individual cases. JRM · Talk 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Most contributers are proxies for the facts and perspectives they bring to the table. It is impossible to treat facts fairly while treating their contributors any other way. You know this of course, and are merely trying to convince yourself and others that the animal farm wasn't written, and if it were, that it doesn't necessarily apply here. "All animals are equal - some are more equal than others ..." Benjamin Gatti 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Your second sentence makes no sense, because it implies treating facts fairly and treating contributors fairly are the same thing. They are not. This line of thinking leads to "every editor has as much right to have their edit incorporated as another", which is not true. What is true is that everyone edits in the same way, and that edits should be valued on their own merits, rather than those of their contributors. This is where NPOV and accuracy (neither of which are "fair", by the way) are supposed to come from. This does not excuse anyone from attacking contributors based on the POVs they represent, nor does it grant contributors special dispensation for representing a POV.
As for the rest, please refrain from ascribing motives to me. It's not productive. JRM · Talk 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Every editor does or ought to have the same rights of editing - are you suggesting that some editors should be held to a different standard of accuracy and fairness? And yes - NPOV is fair, as fair as possible to all reasonable points of view. When we stop being fair to all sides - we stop being encyclopedic, and become instead advocates for the side we prefer. Such is a hardly "a free encyclopedia", but is rather "a free opinion rag." Benjamin Gatti 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
All editors do have the same rights of editing, including the right to have their golden prose mercilessly edited by others. I sincerely doubt we're having a difference of opinion here. What we are having a difference of is unclear. It could possibly be one of interpretation. In any case, I don't think we're adding much to the proposal. JRM · Talk 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Did one already forget what one had written above: "This line of thinking leads to "every editor has as much right to have their edit incorporated as another", which is not true." I for one am glad to see administrators abandon an elitist platform at the earliest moment. Either every editor has the same rights - or hasn't the same rights, and for one admin, it appears to depend on the hour of the day. I hope that users are not exposed to this level of volatility on a regular basis, as it might be interpreted as capricious. Perhaps one merely misspoke. If one feels misinterpreted, may I recommend that one familiarize one's self with the language of equality. Benjamin Gatti 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I for one would like another one to stop being condescending. If you want to call bullshit, do it without being mock polite, please.
So, I didn't make myself clear. Let me try it again. Every editor does not have as much right to have their edit incorporated as any other. All editors also have the same rights to edit. Contradiction? No. If I want to edit George W. Bush to incorporate that he is a poopy-head, or that he is an imperial warmonger, or that he worships mr. Peanut, I do not have the same right to do so as someone who wants to insert that his foreign policies are disputed. On the other hand, obviously I can edit the article to say this. Is this making it clearer? "Contributing to an article" is not necessarily the same as editing, all edits are not equal, and not all editors who want to make them are equal either. Has one succeeded in clarifying oneself? JRM · Talk 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote?

Was there a vote on this issue? People are saying above that it was defeated, but I see no vote... Ronline ✉ 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Look harder. Ambi 11:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry :) I realise now that someone tagged it as rejected when in fact they shouldn't (and yes, the vote is above!) Anyway, I wholeheartedly support this bill of rights. I think it's time we stop treating the community like a bunch of slaves who will do anything for Wikipedia, and realise that the only way Wikipedia will grow is if we treat the community well. Tendencies and views like "we shouldn't have a bill of rights" or "we shouldn't allow all users to edit pages" are not only undemocratic and draconian, but do not foster the vibrant community that is so necessary to Wikipedia's growth. Ronline ✉ 11:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's been fairly clearly rejected by a ratio of 2:1, so I'm re-adding the rejected notice. This proposal has nothing to do with treating the community well - it's an attempt by a handful of disruptive users to avoid getting banned by tying the arbitration committee up in knots of bureaucracy. Calling this perfectly sensible rejection "undemocratic and draconian" is a rude and unnecessary ad hominem attack. Ambi 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If this is likely to fail, as you claim, then what is the harm of leaving voting open for more people to voice their opinion? 41 people (the total number of people who have voted as of now) does not represent a large enough segment of the Wikipedia community. zen master T 15:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Nearly 70% opposition doesn't mean this proposal is "likely to fail", it means it is failed. It's not reasonable to assume that dozens of editors will suddenly show up and support the proposal (with no additional oppose voters). Carbonite | Talk 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As true as that is - with votes coming in on a daily basis, and some several thousand potential voters remaining - the proposed tag better reflects the "Process of consensus". Give the process time - it's being well used - archiving is premature. Benjamin Gatti 16:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
A straw poll is only used to gauge whether there's consensus for a proposal. Once it's clear that consensus does not exist, the vote becomes pointless. Carbonite | Talk 16:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think both Zen and I find that an open poll invites consideration and thought, and this subject continues to experience and deserve both - popularity notwithstanding. Remember slavery was also very popular in the polls. Benjamin Gatti 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You're coming very close to Godwin's law here. A poll invites neither consideration nor thought, a poll invites factionalism and binary thinking. This bill is unwiki. Radiant_>|< 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"it's an attempt by a handful of disruptive users to avoid getting banned by tying the arbitration committee up" Thank you for your interpretation of the intent of others. But this list specifically states that rules shouldn't apply before the rules are created, so any current "arbitration" would not be affected by this discussion. Any disruptive users who are not covered by existing rules could basically only be warned, then a rule to cover a new situation ("Passing a school bus past its right side is forbidden.") can be created, and any following violations would be covered under the new rule. (SEWilco 06:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
Right. That's why this proposal is failing so dramatically. Nandesuka 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom transparency

I know this is a sideline issue, but I find the ArbCom to be quite untransparent and undemocratic. Firstly, they tend to apply rulings with a merciless iron fist - there is very little debate or defense allowed, and very little communication. I know Mediation is for that, but Arbitration should be less forceful, IMO. Secondly, there is an issue of transparency. I know all ArbCom rulings are open for everyone to read, but they are dismally disorganised. For example, I would like to know what precedents have been set by ArbCom, what rulings they have passed, and all the like, and I can't seem to find it. I think the Bill of Rights should make a clear mention about transparency in law- and decision-making processes at Wikipedia. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As a former arbitrator, this is simply not true. Arbitration cases are not prejudged; we work out the best way of resolving the dispute based on the evidence presented to us. Anyone before the committee has at least a few weeks (and quite possibly two or three months) to bring any relevant facts to the committee's attention and conduct their own defence. As for the precedent issue - there isn't any. Each case is dealt with on its own merits. Finally, you can see all the past rulings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests, which is linked from the bottom of the requests for arbitration page. Ambi 12:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Supposedly evidence is considered, but it seems to have also have been ignored in cases. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents is apparently intended as a guide, although it is labeled that those are not required to be followed. Having no rules can be harmful for people trying to participate in Wikipedia. (SEWilco 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

A Respectful Request

I would respectfully request two things. First, that the polling remain open for a full 30 days. Second, that the ban on Zen-master be removed. --BostonMA 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The ban on Zen-master will be removed, on 13 January 2006. Until then he's still free to edit this talk page. As for the "polling", keep in mind that a straw poll's only function is to gauge whether consensus exists. In this case, it clearly does not. I'm not going to re-add the "rejected" tag, but I don't see any point in continuing this. Carbonite | Talk 16:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If enough people agree voting should remain open for a full 30 days how is restoring the removal of the proposed tag in any way "disruptive"? Debate and discussion should be encouraged not labeled a crime. zen master T 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would support the request - though with far less respect. I propose that Carbonite ban itself for overreaching and for censorship. Assume good faith ends where unwarranted censorship begins. Benjamin Gatti 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To BostonMA's request - any duration of the poll is going to be an arbitrary amount. However, the way the Wiki works, polls get the most input during their first week. The outcome is clear. People are free to add votes if they wish but it won't make a difference.
  • Benjamin's request is flatly denied. Requests for banning go on WP:RFAr. Best of luck. Radiant_>|< 23:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
To Radiant!, Ambi, and Nandesuka, I'm very disappointed that you chose to take action rather than to respect the concerns of your fellow editors. --BostonMA 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What concerns? Ambi 03:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Polls get the most input during their first week." There seems to be a fair amount of activity this week, as reflected in the discussion and the poll. (SEWilco 06:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Transparency in ArbCom

Although I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I don’t, I wonder just how much of the ArbCom’s debate is held behind the scenes (i.e. IM, emails and the like). I would like to be certain that any comments made by any member of the ArbCom are made publicly available. As a current topic of an RfArb, I might be biased here, but I would take a great deal of comfort in knowing that all issues raised by ArbCom are being done publicly with 100% transparency. Nothing could destroy the legitimacy of the process more than the impression that different users are judged with different criteria. Let me be clear though, this opinion has nothing to do with my current RfArb, I feel that it is being handled fairly, but I have seen enough complaints from various users that this is not always the case and it needs to be remedied. TDC 17:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

While I am the strongest advocate for having arbitration deliberations in the open there is general consensus among the arbitrators that we need a private place to talk. People aren't always super cool and having to be on guard all the time sucks. Making a decision sometimes involves more than polite reasoned discourse. Saying, "Damn I am tired of his SHIT", might also factor into a decision. Fred Bauder 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said about you after reading this. --Peter McConaughey 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I would note that ArbCom members likely discuss information that's not appropriate for public consumption; CheckUser results would be first thing to come to mind, but I can imagine any number of topics they might discuss that might have privacy implications.
Per Fred Bauder's comment above, I suspect that there are frequent discussions of situations that are much more efficiently, effectively, openly, and honestly carried out when the arbitrators aren't being jumped on after every other comment by second-guessers from the peanut gallery. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The importance for wikipedia to have a bill of rights for the editors

Wikipedia depends for the quality of its articles for editors with all opinions to contribute to all the articles. Out of discussion which follows the contributions of all the editors a consensus is formed.(hopefully) Which is transformed in the article. But you only get a NPOV article if editors of all opinions are contributing. When editors with certain point of view know that their point of views are ignored and that other editors with a orther point of view get a preferential treatment by the Arbcom and the administrators, they will not contribute to wikipedia. The editors who get the preferential treatment, are tempted to push their POV. A bill of rights would give an indication that wikipedia wants all persons to contribute.--MichaelSirks 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to share a related concern. Although, and because, Wikipedia provides for the representation of many points of view, Wikipedia is not at the moment a spin machine for any government, political party or ideology. It thus differs greatly from say "talk radio", where there is control over who gets the opportunity to talk, and who gets the last word. Those features of "Talk radio", in my humble opinion, contribute greatly toward extreme one-sidedness. What would be fatal to the neutral point of view of Wikipedia, would be if "outsiders" came to feel that that attempts to correct some bias would only result in being "roughed up". A culture of tolerance and evenhandedness, in my opinion, is essential to maintaining NPOV over the long run. --BostonMA 23:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this bill of rights good enough

Many No voters say that they are for a Bill of rights for editors but not this bill of rights. Let them come forworth with their critism so to construct a consensus.--MichaelSirks 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This response just illustrates the point made in the section above. You like situation where you and your friends get preferential treatment of the Arbcom and administrators. And you see no need to adress the grievances/fears of the yes votes.--MichaelSirks 08:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarchy is no ideal format for wikipedia

The name of a situation where no laws or rules apply is anarchy. I get the impression (maybe mistaken) out of their resentment of wikilawyers that they would like situation where no rules or laws apply. In such situation like in anarchy the powerful get all the power and there is totally no justice.--MichaelSirks 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that sentence didn't make a whole lot of sense. But clearly Wikipedia is not anarchy. There are clear power structures, rules, and accountability, and users do have rights. It's just that Wikipedia is not bureaucracy either, which means that we do not need a system of law or overly strict guidelines. We have a balance. This is not it. Radiant_>|< 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be more accurate to have said, "I'm afraid that sentence didn't make a whole lot of sense to me."
I, for one, understand exactly what Michael is talking about. --Peter McConaughey 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You didn't, however, appear to read what Radiant actually said. Ambi 04:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be more accurate to have said, "You didn't, however, appear to me to have read what Radiant actually said." I read everything that Radiant said, and I would be happy to explain where Radiant is dead wrong if you have a space for it. --Peter McConaughey 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Those who forget history are condemned .... it appears that those who remember history have deeply held misgivings regarding the the advocacy of blind trust in absolute power, and they are more than entitled to express them. I believe the recent effort to squash discussion by declaring this page inactive, when in fact it is one of the more active pages on Wikipedia is disingenuous at best. Benjamin Gatti 05:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What's going on at this article is exactly why something like this is needed at the very minimum in order to make Wikipedia more than content controlled by a few self-appointed autocratic administrators. --Peter McConaughey 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yawn. Lots of rhetoric doth not maketh justification. Ambi 05:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that what you think we're trying to make here, Ambi? Justification? --Peter McConaughey 05:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, justification is what you need in order to impose any kind of rule on the Wiki community. See also m:instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 10:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There are indeed clear power structures, and they are neither following the rules which editors try to follow nor are the rules being enforced equally. Editors can neither trust the rules nor those in power. (SEWilco 06:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
      • Clear power structures and Anarchy are not mutually exclusive. The "absence of rulers" is wholly embraced within the absence of rules - without rules there are no rulers, as rulers are those who make and enforce a system of rules. The random excersize of force by those with a power advantage is the reality described by Anarchy. - Perhaps an Anarchy in sheep's clothing? Benjamin Gatti 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Consideration of Rule of Law clause

1. A rule of law is created by Wikipedia policies, Arbitration policy and Arbitration precedents.

The rules should be written down so users can know what to expect.

The basis of a rule of law is to have known rules so people know what the rules are, and is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. Any comments or suggestions? (SEWilco 06:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Comments

  • It seemed obvious that the official Policies should be included as rules to follow. As the Arbitration Committee is considered the penultimate decisive group, inclusion of the Arbitration policy seemed to be needed. The Committee claims to be guided by their Precedents so those were included. (SEWilco 06:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
  • We've got a perfectly good set of laws already: WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:COPY, WP:CIVIL, and WP:IAR. --Carnildo 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Content comment

Okay, I shall comment once why all the points listed here are a bad idea.

  1. Wikipedia does not have "rules of law" and is governed by consensus and common sense
  2. This would make us unable to deal with the unexpected. If a novel kind of troll or vandal comes up, we block and decide on the specifics later.
  3. One cannot "alter precedent", by definition. ArbCom members can alter policy just like the rest of us.
  4. Okay, this seems to be the main issue here. There are frequent allegations of ArbCom unfairness, but in general these do not amount to anything other than FUD, and I have not recently seen a shred of evidence. IF YOU TALK ABOUT ADMIN ABUSE OR ARBCOM UNFAIRNESS, CITE CLEAR EVIDENCE. Otherwise people won't take you seriously.
  5. Admins are never forced to do anything. I've heard a user complaining that a certain admin did not block a certain user, and he considered that lack-of-a-block admin abuse. If you think about it logically, that's ridiculous.
  6. This point is redundant with existing policy and practice.
  7. This point is redundant with existing policy and practice. And note that most rules on Wikipedia aren't as strict as you believe them to be. The important difference between a good invocation of WP:IAR and trolling is simply being right (which is different from being conceited). And also see point 4.
  8. This point is redundant with existing policy and practice. And also see point 4.
  • In other words, whomever wrote this clearly is unfamiliar with Wikipedia precedent and how policy actually works, and/or disgruntled about a perceived unfairness but unable to back up the complaints with actual evidence, and/or overly concerned with bureaucracy and process instead of our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Radiant_>|< 10:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


You would think that the editors of encyclopedia definitions would know the difference between consensus and super-majority, and in fact the writers of Wikipedia:Consensus, the official Cabal version, do. The "guideline" states that "in day-to-day Wikipedia practice, consensus is interpreted as something closer to super-majority." As per the non-Wikipedia definitions, Radiant is really claiming that "super-majority" rules Wikipedia, so why not just use the correct term? Jimbo Wales has said that Wikipedia should operate by consensus, so the Cabal has redefined consensus to mean super-majority to fit their needs and still appear to be in line with Jimbo's direction.
Along comes some good editors like User:SEWilco, who are sick and tired of seeing administrators and arbcom members changing the definitions of words to serve their own interests. User:SEWilco creates a Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights to ensure that editors will always have the ability to object when they see their language redefined to mean Cabal needs. These "user rights" are minimialistic and shouldn't even have to be said if Wikipedia were anything close to the vision of "a community of editors" that it claims to be. The fact that User:SEWilco had to bring them up at all proves that the current implementation of top-down control with no checks and balances does not actualize Jimbo's shared vision. The subsequent push to urgently disparage and destroy these minimum rights of users shows how deep the cancer of administrative content control has spread. --Peter McConaughey 16:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. See Radiant's fourth point. Ambi 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is all about axioms and the definition of words. We don't necessarily have to stick with strict dictionary definitions. The spirit of the words are more important than the letter of the law. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Ambi, the content of Wikipedia is becoming controlled by a few self-appointed super-editors with little or no formal schooling compared to the editors of other resources. The power of filtering content through true-consensus of thousands of disparate editors is being lost. People who point this out, like me, are being railroaded—accused and found guilty of things with no direct evidence—only the word of those who have a blatant conflict of interest. If all of the people who keep saying these things are only stating rhetoric, what is their motivation? Why would so many people demand a system of checks and balances? Are we all trying to cause trouble, or could there actually be something to the principles that found the most successful social organizations in history? --Peter McConaughey 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ooooh, more FUD! Can I have some too? Radiant_>|< 19:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Radiant, but we're going to have to cut you off. It's oozing out of every pore. --Peter McConaughey 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you really do have quite the way with rhetoric. Full points for complaining that consensus deletion is "being controlled by a few self-appointed super-editors", but four people whingeing that they weren't able to slant articles to agree with their own personal opinion is "so many people". Ambi 00:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

New short version

The new short version makes it clearer than ever that it is merely slapping the word "rights" onto redundancy. If one follows wiki-etiquette and dispute resolution procedures, you're done. Can I now nom this for speedy-nonsense? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently its an "essay", not "proposal". No need to delete. WAS 4.250 17:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a 3-item bullet list, not an essay. Its POV and its nonsense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We could redirect to Wikipedia:Rights, that might actually serve some purpose. (restraining myself from asking, where did you see worse?) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you must ask, I spent some time trudging through every single page in the Wikipedia namespace, to categorize and cleanup. So yes, I've seen worse, but I would have deleted those, or redirected them away. But the one-liner essay "policies should be short" was rather funny. Radiant_>|< 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Add "politics" to the equality list

I think we should add "politics" or "political affiliation" or "viewpoint" or similar to the first item in the list as in you won't be discriminated against for your politics. I'd add it to the project page myself but I am currently blocked from editing this page... Separately, now that this proposal is radically changed into a list of principles does that mean voting on it should begin anew? Are all the people that voted against it the first time around against this version too? If so, what don't they like about it? zen master T 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • No; probably; because it's pretty redundant. Radiant_>|< 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Which of the above questions are you responding to? Isn't it better to be redundant than unclear or incomplete? zen master T 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All of them. No. Radiant_>|< 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Not in this instance - if there are several articles which are on the same subject, they should be merged, as otherwise there will be divergance and confusion and duplicated effort and contradiction and am I making it clear how many ways this type of redundancy is a bad idea? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I took a look at Wikipedia:Rights and I think it is very different than this User Bill of Rights. The former asserts contributors have no rights, whereas this page lists the rights contributors do actually have even after considering Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. If you have any evidence or an argument why contributors to wikipedia do not have the 3 rights in the list please post that here. zen master T 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If two pages complement one another, then merging is certainly a good idea. Radiant_>|< 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
My point just above is that they do not necessarily compliment one another, though I agree the list of rights here should probably be moved to Wikipedia:Rights because it is a mistake for that page to state that contributors have absolutely no rights. zen master T 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it a mistake? Keep in mind it might not be a mistake. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That is precisely why I asked for evidence or a hypothesis for why any item in the list does not belong, if that is what you believe...? I interpret the list in this page to be accurate, so it seems contributors to Wikipedia do have many rights after all, please point out how I might be mistaken if you disagree. zen master T 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New clauses?

You have the right to edit anonymously.

  • Although, with the new semi-protection, I am not sure this is valid.

You have the right to anonymity. Personal information will not be disseminated against your will.

  • Or something along those lines? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Privacy policy. Carbonite | Talk 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, but isn't everything else here just a repeat of things said elsewhere, or things people with common sense could intimate from the current policies? Why not list these, too? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
My reasoning is that the Wikimedia Board voted on specific wording and we should link to the policy rather than trying to restate it. Carbonite | Talk 19:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't actually have the right to anonymity. Certain users can detect your IP address and physical location (meta:CheckUser), and in case of severe vandalism, this information can be used to get sanctions imposed. Radiant_>|< 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I mean, we could just say, You have the right to some privacy. See Wikipedia:Privacy policy for more details. Or something like that. Also the first clause above should have read, You have the right to edit without registering a user name. That's what I meant with the first "anonymously". WP jargon just gets in your head sometime. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But the right to edit without a username is not universal and irrevocable. Radiant_>|< 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm... you have a point that, sometimes, you don't have the right to edit at all. Oh well, just thought I'd throw out some ideas. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe WP is a form of Nomic thus fixed rules are paradoxical?

I get it ... Benjamin Gatti 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are certainly a lot of paradoxes here, and you can rest assured that these paradoxes will lead to a whole lot of "karmic retribution."
I just love to watch people try to make a despotic system work and then blame its failure on vandals and terrorists. LMAO, what do they think created the vandals and terrorists? --Peter McConaughey 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia? A "despotic system"??????? Ha Ha HAAAAAA! Good joke ! If you are here to help create an encyclopedia though genuine consensus, the arbcom is irrelevent. If one is here for another reason, they would do well to use Wikipedia to find a better place for their efforts.WAS 4.250 20:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Despotism: A political or social system in which the ruler exercises absolute power
First the Cabal can't figure out what "consensus" means, then they forget the definition of "despotism." Are these really the people we want controlling content at Wikipedia? --Peter McConaughey 20:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Name the most objectively true piece of data you can that is not allowed by the "cabal" onto wikipedia article space. This is not rhetorical. I really want to know. WAS 4.250 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's take a swing at that - great question - my answer. Objectively true: A little-known provision called the Price-Anderson Act shields the Nuclear Industry from financial liability - even for criminally negligent safety violations such as those recently reported at the Progress Energy reactor in Raleigh NC, and that it completely suspends the right of people in their respective states to exercise the powers not delegated to the Congress to make and enforce "Liability" or "tort" laws in an industry so dangerous that the Supreme Court found that all the Insurance companies in the world could not provide adequate insurance. - All of this has been persistently been white-washed on article space despite RfC and RfM - we'll see what happens in RfArb, but certainly there is your first candidate. For a second "bit" of false data, well supported by the Cabal, have a look at Hubbert's Peak and I think you'll see the authoritative voice indicating that the world will all but fall out of orbit the day that gluttonous amounts of Hummer-juice ceases to cost less than kool-aid. Benjamin Gatti 01:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your (Peter's) rhetoric is amazing. First you call WP a despotism, then you blame the ArbCom which is an elected organ, then you call Was4.250 the cabal who is controlling content at Wikipedia. Rest assured that if there really was a cabal, that black car across the street from your house has nothing to do with it. Radiant_>|< 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"A rule of law" sounds too draconian

Well, sounds draconian in one of the currently competing versions of this guideline/essay/proposal. Wikipedia should have policies and they should be consistent, but "a rule of law" sounds a tad uncollaborative and anti-wiki and even "system of punishment"esque. Someone please clarify. zen master T 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Rule of Law" is the worse system of government - with the possible exception of every other form of government (To borrow an appropriate phrase). Benjamin Gatti 06:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Rule of law != democracy. These rules are administrative, not criminal. Wikipedia is not an experiment in governance as Jimbo Wales noted (though governance is a close second I believe). The problem is the word "law" which implies some sort of abstract notion of complete and absolute governance. zen master T 06:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've read rule of law and that definition agrees with you in principle, however, "rule of law" can be read as "follow these rules or be punished" whereas we want to make clear these are policies that everyone has input into their creation and they will (hopefully) be applied equally and consistently. Perhaps we should spell out the principles in rule of law for the sake of clarity. The original version of this guideline is actually formatted less nicely than the simple list of rights competing version... Instead of voting "yes" vs "no" on this perhaps we should vote between one of the two (or more) competing versions (just to poll the community to help work towards consensus)? zen master T 06:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Really, this is an old debate. The argument for laws, is that it protects against the capricious rule of individuals - which history paints as particularly problematic. The argument against laws is that a defined line between acceptable behaviour and unacceptable - invites those who focus on the demarcation at the expense of the goal. I imagine those opposed to rulz, favor the goal-oriented valuation and trust the meritocracy to best judge who is and who isn't contributing towards the goal. The flaw in this camp, as Peter McConaughey has well stated - is that it ends up biasing the content with the personal biases of the bureaucracy. For the integrity of the articles, it is probably best to develop clear and general rules - which then do not change in the heat of a dispute. Benjamin Gatti 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not debating against rule of law I am saying we should describe its underlying principles in the rights list, but basically it has a bad title. Wikipedia's goal of collaborative development and the wiki concept take precedence over any system of governance. Hence true consensus is prefered over democracy here. And who is actually in this "cabal" and who decided to use that word to describe it? zen master T 14:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How a user bill of rights helps to make strong NPOV articles

"Name the most objectively true piece of data you can that is not allowed by the "cabal" onto wikipedia article space." ~WAS

WAS, I agree with Benjamin Gatti (who gave some excellent examples above): that is a great question, and it goes a long way toward showing your good faith in trying to solve this issue. Most of the road blocks I run into come from exactly the opposite occurrence: members of the Cabal using their power and influence to introduce controversial, unverifiable conclusions and original research. Here's a couple of recent examples:

  • Founding of the World Islamic Front - User:Commodore Sloat added the uncited claim to the article that "Terrorism experts consider the World Islamic Front Statement to be the founding document of the organization." Since I had seen no evidence of this, I asked Commodore Sloat to cite the reference. This started a half dozen pages of him refusing and me insisting that controversial content be verifiable. He accused me of not being as knowledgeable as him, of being a trouble maker, and even of secretly being someone with whom he previously had problems. The commodore went so far as to log some complaint on one of the Cabal boards and collude with Lord Voldemort to frame me for something someone else did (calling me a sock puppet). Finally, Sloat changed his story to say that the statement was really only the first document of the WIF, not the document that started the WIF, so I changed the article to reflect that. My question about this incident is, would all of this drama have been necessary if Commodore Sloat didn't think he could use the Cabal to intimidate me?
  • Criticism of the US Declaration of Independence - This section has been tagged for cleanup of its uncited allegations for months, but nobody can clean it up because there are no references to cite. It is almost pure original research. It's like a little essay that some American-hater spewed while high on gas fumes, but the little hoard of POV pushers at that article guard the essay with their lives. Looking through the history of the article, you can even see where they have used their influence to cause trouble for editors who have pushed too hard to make the criticism more neutral. Assuming good faith when I arrived, but finding the section one of the most biased I've seen, I made it easy for the editors to fill in the blanks by putting {fact} tags where citations were needed[15]. User:Nikodemos immediately deleted all of the citation requests[16] saying that they were unsightly. So, if we can't delete the section, we can't cite the section, we can't modify the section to be NPOV, and we can't even identify the places where information needs to be cited, is the article just supposed to sit forever with an {Unreferenced} tag on it? More importantly, if the people protecting the article weren't able to use their administrative and influential powers at Wikipedia to protect the original research, would it have been fixed a long time ago? Try fixing it and see what happens.

I go through this crap every day. Bringing a neutral point of view to an article that everyone can agree with is easy, in every instance, unless the content has become the pet project of an influential administrator or one of the loyal members of the Cabal. In those cases, they will throw everything they have at me to protect their POV. Some of them, like User:Carbonite, make it personal and do everything they can to punish me for pointing out the obvious, or try get rid of me on made up charges. We need a user bill of rights to allow editors to police each other because the Cabal's method of top-down policing results in biased content and bad articles. --Peter McConaughey 06:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Related question, I am trying to figure out what the actual core disagreement over this User Bill of Rights is, it seems rather dichotomy-esque. Where is the cabal except for the cabal that portrays a cabal? I interpret most of the editors against this User Bill of Rights to appear to be inadvertent pawns of some sort "cabal", but who is actually in this "cabal"? Lots of effort is going into this User Bill of Rights brouhaha yet fundamental principles are at best skirted over or are redundant and an editor's precise political motivations are indiscernible which I consider to be a red flag. zen master T 06:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Peter, if I take your post at face value, you were in a couple of edit disputes, with a couple of random editors (none of whom I've ever heard of in my years on Wikipedia) who were being foolish, and by the sounds of things, you didn't have a particularly satisfactory outcome with them. I really don't understand how this translates to a mysterious cabal backing those users up and enforcing their perspective on articles. If you are editing neutrally, and I'll take it at your word that you are, then the dispute resolution process should be a means of helping you deal with such editors. Ambi 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move

The notion of a "bill of rights" on Wikipedia is absurd. Wikipedia is not a nation-state, nor does it grant any "rights" to individual users by terms of agreement in a contract. Wikipedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit corporation, which has "rights" to Wikipedia, so to speak. Therefore, I am moving this page to Wikipedia:User prerogatives. Vandals, trolls, and people who only interested in an online playground/social club thankfully are not afforded "rights" just by virtue of the fact that they sign up for user accounts. 172 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll to Archive this page with the rejected and inactive tag

Is this Page both "Inactive" and "Rejected" by the community?

Yes Both
  1. 172 22:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ashibaka tock 04:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Carbonite | Talk 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (and it's silly that it's necessary to re-run the poll here)
  6. It's obviously rejected (by which I mean the bill of rights). Whomever wrote this clearly has no idea whatsoever of how Wikipedia works, and seeks to impose his ill-considered principles on the entire community. Whether it's inactive or whether its proponents prefer to keep beating the proverbial dead horse is entirely irrelevant. Radiant_>|< 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Not Both
  1. Benjamin Gatti 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. BostonMA 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. DrKinsey 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Carl Hewitt 10:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. SEWilco 16:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How can the page be "inactive" when apparently there's a massive debate raging?
  • There are 6 edits to this talk page already today and 2 to the main page. That doesn't seem inactive to me.
  • If there are enough people to get together a contested vote on the subject, doesn't that suggest it's still active?
  • I don't know if "the community" has rejected the proposed policy. (Certainly quite a number of individuals have.)


Of course it is. See the first poll. [17] It failed by a large margin. And who voted on either side is quite telling. On the "no" side we had scholars, respected community leaders, and just generally faithful editors like Ambi, Snowspinner, Neutrality, Improv, Mindspillage, Kelly Martin, Natalinasmpf, and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. On the "yes" side, we have (not to name any names) editors sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for manic POV-editing, Lyndon LaRouche-activism, plagiarism, stalking other editors, or a combination thereof. (Not to say that there were not some decent contributors on the "yes" side-- we all have our misguided moments.) 172 22:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime-- until we see the poll leaning one way or another-- I have marked this as "proposed". But it really is a silly idea. Ashibaka tock 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:FAITH. Also, the poll is worded badly; whether the page is inactive is irrelevant, the point is that the Bill of Rights is soundly rejected. To reiterate an old cliche, your presence here is a privilege, not a right. Radiant_>|< 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The above votes were based upon votes for "this page". I restored the original "this page" subject heading. Voting upon Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is taking place in that other page's Talk page, and votes copied from here need to be revoted. If this is confusing, thank those who are trying to confuse the issues rather than discuss them. (SEWilco 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Straw polls don't conclude anything for all perpetuity

Note the language from the {proposed} and the {rejected} templates:

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

and

This Wikipedia page documents a proposed policy that has been rejected by the community.
It is inactive, kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion on this subject, you may try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.

I interpret that this proposal is still in development and under dicussion and in the process of gathering consensus for adoption and is active. Discussion need not be "revived" if it never died. zen master T 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The notice above states that Zen-master is banned from editing this page. It doesn't matter that the page happened to be moved from "bill of rights" to user prerogatives. 172 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with my point about straw polls not concluding anything for all perpetuity? Are your wires crossed? zen master T 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that your interpretation skills need a bit of work. The obvious fact is that the items proposed at the bill of rights run counter to consensus. Therefore, a logical response would be
    1. To accept that fact and quit whining about it.
    2. To query what kind of 'rights' are in fact supported by consensus
    3. To replace the list of nonconsensual "rights" with the list of actual rights
  • The astute reader will notice that #2 and #3 have already been done, and that the result is the present list of user prerogatives. If many people disagree with you, you must consider the possibility that you may in fact be DEAD WRONG. Stop beating the dead horse. Radiant_>|< 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Try to understand that "consensus" does not mean what you think it means. The point of a collaborative working environment like wikipedia is that unanimity can be achived through debate and discussion. I accept that some people disagree with me but I would like to understand how and why they disagree. The 6 item User perogatives list and the User bill of rights actually share the same underlying principles... Which makes it hard to understand the reasons why you are against the user bill or rights, and why you feel so adamant that it must be marked "rejected" and why you seem unable to accept the concept that debate and discussion can continue after a straw poll regardless of the results, please explain. zen master T 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If the horse is dead, why are people trying to bury it while it is still kicking? They don't seem satisfied to let its death become obvious. And some keep painting stripes on it instead of discussing its qualities. An odd thing to do to a dead horse. (SEWilco 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
      • Because the stench of the dead horse will make it harder for our co-workers to get on with the job of building the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Live horses can smell pretty bad too... zen master T 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
          • In that case we should all agree that the UBOR stinks, regardless of whether it's alive, dead or schrodinger. Radiant_>|< 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fresh Start

I have removed comments which were intended for and relate to another page. I have no desire to have my own comments pasted irrelevently into another page. Anyone restoring comments to this page is requested to remove mine first. Thanks. Benjamin Gatti 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair warning. Do not remove other people's comments. Please look up the definitions of "move", "fork", "fixing a cut and paste move" and "history merge". Radiant_>|< 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific please. A wiki link or two would help to draw our attention to the point you would like to make. --BostonMA 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My point is that Benjamin is either wikilawyering, or doesn't know what he's talking about. Most of the relevant info is at Wikipedia:Move and Wikipedia:Merge. Radiant _>|< 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Your comment begins with "Fair warning" and the comment below begins with "Listen carefully, I will say this only once". So, some unspecified bad thing will happen if you are ignored. I have read the articles you have given as linked, and I'm somewhat baffled. The pages appear to me to be instructions, explanations of how to do something. I am gathering that you interpret them as rules which can be enforced, otherwise the mention of unspecified consequences would seem out of place. So please, could you just state what you are trying to state plainly in English. Thanks. --BostonMA 01:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be because I was admonishing Benjamin for his removal of other people's comments (which is generally a blockable offense). The below starts with the ironic Allo Allo quote since I already said that a couple of times and Benjamin has a tendency of either ignoring or not understanding what everybody else says (specifically, this page was moved, then forked in a cut and paste move by BG or one of his friends, then a history merge was performed by me to fix the above; BG appears to be confused about this, and wildly accusing other people about it). It's not all that important really. Let's get back to sensible editing. Radiant_>|< 10:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Radiant! Please. This is clearly a zoo, but hear me on this only - I have no interest in this page - never had. Neither I suggest has Zen-master expressed any interest in editing this page. To host my comments here out of context, or to ban a user in effigy is unacceptable. Benjamin Gatti 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Listen carefully, I will say this only once. Please look up the definitions of "move", "fork", "fixing a cut and paste move" and "history merge". Radiant_>|< 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd point out (with perhaps a tinge more patience) that the easiest thing to do is to strike out your own comments using <s>...<s/> and a note. If other people want theirs removed, they can do it themselves. However, you are encouraged to look over the links cited, and if you have any questions, feel free to use my user talk. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Benjamin does not edit on this page, has no opinions about this page, and has not even read this page. The use of his comments here are a continuing fraud and unauthorized - regardless of the button sequence used to create a fully unique article with zero-similar content. Benjamin Gatti 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Edit history proves you wrong. But for now I'll take the above as a promise on your behalf to stop revert warring, and have unprotected the page. Radiant_>|< 10:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_prerogatives/Archive&oldid=1082489662"