Jump to content

Wikipedia:User prerogatives: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
I have seen votes added as recently as yesturday - there is not deadline - could you wait until the voting has ended before declaring consensus - or is this consensus by dictum?
Radiant! (talk | contribs)
{{rejected}} per talk page. Vote is already 2:1 against, thus see WP:SNOW
Line 1: Line 1:
{{proposed}}
{{rejected}}


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

Revision as of 23:22, 29 December 2005

So we can build a better encylopedia 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 can not be used until after the rule is 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.

Discussion at the talk page.