Wikipedia talk:User prerogatives

message: Older posts have been archived.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

message: OK, new talk page, new person here, new format for page. Reasons for my edits:
#Better appearance.
#Replace first point (racial, gender) with "right not to be insulted". Reason: (a) not needed, recial epithets etc would be covered by "not insulted". Are we having a problem with women not being allowed on certain projects or whatnot? Unless so, not needed. (b) Likely to be misconstrued to refer to editing rights, e.g. "I'm being discriminated against as a Quux for putting pro-Quux material into article X".
#Remove link to Jimbo. If this page becomes widely available, as it might, we don't want that there. People might tend to use that as a first result instead of last.
#Some other stuff not critical to describe here. I thought "fork" was confusing, because we have forks WITHIN Wikipedia which sometimes aren't allowed.
There was a note on the page: "(Some Wikipedia users want to establish a list of rights to which each user is entitled. That proposal was roundly rejected; discussion can be found at this article's talk page and in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights.)". However, there is still a link to this page in the RfC. So which is it... is the discussion over, and if so why is there a link here?
Also I think the last two points, about content, belong somewhere else altogether, maybe.
I was going to put in this preamble but I decided that that would be too big a change from the previous version: "As a Wikipedia editor, you have the responsibility to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community has the right to impose sanctions, ranging from warnings up to an indefinate ban.Wikipedia grants you certain rights. These may change over time, are not legally enforcable, and are subject to revokation in individual cases. In particular, if you behave in manner that is any reasonable person would conclude is indisputably, egregiously, and notoriously destructive, demented, or gravely insulting, any and all rights may be revoked without notice."Herostratus 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Right. OK, per your comment, added the preamble -- at the bottom, so it can be considered separately. I added it mainly to help quell objections to the list, by making it clear that some behaviors are so bad that you're just gone, and Jimbo etc. can ban you on sight, but added many adjectives to make it basically impossible for regular administrators to defend revoking rights except for absolute total flaming bad guys. Yes, also it has to go before the "Editor rights" section, NOT the entire document, because the rights to content are legal rights.Herostratus 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First!

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

message: :Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality or sexual preference.
What about religion and political affiliation? --Nerd42 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion/politics?

message: OK, I got this message from a user:
:I am still having a hard time following your rationale for the changes. Further, I doubt that it is more important that the page be "attractive" than simple. Propose your changes on the talk page before making sweeping changes next time. 172 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification request per [[User:172]]

message: #with which I have no problems, and feel that no serious Wikipaedian ought to.
#Whilst I would hesitate to press for "may" to become "must", I feel that on a semantic level this does more to discourage mediation than encourage it.
#no comment
#This appears a "fair" prerogative except that Wiki is often used as an "authoritative" source, yet (as is well known) contentious articles get mega-edited over short periods, and it would be simple, under this prerogative, for a selected download to be taken, to put Wiki-authority behind a completely specious and POV version of events.
#This clearly conflicts with the principles #4, and amounts, as it stands, to an invitation to 3rd parties to hijack Wiki material and publish it as their own, by not including the article's full history.
#I can only imagine that this tenet has been added by a Wiki-vandal.  Rather, it ought to guarantee *other* users than the santioned, that a track will be kept on previously sanctioned users, and their sanction will be reapplied unless appealed should they ever return.
I remain, humbly, --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Looking at Wikipedia_talk:User_prerogatives/Archive#First Poll this seems very arbitrary and possibly biased by whoever wrote the new version of the page:
In the "first poll", it's still pretty close, 20 v 36.. and that's not that many people overall either, this hasn't had much publicity: I only just heard about it, linked from Snowspinner's ArbCom manifesto
I don't see how a Bill of Rights could do any harm, it seems like a good idea in itself, even if the first version of it wasn't so good. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A proposal needs consensus to become policy, thus a large majority of people must support it or it's rejected. The "Bill of Right" proposal has 70% opposition and therefore was absolutely rejected. It's important to keep in mind that polls are run only to gauge whether consensus exists. Once it's clear that consensus obviously does not exist, a proposal is rejected.  Carbonite | Talk 20:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rejected"

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

message: Can we add this? -Unsigned
:Any registered user has the right to quickly appeal their block to a 3rd party Administrator.--God of War 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Right to Appeal a Block

message: I have NPOV tagged this section because of the assertion, which appears unsubstantiated and therefore presumably is an expression of opinion rather than a statement as to fact, concerning Lyndon Larouche. I am also concenred that, phrased as it is, this represents potential defamation.  However, I have restrained myself from making any direct edits as I am too far distant from the circumstances to make an informed adjustment. --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have restored the text to the talk talk page to conform with the protocols of the NPOV tag. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when someone (or more than one -- I can't work out the 'history') has removed not only my comment, but also the NPOV tag, changed the entire text of the main page, apparently changed it back, and commented that the entire exercise is a waste of tiem because the entire issue was already defeated. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[No context]]

message: This policy appears to be completely useless and redundant. The existing policies on civility, etiquete, and 'no personal attacks', particularly the principle of discussing article content rather than any attributes of editors, means there's no basis to discriminate on any of the listed grounds, or on the basis of religion or politics either. I have no idea what happened with Larouche and friends, but I have a hard time believing there has to be a brand new 'anti-Larouche' policy because of it. The rest of it seems pretty self-evident too. Of course people can stop editing. Of course they can use the various conflict resolution methods that wikipedia has established to resolve conflicts. Seriously, what problem does this address that isn't already addressed by existing policies and guidelines? Wesley 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems is the existing policies are too ambiguous, really.. This is made clear by the very fact that this is not already policy and that it was forcibly moved from "user bill of rights" to here --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 06:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: *Closed per the below, and WP:VIE. Radiant_>|< 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my point exactly. Thanks Radiant!. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second poll 

message: Wasn't this already defeated? --LV (Dark Mark) 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my point exactly. Thanks Radiant!. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

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