Tesseract:Status and opinion-weight
Editors come in all shapes, sizes, and powers, from the bureaucrat, to the administrator, to the standard editor, to the anonymous editor. It's possible that an editor is a director/producer or a member with exceptionally high levels in some skills. Due to human nature, an editor's status, popularity, attitude, or demeanor, may influence the way we think about them. However, at no time may a user's external factors regarding that user's status affect the validity of his or her opinions in disputes.
Status and opinion-weight in the determining of consensus[edit source]
Consensus, the method used to make wiki-wide binding decisions, does not count votes. Instead, the arguments made by both sides are "weighed" by a neutral or otherwise disinterested administrator, considering the validity of arguments and paying little attention to the exact number of people on each side. While imperfect, this system is required to prevent the onset of mob rule. In order for this system to work, a user's status can't make their opinion "count" for more or less than anyone else's, as devaluing a user's opinions because he is not of a "higher status" is simply unfair. To summarize, it's not who made the point that matters; it's the point itself.
Notes regarding...[edit source]
A wiki is not based on any form of hierarchy. Administrators and bureaucrats, as trusted members of the wiki community who are recognized for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions, are not given authority over other players in overruling decisions; all major decisions, such as requesting adminship, must be made by the community. No statement made by an administrator or other authority can be enforced as if it were a policy purely based on the fact that an administrator said it, and only rules determined by consensus can be enforced. Given a controversial situation, editors are encouraged to discuss and compromise, both being major parts of a wiki.
Misinterpretations of status and opinion-weight[edit source]
This policy should under no circumstances be interpreted to mean "All users are equal in every conceivable way." Conversely, do not assume that "All users are inequal." All this policy means is that "An editor's status or popularity will not affect the validity of their opinions or anything they may say." Using this policy to state anything else is a perversion of the policy, which is gaming the system. Given, users should never be unfairly oppressed because of their status, but that concept falls under the user treatment policy.