This is a policy. It became effective on 11:12, August 25, 2011 (UTC). Editors come in all shapes, sizes, and powers, from the bureaucrat, to the administrator, to the standard editor, to the anonymous editor. Due to human nature, an editor's status, popularity, attitude, or demeanour may influence the way we think about them. However, at no time may a user's group membership, or any other factor regarding that user's status affect the validity of his opinions in disputes.
Status and opinion-weight in the determining of consensusEdit
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, especially their usergroup membership or lack thereof, 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.
A wiki is not based on any form of hierarchy. Administrators and bureaucrats, as trusted members of the wiki community who are recognised for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions, are not given authority over others 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.