Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of
the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
further explanations about them.
Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
relatively new user who lived through some hard times
because of some structural problems. I would like to
see the success of this project like many others,
liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would
like to suggest some small changes for a better
environment at which Wikiediting has some written
ethical statements and standards and user rights and
admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will
be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
same time in the future while it is growing.
Just so we're all on the same page, what is the "philosophy" behind
the
Wiki movement? Also, what makes this relevant to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is
an encyclopaedia being built through a wiki because a wiki happens to be
the most efficient way to write an encyclopaedia, not for any
philosophical reasons.
(The sections below are my earlier messages to some
people during the discussion on this list. I combined
the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if
anyone else missed them too.)
------------
[[WP:OURS]]
------------
[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.
[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]
Um....what problems are there between sysops and users that need
clarification? I rarely see a strict dividing line between admins and
ordinary users. In many polemical meta issues, Wikipedians have not been
divided along any demarcation boundary that would indicate a significant
causatory relationship between the sysop flag and one's views of a
particular subject. The fact that admins often seem to "gang up" is
usually caused by the fact that they've been here the longest, so they
*tend* to have a better view of what's going on. ([[Correlation does not
imply causation]], for anyone who's interested.)
1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
(e.g.
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
Those "ethics" are controversial and are not supported by the community.
What's wrong with current policy that necessitates a new policy?
[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]
This ignores the fact that in a [[meritocracy]] (which includes
encyclopaedia publishing houses), some people's opinions do count more
than others.
[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]
This seems to be grandstanding to me. What're you getting at?
[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]
2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is resolved.
This idea may have some merit, and is worth exploring. It depends on how
the community reacts, however. Such committees should not be placed on a
pedestal, nor should they be given excessive privileges. Standing
mini-arbcoms for dealing with content disputes is something worth
considering, nevertheless.
[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc., for example. When the disputes arise,
the users may ask the opinion of the related study
groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute
and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a
final decision though, as usual. Many
violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be
diminished that way which may result in a more
friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel
obligated to force the rules consciously.]
3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.
What is the purpose of this? Isn't this just coddling confirmed problem
editors? This smells like pointless [[m:instruction creep]].
[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamic measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]
We've gone down this road before. RECONFIRMATION OF ADMINS IS NOT A GOOD
IDEA. (Refer to the talk page archives of RfA.) Also, [[WP:NOT]] a
democracy. Popularity should never be a factor in deciding whether an
admin should remain an admin or not. The only thing that matters in any
encyclopaedia publishing house is whether an editor or supervisor's net
contribution is positive or negative.
4. '''Limited block policy'''
A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.
Any reason for this? As far as I can tell, rogue decisions are undone
pretty quickly (refer to Carnildo's actions in the Joeyramoney scandal)
and legitimate decisions stand. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]
[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace
to the project.]
WHY?
This seems to be a very poorly thought out proposal to me, with no
unifying theme. It appears to be something created solely for the
purpose of mollycoddling trolls who have issues of their own. Wikipedia
is not a counseling centre, and it is not a place for the reformation of
editors who cannot work with other editors either. If you have personal
problems in working with other Wikipedians, and as a result are
contributing a net negative, you have no place here. End of story. We're
an encyclopaedia publishing house, not a democracy.
John