[WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

Mon Jun 5 13:55:56 UTC 2006

>From: John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:48:26 +0800
>
>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 philosophy behind wikipedia refers to: writing an
online free encyclopedia by contribution of the
volunteers.

> >(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.)

If you are reading the messages on this list that
would be enough to see the problems.

>
> >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?

It cannot be said that they are not supported by the
community, as explained at the end of last message.
Discussing the standards and ethics in Wikipedia and
related policies and guidelines coherently is very
useful for both newcomers as a guide and old users as
a reference.

>
> >[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.
>
>

If the problem is about how Wikipedia works that might
be true. If the dispute is related to a content of an
article that connot be true. Whoever knows the subject
should be listened.

>
> >[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.
>

Yes. It does not have to be in an ArbCom form either.
It is natural to think that people with similar
interests and area of specialization have better view
on a related article. It is not hard to find a way
that they form groups to discuss the points which lead
to disputes. Can you imagine how can that eliminate
edit-wars and 3RR violations, etc?

> >[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 is already explained below. This part propose to
educate the users about wikiediting rather then
irritate them, teach them a lesson by blocking, etc.

> >[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.
>

I did not propose reaffirmation process. I did not
propose that the popularity should be a factor in
determining adminship either. All I am saying is this:
popularity is an indication of how admins do
their job. If they are nice to users, trying to help
them, educate them related to wikiediting the users
will chose them as a mentor. The proposal does not
talk about if an admin becomes unpopular s/he
should quit.

> >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?
>

The indefinite block is an ultimate decision in my
opinion. An admin should not have that privilege.

> >[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
>

It is explained why [[WP:OURS]] is proposed at the
beginning. It will serve as a toll to strengthen and
improve the efficiency of the bridges between
community and encyclopedia component of Wikipedia.
It can also serve as a tool to enhance community
spirit. I did not say it is perfect. It is a first
step towards clarification and balancing admin-user
relations, though.

Best,

Resid

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 