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.)
- '''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.]
- '''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.]
- '''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.
- '''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