The comments were very useful in general. The most important ones among them are the ones addressing possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal for it was one of them. I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked indefinitely (how do you think I know the 'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I hope that the points raised below contribute to the efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion... I tried to express it using a semi-formal language. Further explanations are given [in the square brackets]. Best, Resid -------------------- [[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.] 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]) [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.] [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.] [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. [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. When 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. [This will indicate the popularity of the admins and will provide a dynamics 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.] 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. [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.] ------------------------ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l