From: John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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.
- '''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.]
- '''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.]
- '''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.
- '''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