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

[John Lee]

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