WP:OURS. Rgulerdem's on the left, Raphael1's on the right. Line breaks are included. Note that Rgulerdem's [editorial commentaries] are not brought across although they are paraphrased in a couple of places; this accounts for the majority of differences between the two.
User:Rgulerdem's version (from [1]) | User:Raphael1's version (from Wikipedia: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.] | OURS ("sysOp User RelationS" or "Wikipedia is ours") is a policy aimed to clarify the relations between sysops and users. It's intend is to reduce the gap between them and should result in a friendlier atmosphere between users and admins. |
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. [2]) (now at WIkipedia: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.]
| ==Ethics and Standards==
Disputes related to the content of an article are one of the main dispute types
encountered and are therefore very important to address. To avoid those kind of conflicts, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia.
(e.g. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:VANDAL)
If an article is controversial, sometimes admins take part in the disputes. Their experience and privileges then do not constitute a base for neutralization of the article, instead it rather makes them a target for (sometimes legitimate) accusations of power abuse. 'Wikilawyering' should not be a term to describe ordinary user behavior. It is important to realize, that a neutral description of controversial issues is very important for the reputation of Wikipedia. |
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.]
| ==Subject oriented study groups and committees==
Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (i.e. 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.
Those committees don't necessarily need to be given further priviliges
to enforce their position.
They should mainly be a contact point for editors involved in a content dispute.
Many violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way, which may result in a friendlier atmosphere between users and admins, who mainly feel obligated to enforce the rules (sometimes without any knowledge on the topic of the dispute).
|
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.] | ==Mentor-mentee program==
Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he creates 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.
The propose of mentorship is to educate users about wikiediting rather then irritate them later (i.e. by blocking them). As a side-effect mentorship is an indication of how admins do their job. Admins who are often chosen as a mentor are probably nicer to users. |
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.] | ==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.
The ultimate decision of an indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.
This approach puts the discussion of the validity of a block onto the admins involved rather than to an admin-user dialogue, which - as likely as not - results in a block. This part also gives flexibility to admins who think a block is unnecessary, but do not want to step on another admin's toe. Furthermore it somehow separates the powers of an admin, as (s)he can't be judge and "hangman" at once. |