Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on the Turkish Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 465:
====Sabri76's proposals/Sabri76'nın önerileri====
=====(2/
{{Bilingual|1=en|2=<br/>
*1. Related administrators will resign just non-sysop responsibilities.
Line 477:
--[[User:Sabri76|Sabri76]] ([[User talk:Sabri76|talk]]) 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)}}
#{{support}}--[[User:Sabri76|Sabri76]] ([[User talk:Sabri76|talk]]) 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
#
#{{support}} for 2-3[[User:BetelgeuSeginus|BetelgeuSeginus]] ([[User talk:BetelgeuSeginus|talk]]) 09:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
#{{oppose}} First proposal isn't suitable -- [[tr:User:Berkecelik|Berkecelik]] 13:27, 30 July (UTC)
#{{neutral}} 1. madde çıkartılırsa destekleyeceğim.--[[User:NicoRoman|NicoRoman]] ([[User talk:NicoRoman|talk]]) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
#{{oppose}} --<small> [[User:とある白い猫|とある白い猫]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:とある白い猫|chi?]]</sup> 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
#*I do not believe non-sysop related tasks were abused in any shape or form. I do not see the point of removing or discussing them.
#*I do not believe we want to copy English Wikipedia which is the source of most of the problems in tr.wikipedia. Policies and procedures in English Wikipedia became what it is today with over a decade of discussion and interpretation. I grew in this process on en.wikipedia so to me following the ''spirit'' of the policies, guidelines and procedures is more natural. If you do not have the essence of logic and reason behind the policies and guidelines you will not get the intended result you wish. Here is what I think needs to be fixed as soon as possible:
#*#Tr.wikipedia suffers heavily from a lack of a checks 'n balances system. One action of a Sysop should be reviewable by another. This is explicitly prohibited on tr.wikipedia. Wheel-warring damages communities - more so when among sysops - however a complete absence of a "checks 'n balances" is far worse. Like edits, sysops actions should always be reviewable and revert-able. That is the point as to why there always are at least two active oversights and checkusers.
#*#I see is how people are enforcing policies for the sake of enforcing them even if edits of the user violating the word of the policy isn't necessarily disrupting the site. The length and type of action taken should depend on the amount of disruption. There are a lot of steps leading to "indefinite blocks". Likewise there are a lot of steps leading to a request of "mass sysop resignation". Both are extremes that are harmful to the project. Wiki perhaps needs more (behavioral) guidelines and less policies. Instruction creep is a problem and policies should ideally have a limited and clear scope.
#*#Punishment is an un-wiki concept. All actions taken against users should be to reduce or prevent disruption. Our purpose on wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, any and all actions should be inline with this. What users write on external websites unless they disrupt the wiki (like forum based attack campaigns), they are irrelevant as far as policy is concerned.
#*#Enforced policies lack consensus. Community should review all policies and agree to rational reasons why the text is needed or if should it be amended/removed. It is unfair to seek sysop resignation when the policies themselves are the real problem.
#:--<small> [[User:とある白い猫|とある白い猫]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:とある白い猫|chi?]]</sup> 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
==Comments / Yorumlar==
| |||