Benutzer:Obarskyr/WU

Dies ist eine kurze Interpretation bezüglich der Niederländischen Wikipedia.

My definition

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia to

1. be edited freely
2. to spread information and knowledge

Wikipedia is not

1. everything that disturbs the above two points

My views

1. The word nl:consensus is fairly misinterpreted in the Dutch Wikipedia. Consensus here means, that all people on Wikipedia have to accept a local policy. My point of view is: A major group of trusted users has to accept a local policy.
2. Dutch people tend to discuss in a way, that is very personal and more important they cannot stop discussing.
3. Some users tend to misinterpret any desicion taken by an admin (or group of admins). This does make any decision taken very difficult. If you blok someone for an hour, you can count on it, that you discuss 2 hours.
4. Discussions make Dutch Wikipedia an apparatus, that does not work any longer. The discussions do not stop, it is discussed 'til any consensus is far away.
5. Some admins revert other admins (or their decisions).
6. Some users try to blackmail admins and other users into a decision they do not like. For example by stating to leave Wikipedia.
7. There is far to much voting (stemmen) and semi-votin (peilen). Some users feel personal attacked if it comes to these votings, much users even see this as a point to start agression and personal attacks.
8. Personal attacks are since long not properly handled. They were accepted by the majority or semi-accepted, because one did not want to get the troubles of a blocking discussion.
9. The accuse of censorship is a form of blackmailing too. If someone removes holocaustdenial, this is not censorship but an action against something really illegal.
10. The accuse of powerabuse is a form of blackmailing too. I did not see that in the last months. Perhaps i am blind... If someone calls people gushDutch (or some other country ... fill in) this is racism. If the word is inside a dictionary does not interest me. Of course this is POV again, but do i have to accept that a country accepts racism?
11. Why do I link certain names to misbehaviour? I rarely read the Village pump or other discussions (simply because they are too long, it would take my whole day to read them)?
12. Why can't admins act on good human sense for justice?
13. I fear this discussion won't have a real result either.

What i would do

1. Start up an arbitration commitee. The members are chosen by the foundation (first year). After that they are elected.
2. Start up a truste commitee. They can stop discussions and make a final decision on how is acted (or not).
3. Change local policy for blocking users. Admins can block users. They do not need to inform the community. The community is already informed by Log/Block. Admins are responsible for their actions only towards the arbitration commitee and the trustee commitee. arbitration takes the final decision if an admin did abuse his rights. Only the trustee commitee can ask arbitration (25/50 for investigation) to look into the actions of an admin (or arbitration itself).
4. Arbitration has 5 users as members
5. Trustees have 50 users as members
6. Users only can ask trustees to investigate.

1. Kick off every user who does not accept what i would do ;)