משתמש:HaShumai/חתירה לקונצנזוס – הבדלי גרסאות

תוכן שנמחק תוכן שנוסף
יצירת דף עם התוכן "TEMP In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators..."
(אין הבדלים)

גרסה מ־19:01, 20 ביולי 2020

TEMP

In some cases, disputes are personal or ideological rather than mere disagreements about content, and these may require the intervention of administrators or the community as a whole.

Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.

Requests for arbitrationThe final step for intractable disputes. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) may rule on almost any behaviorial or policy-interpretation aspect of a dispute, and has broad powers in its decisions. ArbCom does not settle content disputes or change policy.

מהדף

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions

The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is.

תאורטית אפשר להחליט על מספר פעולות לניסיון השגת קונצנזוס שאפשר לחייב בהן טרם אפשר לפנות ל"מסכם" מתוך רשימת מסכמים אפשרית (ואם אין הסכמה על מסכם, אז מערבים ביורוקרט שממנה מישהו שרירותית או מחליט בעצמו). הפעולות יכולות להיות - פרסום בלוח המודעות, המתנה של שבוע לאחר הפרסום, כל צד המחלוקת צריך להציג מה מדברי הצד השני הוא כן מקבל. אם מפעיל/ביורוקרט שנקלע לדיון הזה רואה צד אחד שמסרב לשתף פעולה לקונצנזוס עשוי לנקוט אמצעים משמעתיים.

If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. He or she is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant.

On some pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, the תבנית:Resolved template is used to note that an issue has been resolved.

. Similarly, the תבנית:Unresolved template may be used to indicate that a dispute about an important issue has not found its solution, inviting more people to weigh in their ideas and opinions.

It may be useful to close Requests for comments. When these are listed by a bot they will be automatically de-listed 30 days after the first time stamp after theRFC {{{1}}} template.

Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted.

Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions

Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.

If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Please ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question.

Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion. Please do not close a discussion if you believe that further contributions (rather than starting a fresh discussion on the same subject) would be appropriate.