Kullanıcı mesaj:Oscar

RGulerdem: Inquiry

Merhaba Oscar,

I tried to send a message bofore I am not sure if you could see it.

I have some problems regarding the supervision of the Vikipedia (Turkish version). There are some article written bias. Unfortunately two of the admins doesnt even let the discussion of the issue (Kullanici:Kubra and Kullanıcı:Dbl2010). For example the article about Fethullah Gulen. I can discuss with you all allegedly stated misleading sentences if you have some familiarity with Turkish.

I would like to make significant contributions to Vikipedi but I also do not want my contribution just be ignored or cancelled without any discussion by someone else. For the large groups like Wikipedia, there are many users and admins who can control and discuss the articles. They can get a concensus on an article. In groups like Vikipedi, there are a few user and a few admins who are elected by 3-4 votes. I do not think that it is fair for an admin to push a bias article without discussion.

I would like to have admin and broucrat privilidges for Vikipedi. I was wondering if you could help me with that...

Best,

see nl:Overleg gebruiker:Oscar#Admin request. oscar 11:47, 5 Ocak 2006 (UTC)

anlamadım? oscar 03:41, 28 Ocak 2006 (UTC)

Arminian genocide?

On the Dutch Wikipedia the so called Arminian genocide is accepted. Do you know that the UN has never proclamed this to be a genocide?

Can i know why the Dutch exept the so called genocide?

the authors (=writers) should not be consulted on this, i agree. but i do think you should ask the dutch community, not solely me. oscar 05:20, 12 Şubat 2006 (UTC)

Why not, you are responsible for the Dutch Wikipedia site, you should check if the thins that are writhen are right. I am not in a position to ask the Dutch people, so I am asking you.Hisar 15:41, 14 Şubat 2006 (UTC)

counting the articles

maybe including this counter 607.327 in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext would be nice? tr: has already passed 20.000 :-) oscar 09:35, 4 Nisan 2006 (UTC)

Need help on de-sysop issue on TR wiki

(en:Moved from Meta to here) (tr:Metada'dan buraya taşındı)

• Version Sürüm

---

once sufficient information is provided i will seriously look into this matter and do all my best to give an advice, as asked. thank you all for your patience with me until then. oscar 15:58, 19 Mayıs 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Oscar, we need your help again. I hope we will not take your time so much. Here is the case: There was an ongoing discussion about old sysops, who they got their sysop status earlier, before we set our criterias for sysop elections. I can say ancient times of Turkish VP. So some people from community wanted them to be voted since there is now a rule. So they first started a poll and asked to the community that, if they want to vote those old sysops with new procedures. 21 people voted and 19 of them said yes, let them put through current sysop electing procedure. You can see this poll here. And after that, those sysops were nominated as sysop candidates and peoples were invited to vote for them. So regular procedure for getting a sysop status started for them. 2 weeks later, votes are closed as it is stated on our procedure list. You can see the votes here. And compiled results here. According to our rules, to get a sysop status, the candidate should be supported by 75% of the total voters. So only one of them (tr:User:Citrat) is succeded to get sysop status. Others got poor support (some no support at all) as you can see by yourself. One of those guys, tr:User:Volkan (He is the very first sysop and bureaucrat of Turkish VP) got 10 support and 8 un-support and 5 neutral votes and he was complaining about all this during and also after. His base point of complain is that Vikipedi doesnt have any rules for desysoping. (This is true, we dont have any rule for that.) And he says that, all those procedure was for giving permission not for removing. But the act will be a desysopping so he says people didnt vote for desysoping and he claims that all this is wrong. Unsupporter guys think that, he doesnt have enough support to get sysop status and so why he should stay so? Volkan also asked for meta:User:Rdsmith4's advise on the issue and you can also see his reply here.

As conclusion, before we take any step on this issue, I decided to ask you. In order to keep this neutral, I didnt add any of my comments. I just tried to state the facts and the problem. Your experience may help to our community and we can move on with the right step. So we need your advice. Thanks in advance.--Özgür 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, here are some points that I want to enlighten. First of all, this voting is about 8 sysops who were never voted (we have 15 admins total). We opened a poll, which asks the community that can we elect them for the first time? 21 people voted and 19 of them said yes. The poll didn`t say that can we recall them with the desysoping rules. Dbl2010 is right we don`t have any rules for desysoping, but we don`t need it for this subject, because this voting can't be a de-sysop voting (it had been mentioned when the poll was opened) because they have never been elected when becoming sysop. In the end, only Citrat received the support of community (%95), Volkan couldn`t success (%45) (min support must be %75). So we think that all of them (except Citrat) don`t have any right to have the sysop position. Thanks, if you solve this problem we will be glad :) tr:User:16

• • Let me add my summary too. The original idea was to legitimize the status of all unelected sysops by making them go through a normal election, i.e., have them get >75% of votes to become a sysop. Volkan says this amounts to a recall vote where the fraction of votes needed to drive him out is 25%. In a procedural vote prior to the actual elections the community did agree to vote on the unelected sysops in this manner. So, the question is, was the procedure valid? Can somebody who was an appointed, not elected, sysop be voted on like an ordinary sysop applicant? tr:User:infoCan

hi oscar, im an active user here in trwiki, and as one of the starters of this mensioned discussion for elections and one of the people most related with the subject, i would like to underline an important aspect:

we dont have rules for this issue, and at the very beginning of this discussion i mentioned my concern and worries about these unelected sysops at the willage pump, and asked others to share their opinions. It came out that most of the active users were unhappy about the subject and wanted elections. After some discussions a poll was opened for elections for these sysops. the important point is it was mensioned in this pool that the sysops were to be elected as new candidates, as it was pre-discussed and concluded like this in the willage pump. (the main point here is that they were not elected before, and this would be their very first election.) After the poll elections were started and we got these results Dbl2010 mentioned above. Volkan and some other users had some complaints about the procedure, but you should know that the applied procedure was not a surprise one, the subject is pre-discussed, a poll was opened due to these discussions and elections were done due to this poll. the community decided for the procedure to be this way before the elections.

here my own comment is that the complaints are pointless. note that what i explained above has no comments and i tried to explain what happened.

the other important thing is that most of the community is sick of this discussion, and wants it to be over soon. I and many others think that it disturbs the atmosphere and thus is useless and harmful for Vikipedi to discuss any further. I myself will be ok with your conclusion for Volkan, whether you decide him to stay as sysop or not, i just want this fight to be over. i think most of the people think this way too. thanks for your help.. -- Tembelejderha 10:33, 19 Mayıs 2006 (UTC)

comments

it sounds to me that the conclusion is pretty clear: people with insufficient support can hardly function as sysops, even good edits and actions will appear a bit controversial. generally, when a sysop does not have a broad community support, it will be dificult to do the job too, since many decisions will need to be be justified or may sometimes even need to be reverted, causing piles of unneccessary work for others. this is not nice for the sysop, nor good for a wiki. but you should also have a procedure that allows people to run for sysop again, say, in another 3 months time, after a negative poll? kendiniz iyi bak, oscar 11:53, 22 Mayıs 2006 (UTC)