Regarding your question on Stewards/elections 2009/statements/EVula, I think I may have answered it while answering the first question. If you need me to clarify further, let me know.
- You did indeed. I discover that I can read the French translation of my statement fairly fluently, but I am not sure I would want to try writing in it. My normal comment (spoken) is "Je parle un petite Francais tres malle". I took French and Russian in school, so I may find it enjoyable to venture out into learning lots of new languages. Nothing like a need to push someone forward. Currently I use Google translations a lot. Apteva 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Re : Steward electionEdit
Personal Attacks are not AcceptedEdit
Personal Attacks are not AcceptedEdit
And this is referring to something (other than a request that an attack page be deleted!)? Apteva 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Steward elections and other things: Wikifascism – Wikipedia is run by an elite who control the mass of article writersEdit
Selam! This message is to all who know more than me about the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. I get sometimes messages when I have tried to vote and contribute in different contexts. But I think it is extremely difficult with all the technology, and the "first create this" and "link to here and there," before I even am entitled to vote. I wrote my first Wikipedia article in my mother tongue 10 years ago. I have made many thousands of edits in different languages, created templates, uploaded photos and diagrams. But I understand nothing about the bureaucracy built around elections. 1) I do not know the tasks for the various levels of the bureaucracy. 2) I do not understand why some are elected, others appointed. 3) I can not find a page with clear and comprehensive information about that. 4) I fail to get my vote counted, I fail to personally seek assignments or make me elective. / I am a lic. in political science, but I still don't understand the electoral system and bureaucracy of Wikipedia. I know it's not supposed to be a democracy, but for me, and sure certainly a lot of others who struggle with common article writing, it seems like a constantly increasing number of layers of strange names, positions and pedia-jargon are gradually added between regular users and a "ruling class" or "bureaucratic elite". The political system or philosophy that Wikipedia is most similar to is Fascism. I am not exaggerating. Compare the structure yourself, and you will come to the same conclusion. An elite over mass, and an elite which during a lot of instruments control what the masses is doing./ One example: A few years ago many thousands of users worked to make or contribute to lists of different kinds. When they had uploaded their entries they received angry messages that "we" have already discussed and decided that the "categories" should be used instead of "lists". And lists deleted, dozens of hours of work for many writers. It took me some weeks to find the page (in Swedish) where "we" had discussed this. And at that page, hided by moved to this and re-directed to that forum, six persons had "discussed" this matter. These six person were all administrators or had some other positions or special rights. They were also members of the international Wikipedia elite or "we", and had contributed to some 2-3 pages where "categories" were discussed in Anglosaxon. The Anglosaxon elite consisted of about forty people. What percentage the Anglosaxon "we" represent of all writers? --188.8.131.52 11:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- My apology for your frustration. No one wants to frustrate anyone and no one wants to create a fascist hierarchy. As to voting, it does often require a logged in user account, to reduce the incidences of multiple votes by the same person. In some elections we count votes, in most we consider the importance of the stated reason. It is not uncommon for someone's hard work to be short circuited by a change in presentation, but the best thing to do is move on to something else. It is always acceptable to bring up the question of why categories are used in place of lists, for example, and normally someone can point to a discussion on the subject. Admins and Stewards are not more important than IP users, they just have the responsibility of having access to the special tools that are used for various maintenance functions, such as granting and removing permissions or deleting articles and blocking users for example. Wikipedia has many projects in many languages and is a valuable resource that is used by many. In your native language you will probably find that Wikipedia in your language is at least as popular as it is in English - it is the 5th most popular English language website. I hope that you will continue to find many rewarding ways to contribute, and hope that you are able to find ways to participate in elections as well. Voting in a Steward election, in particular, requires being a logged in user with quite a few edits, and requires recent activity, at least 600 edits and at least 50 recent edits, so no one can see the Steward elections, create a username, and vote. Nor can someone who has not been active for some time see the elections and vote, because they would fail the 50 recent edit criteria. As to the various "tasks for the various levels of the bureaucracy", those are pretty well defined. Look up "Administrator", "Bureaucrat", and "Steward". In a nutshell, Administrators deal with the day to day article deletion and blocking of vandals, Bureaucrats issue Administrator status, and Stewards act cross wiki and serve as Bureaucrats and Administrators only on wikis that do not have one of those available. Stewards also issue Bureaucrat status. All of them participate in day to day editing and discussions just like anyone else. Selam may mean something to you, but I have no clue what it means and am not going to look it up. Apteva (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitionsEdit
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.