|← Discussion pages||Wikimedia Forums||Archives →|
The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
Sanskrit Wikipedia looking for techies
Looks like they'd like to have their home page compatible with mobile devices, and past attempts to fix the issue didn't work. Anyone willing to help there? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Request a community discussion to unblock my account
Greetings all, I am requesting my account be unblocked here on meta.
I am requesting here because Barras protected my talk page to prevent me from being able to rebut his baseless accusations on my last request. He is doing this while involved in a dispute because I have criticized him and a couple of his friends for multiple violations of site policy and are now refusing to unblock my account and are preventing other admins from doing it as well. They made the decision to do this unilaterally and without discussion from the community. In fact the last time I requested here AlexZ reverted it to prevent the community from even discussing the issue, which I had hoped someone would have questioned.
So now, I am requesting an appeal of my block, that was placed and is being maintained by 2 involved admins with a personal vendetta against me, to the larger meta community.
So I respectfully request my account be unblocked as it is on every other WMF site except the English Wikipedia (and obviously I do not agree with that either).
One or 2 admins should not be able to ban someone because they don't like the editor. Especially when they are personally and deeply involved with the editor in question. Banning a long term contributor to a project is something that should only be done by the community and in this case there is no reason to do so. Banning someone should be a last resort done after discussion, not to be pointy, to win a dispute, to extort the editor into doing what they want or to get rid of a user who doesn't share that admins viewpoint. Reguyla. 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:6D8D:2D36:7702:1156 02:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy
When I try to discuss matters on Wikipedia it is very common for someone to come forward and tell me the following:
- The community have already discussed this issues and settled it, so it does not matter what you say. We will not listen. You must comply with what has been decided by the community.
This talk can be acceptable if the community decisions were reached by democratic means (i.e. voting of all members of the community, or voting of democratically elected representatives of the community); but clearly this is not what happens in Wikipedia. The "community decisions" in Wikipedia are decisions reached by some little groups of Wikipedians who happen to be there when the discussions take place. Since administrators spend much more time on Wikipedia than other contributors, they have a bigger role in making "community decisions" than the rest of Wikipedians. When administrators consider such decisions as final and nonnegotiable, the situation that arises is close to an oligarchy, where a small elite controls the community.
This is especially true in some non-English versions of Wikipedia where the administrators are practically the only members of the community who are allowed to contribute. The admins write most of the articles' content (which is not a great content), and when others attempt to contribute they are practically not allowed because of some nonsensical rules. When those rules are challenged, the answer will be "those are the community rules and you cannot change them," which is absurd.--HD86 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like some of what you're saying here is completely unfounded generalization. Admins write most of the content? I'm not sure that is the case now or has been the last eight years. With regards to bringing up prior points that are immediately dismissed because of previous discussions, I agree with you. Wikipedians can be mean and sticklers. However, there are some things that are brought up multiple times and still have value in being discussed. Do not be dismayed. As in life, cordially ignore those who warrant ignoring and continue to incite discussion and change. Killiondude (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems like some of what you're saying here is completely unfounded generalization. Admins write most of the content? I'm not sure that is the case now or has been the last eight years.
I cannot scientifically prove it because I do not have the means, but given the rules of the Arabic Wiki and how it generally works, it is likely that most of the content there is written by the admins, because it is exceedingly difficult for anybody else to contribute on regular basis. Anyways, I did discuss the Arabic Wiki somewhere else and this is not my main point here. I just wanted to respond to the claim that we cannot challenge "community decisions." This claim has nothing to do with democracy because Wikipedia is not a democracy.--HD86 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I will try to get some update from somebody related to Arabic Wikipedia. --Muzammil (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I do not think that anything in the Arabic Wikipedia can be fixed until they decide to adopt some of the basic principles of the English Wikipedia, especially the principle of resolving conflicts through consensus building. If you read the translations which I provided here and here, you will see that they do not follow that principle.--HD86 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Which Wikimedia Project?
- Welcome to Wikimedia community! Wikibooks is for manuals. --Doostdar (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Low New Project Proposal Speed
In the page for New Project Proposals, a lot of proposals are left unprocessed, which jams the list. Therefore, I suggest processing it within 3 months, regardless of anything, and to decide whether it would be accepted in 6 months. Thanks. Wetitpig0 (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)