ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی/نظارت ویکی‌بدان بر انتخابات و سیاست‌گذاری در ویکی‌پدیای فارسی

افزودن پیوند
از ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد

Stewards' supervision of the elections and policy making at Persian Wikipedia[ویرایش]

Greetings to the contributors of Persian Wikipedia. I am Millosh, one of the Wikimedia stewards. --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

During the last 15 days or so we are aware about the situation at fa.wp and we were talking at our (private) list extensively about it. As stewards prefer to limit their actions at Wikimedia projects (we are not admins of your project), we were thinking a lot how can we help to your community. During our discussion, consensus is reached about the level of our possible involvement in your internal community issues. We agreed that we are only able to guarantee free and fair elections and decision-making process related to your local policies. --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

However, we are not willing to act if the community is not willing to take our help. Because of that, the first thing which you have to decide is: Are you willing to give to us the mandate to supervise your election and policy making processes? --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

If you decide so, we will be here to monitor your requests for granting and removing admin and bureaucrat permissions, as well as to monitor the policy making processes. Note that there is no steward who speaks Persian and, because of that, if you want to say something to us, the best idea is to write in English (even a bad English is good enough for understanding :) ). However, if you are not able to express yourself in English and you think that you have something important to say to the stewards, please ask someone to translate your words from Persian to English. --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

In the case that your answer is "yes", you will need to vote about our mandate after three months again. --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Voting for the proposal for our supervision begins at the time of the posting this message and ends at Saturday, July 19th, 2008 at 23:59 UTC. Simple majority is needed for adoption/rejection of this proposal. Please, use "Comments" section for commenting the proposal. --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Please, translate this message in Persian. --Millosh ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

نظارت ویکی‌بدان بر انتخابات ویکی‌پدیای فارسی و روند سیاست‌گذاری (ترجمه فارسی)[ویرایش]

درود بر کاربران ویکی‌پدیای فارسی. من میلوش، یکی از ویکی‌بدان فراویکی هستم. در طی ۱۵ روز گذشته ما از وضعیت ویکی‌پدیای فارسی آگاه بوده‌ایم و پنهانی در لیست خودمان راجع به آن صحبت کردیم.از آنجایی که ویکی‌بدان ترجیح می‌دهند که فعالیت خود را محدود به پروژه‌های بنیاد کنند (ما مدیران پروژه‌های شما نیستیم) بسیار اندیشیدیم که چگونه می‌توانیم به جامعه شما کمک کنیم. در میان بحث‌ها بر سر این که سطح دخالت ما در مسائل داخلی شما تا چه میزان باشد به اجماع رسیدیم. ما موافقت کردیم که تنها انجام یک انتخابات آزاد و منصفانه و روند تصمیم‌گیری‌های مرتبط با قوانین جامعه شما را ضمانت کنیم.

با این همه اگر جامعه شما کمک ما را برنتابد مایل نیستیم کاری کنیم. بدین دلیل شما باید نخست تصمیم بگیرید که آیا مایل هستید که در مورد انتخابات و روند سیاست‌گذاری ما نظارت بکنیم و حق قانونی داشته باشیم؟

اگر چنین تصمیمی بگیرید ما در اینجا بر انتخاب و عزل مدیران و دیوان‌سالاران و بر روند سیاستگذاری نظارت خواهیم‌کرد. به یادداشته باشید که ویکی‌بدی که به زبان فارسی سخن بگوید نداریم. بنابراین اگر مایلید چیزی به ما بگویید بهتر است که به انگلیسی بیان کنید (حتی انگلیسی دست و پا شکسته هم مناسب است :)). در ضمن اگر فکر می‌کنید که موضوع مهمی دارید که به انگلیسی نمی‌توانید بیان کنید لطفا از کسی بخواهید تا آن را برایتان ترجمه کند.

در صورتی که پاسختان به این پیشنهاد مثبت باشد ۳ ماه دیگر برای باقی ماندن حضور ما باید دوباره رای‌گیری بشود.

آغاز رای‌گیری از لحظه پست این پیغام شروع می‌شود و در روز شنبه ۱۹ ژوئیه سال ۲۰۰۸ در ساعت ۲۳:۵۹ UTC به پایان می‌رسد. یک اکثریت ساده برای موافقت یا مخالفت لازم است. اگر می‌خواهید درباره این پیشنهاد نظر بدهید از بخش "نظرات" در پایین استفاده کنید.

بحث‌ها[ویرایش]

موافق Support[ویرایش]

  • sure support.i think it is very good idea to help fawiki out.thanks for your attetion

--♦ مرد تنها ♦ ب ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۳۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه Translation:

حمایت قاطع. من فکر می‌کنم که خیلی خوب است که به ویکی فارسی کمک شود. ممنون از توجه

ترجمه Translation:

حمایت شدید چون که ویکی‌پدیای فارسی یک دیوان‌سالار می‌دارد که فعال نیست و یکی از ۸ مدیر آن موارد زیادی تخطی می‌دارد (لطفاً این را ببینید.)
  • Support The only bureaucrat here made it impossible to trust him anymore. He is not responsible to the community and he doesn’t do his job when he doesn’t like to do or maybe he doesn’t like the outcome. However, I only support giving Stewards supervision over elections and election policies. It will not be necessary to have their supervision over all policies. At least I am not aware of any other problem or issue in other areas. Regards. -- احسان ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۰:۱۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه Translation:

حمایت: تنها دیوان‌سالار اینجا کاری کرده‌است که دیگر نتوان به وی اعتماد کرد. در مقابل اجتماع پاسخگو نیست و هر وقت نخواهد یا شاید هر وقت که از نتیجه راضی نیست کارش را انجام نمی‌داهد. با این حال من فقط از دادن اختیارات نظارتی به ویکی‌بدها در انتخابات و سیاست‌های انتخاباتی حمایت می‌کنم. لازم نیست که نظارت آنها بر همهٔ سیاست‌ها باشد. حد اقل من به مسئله یا مشکلی در زمینه‌های دیگر واقف نیستم. بدرود.

ترجمه Translation:

موافق. برای ویکی‌پدیای فارسی خوب نیست که بخش تحت قیومیت پروژه باشد، یا از دیگران بخواهد که جزئی از دستگاه تصمیم‌گیری آن باشند با این حال من فکر می‌کنم در این موقعیت تصمیمی قاطع از از دست دادن آینده خوش بهتر است.--مهدی.غ ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۳۴ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  • Strong Support: Farsi Wikipedia is in need of some external involvement to bring it in par with democratic spirit of Wikipedia project in general. Farsi Wikipedia has suffered some anti democratic policies and actions by some administrators and bureaucrat. This atmosphere has contributed to its relative slow development.
    --مهرداد ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۰۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه Translation:

حمایت کامل. به منظور ارتقاء روحیهء دمکراتیک، ویکیپدیای فارسی احتیاج به دخالت خارجی دارد. ویکیپدیای فارسی از عملکردهای ضد دمکراتیک بعضی مدیران و بوروکرات در رنج بوده و این جوّ نا خوش آیند، در ترقّی نسبتا آهسته آن دخیل بوده است.

ترجمه: به نظر می‌رسد که کمک ویکی‌بدها در این دوره گذار برای رفع وضع نامناسب فعلی ساختار و کارکرد مدیریتی ویکی‌پدیای فارسی لازم است.

  • Support Unfortunately, much tension arises here at the time of polling. Some people have problems with some admins. There is no policy how to drop an admin who violates the law. Usually we have lots of deadend arguments. I think your contribution helps us a lot until we have some elected bureaucrats and admins that majority respect to their opinions and they respect users as well.--محمد.رضا ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه: ‫ متأسفانه، همیشه شاهد تنش در زمان رأی‌گیری و اعمال آن هستیم. تعدادی از کاربران با تعدادی از مدیران مشکل دارند. سیاستی برای برکناری مدیران وجود ندارد. معمولاً بحث‌های بی‌پایانی بر سر این موضوع در می‌گیرد. در حال حاضر نظر من این است که نظارت ویکی‌بدان تا زمانی که حس احترام مقابل بین کاربران و مدیران و دیوانسالاران ایجاد شود به بهبود ویکی فارسی کمک شایانی می‌کند.

  • Support - The problem of Persian Wikipedia is not the disability of its users to solve their problems with logical dialogue. The problem is that some people who have Admin accesses either have not got this access with consensus of Persian Wikipedia users at the first place or they no longer have such consensus and so they don’t see themselves responsible to answer enquiries. Thus, if stewards create a situation so Admins and bureaucrats and other elected officials could be elected rightly and with consensus of users of Persian Wikipedia, then our problems would be limited to problems of a historical development. عزیزی ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۷:۰۶ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه:مشکل ویکی‌پدیای فارسی این نیست که کاربران‌اش نمی‌توانند با گفت‌وگوی منطقی مشکلات‌شان را حل کنند. مشکل‌اش این است که برخی از افرادی که دست‌رسی‌های مدیریتی دارند یا از طریق اجماع کاربران ویکی‌پدیای فارسی این دست‌رسی‌ها را به‌دست ‌نیاورده‌اند یا دیگر آن اجماع را ندارند برای همین خود را ملزم به پاسخ‌گو بودن به آنان نمی‌دانند لذا اگر ویکی‌بدها بتوانند شرایطی را به وجود بیاورند که مدیران و دیوان‌سالاران و سایر نهاد‌های انتخابی به درستی و با اجماع‌یابی از سوی کاربران ویکی‌پدیای فارسی انتخاب شوند. مشکلات ما به مشکلات توسعه‌یی تاریخی تقلیل خواهد یافت.

  • Support. I have read the conversations and I realized that it will be helpful for us to accept the suggestion. Millosh has mentioned that they are not going to judge but they are going to inform and guide. I believe that the weakness of fa.wiki is lack of useful, transparent and flexible laws, and I have mentioned it before. Of course there were efforts to approve appropriate laws, but unfortunately they have not been succeed; Because the opinion of some users was not flexible enough to accept something different from En.wiki lows. for example I have started a discussion to accept a mechanism to recall offender sysops by the community. But it has been rejected by some users because there is not a similar mechanism in en.wiki. So we can learn to make local lows for ourselves and by ourselves with the stewards' help and it is so cool. ٪ مرتضا ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

translate:

موافقم. گفتگوها را خواندم و به این نتیجه رسیدم که پیشنهاد میلوش به نفع ویکی‌پدیای فارسی است. او قرار نیست که قضاوتی بکند، بلکه قرار است اطلاع‌رسانی و راهنمایی کند. من معتقدم که مشکل ما فقدان قوانین کاربردی و شفاف و انعطاف‌پذیر است. این موضوع را قبلا هم گفته‌ام. پیش از این تلاش‌هایی برای تصویب قوانین مناسب شد اما متاسفانه به نتیجه نرسید چون برخی از کاربران آنقدر انعطاف‌پذیر نبودند که غیر از قوانین متداول در ویکی انگلیسی، چیز دیگری را بپذیرند. به طور مثال من بحثی را آغاز کردم که قانونی تصویب کنیم که اجتماع ویکی‌پدیا مختار به عزل مدیر متخلف با سازوکاری خاص باشد، اما به نتیجه نرسید چون چند کاربر آن را ردکردند به این دلیل که چنین رسمی در ویکی‌پدیای انگلیسی نیست. اما اکنون با پذیرش پیشنهاد میلوش می‌توانیم یاد بگیریم که قوانین بومی برای خودمان تصویب کنیم و این برای ما بسیار مفید خواهد بود. ٪ مرتضا ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  • strong support: unfortunately here isn`t a free encyclopedia and we need stward`s help for reconstruct it. I`ll explain my reasons in below, plz see them. thanks alot dear millosh!! user:gordafarid

ترجمه/ translat

مخالف Oppose[ویرایش]

  • مخالف: در نگر من ما خودمان می‌توانیم از پس مشکلات خود برآییم و نیازی به یاری شما دوستان گرامی نیست. آیا پیش از این چنین دخالتی در ویکیپدیای دیگری سابقه داشته است؟ سپاس از توجهتان.
  • Oppose: From my point of view, we can solve our problems ourselves. We have no need of your dear friends' help. In any other community, has such a handing ever taken precedence? Thank you for your attention.

--Wayiran (ب) ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۰۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]

I am strongly adverse the matter. we can solve our problems by ourselves.رضا ‏۲۰ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۶:۴۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]

This discussion was closed yesterday July 19th and I am regreat that you are late. Please do not modify. --سندباد ‏۲۰ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۲۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]
never mind (; رضا ‏۲۰ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۳۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

نظرات Comments[ویرایش]

User:به‌آفرید[ویرایش]

I would rather it be kept on a need to interfere basis. Whenever the community feels that something fishy is going on it can ask the Stewards to interfere.

ترجمه: من ترجیح می‌دهم که دخالت‌ها محدود به نیازهای موضعی باشد. به این معنی که هرگاه اجتماع ویکی‌نوسان احساس کرد که قضیه بودار شده‌است می‌تواند از ویکی‌بدها درخواست دخالت کند. به‌آفرید ‏۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۴۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

User:Asadi s[ویرایش]

Dear Millosh

Could you please confirm whether you are exactly talking about the election of the administrators in fa.wi or something else. If so, I would like to refer you to three main points:

1- Many people here think that fa.wi suffers from the gap between the number of (active) contributors and the number of administrators. Currently, there are only 8 administrators here of which few are totally inactive.

2- Naturally, active and helpful contributors get higher chance to be nominated and elected as admins. These people are experienced veterans and it is expected to respect and tolerate them more. However, it is totally understandable that some of them get busy with life and consequently inactive in Wikipedia. I – and maybe other people- think that they only occupy a seat in the administrators list without being helpful.

3- There are rare situations where an administrator makes conflict with the contributors or uses his/her administrative power in personal problems against a user. The user is then frightened or banned by the admin.

Now, there are few questions: . Is there any suggestions how many administrators are favourable for the current fa.wi? Is there a procedure to suspend the administrative title of an inactive person until she/he becomes active again? Is there any instructions how to dismiss an inactive or unfair admin? سعید ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۰:۵۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه:

میلوش عزیز:

آیا می‌شود که تأیید کنی که پیرامون انتخاب مدیران در ویکی فارسی صحبت می‌کنی یا چیز دیگری. اگر ایدون است دوست می‌دارم که نظرت را به سه نکته جلب کنم

۱) بسیاری از افراد اینجا بر این باورند که ویکی فارسی دچار معضل شکاف میان شمار مشارکت‌کنندگان فعال و شمار مدیران است. در حال حاضر تنها ۸ مدیر اینجایند که اندکی از آنها کاملاً نافعال‌اند.

۲) به‌طبع مشارکت‌کنندگان فعال و مفید بخت بهتری برای نامزد شدن و انتخاب شدن می‌دارند. اینان کارکشتگان با تجربه‌ای‌اند و انتظار می‌رود که بیشتر مورد احترام باشند و تحمل شوند. با این حال کاملاً قابل فهم است که بعضی آنها گرفتار مشغله‌های زنگانی شده و در ویکی نافعال شوند. من - و احتمالاً دیگران- بر این گمانیم که ایشان بی آنکه مفید باشند تنها کرسی مدیریت را اشغال کرده‌اند.

۳) موارد نادری هست که مدیری با مشارکت‌کنندگان درگیر می‌شود و در مشکلات شخصی‌اش با یکی کاربر از قدرت مدیریتی خود علیه وی استفاده می‌کند. پس کاربر ترسانیده شده یا توسط مدیر قطع دسترسی می‌شود.

حالا چند پرسش مطرح است:

آیا پیشنهادی هست مبنی بر اینکه در وضع کنونی ویکی فارسی وجود چه تعداد مدیر مطبوع است؟ آیا فرایندی برای تعلیق عنوان مدیریتی شخص نافعال تا هنکام فعالیت دوباره‌اش هست؟ آیا دستورالعملی برای خلع مدیر نافعال یا بی‌انصاف هست؟

Hi, I am not Millosh but I am a steward, who has been discussing this with other stewards. I think many of your questions are complex. One that I think I can try to answer is this:

how many admins should the fa:wp have?

I don't know the exact answer but we did some statistical analysis and I think the fa:wp wiki has far fewer admins (calculated per article and per user) than other wikis which are about the same size. That does not mean that the fa:wp has too few, but it does give you something to think about. I hope that helps you decide. If there is anything else we can help with, please ask. ++Lar: t/c ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۳:۱۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه:

سلام، من میلوش نیستم ولی یکی ویکی‌بدم که با دیگر ویکی‌بدان در این باره گفتگو داشته‌ام. بر این گمانم که بسیاری از پرسش‌های شما غامض است. یکی را که فکر می‌کنم جواب می‌توانم دادن این است:

ویکی فارسی چند مدیر بباید داشتن؟

جواب دقیقی نمی‌دانم ولی مقادیری تحلیل آماری انجام دادیم و من بر این گمانم که تعداد مدیران ویکی فارسی (با حساب بر مقاله یا بر کاربر) خیلی کمتر از ویکی‌های تقریباً هم اندازه است. این به این معنی نیست که در حد غیرقابل قبولی کم است بلکه فقط چیزی است که به آن بیندیشید. امیدورام که به کار تصمیم شما آید. اگر چیز دیگری هست که از ما کمکی در آن باره بر می‌آید لطفاً درخواهید.

User:کامیار[ویرایش]

It would be great to help us make a better condition for wikipedians who working here. I think as you suggested recently it could be a temporary solution until we gain an acceptable balance and elect new bureaucrats and sysops. definitely it is not acceptable for users to wait long time for only bureeaucrat to make a final desicion in elections. for instance you could see one open sysop request that our bureaucrat do nothing for that case and he just archieved it. Please let us use your judgement and supervising for specified period and please keep your watching in the case of users'request in future until no one make any future complain against the situation and tranquility in fa.wiki. --کامیار ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۵:۱۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  • این می‌تواند راه حل مناسبی برای کمک به ویکی‌پدیای فارسی و ایجاد محیطی بهتر برای کاربران ویکی فارسی فارسی باشد. مطابق با پیشنهاد شما این می‌تواند یک روش موقتی برای حل مشکلات تا رسیدن به تعادلی قابل قبول و انتخاب مدیران و دیوان‌سالاران جدید باشد. به راستی برای کاربران ویکی فارسی قابل پذیرش نیست تا برای روشن شدن نتیجه رأی‌گیری مدت زیادی را انتظار بکشند تا دیوان‌سالار ما نظرش را بیان کند. نمونه‌ای از این مسئله را در رأی‌گیری مدیریت زرشک می‌توانید ببینید که تنها دیوان‌سالار ما هنوز نتیجه‌ای را اعلام نکرده‌است و تنها بحث را برای تصمیم‌گیری آرشیو کرده‌است. لطفاً این امکان را به ما بدهید تا از داوری و حمایت شما برای مدتی معین استفاده کنیم و این حمایت را در درخواست‌های بعدی کاربران نیز کماکان داشته باشید تا ویکی به آرامش برسد و کمتر شاهد نارضایتی کاربران باشیم.--کامیار ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۵:۲۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

User:زرشک[ویرایش]

Greetings to the Stewards and everyone else.

I would like to take the opportunity here to voice the following concerns, as a general note of reference regarding Persian Wikipedia (which I do not deem to be that unrelated to the matter at hand). I am probably the only editor here that has a substantial edit history in both FA:WP and EN:WP, in terms of edit counts and experience on both wikis, since my first edits in 2004. As so, I have noticed the following trends on FA:WP which I believe to have room for concern:

  1. Negative atmosphere: Due to the convergence of several factors, a highly negative and frustrating atmosphere has gradually developed in fa:wp in which it has and continues to scare away many many experienced users, not to mention the new ones. A lack of trust and sincerity plagues the progress of this wikipedia, IMO.
  2. Lack of admins: This has been voiced many many times: there are not enough admins on FA:WP. And this has had and continues to have serious repercussions, in multiple ways and levels. It easily gives the impression that fa:wp has become highly monopolized by cronyism. This problem must be addressed and alleviated IMO ASAP, if there is to be any positive change of measurable levels.
  3. Admin factionalism: One pattern I have observed here is a severe atmosphere of factionalism, not just between editors , but between admins. When you have admins in factional disputes against eachother, that leaves a very bad impression on observing users.
  4. Lack of bureacrats: In essence, we have no true bureacrats. The only one we do have is not an elected one, and he has generated an army of opposition against himself over the years. This may or may not be due to his personal way of handling things (which I will not get into here), but it certainly has to do with the fact that he is the only crat we have. Unfortunately, I doubt that the prevalent aforementioned factionalism will allow any one user to attain crat status in any near future RfB. That is why your presence is a necessity, IMO.
  5. Pervailing anti-semitism: As in many wikipedias, there is an ideological war in effect here. That is normal, and to be expected, and I have no qualms with that. (People have to eventually learn to work with eachother). What is NOT normal is the fact that the verbal abuse and pattern of attacks against minority users here are often ignored by many admins. Specifically, Jewish and Bahai users have often times been subject to attacks and ad hominems in flagrant violations, in which the admins let it simply slip by, either because they are unable to respond, or dont wish to respond to the circumstance at hand. In either case, there is a heavily charged atmosphere of harrassment against minorities prevalent in fa:wp, and the sysop indifference has to stop.
  6. Sysop violations: Again, not all admins exhibit erroneous behavior, but from what I have observed here, some admins are seen once in a while directly using their powers in disputes to lock articles and even block users, when they themselves are an involved party. This has created an atmosphere in which many users are simply too afraid to voice an opinion against an admin, for fear of being reprimanded. People have come to regard admins as a super citizen of sorts, whose word has the power of a decree. The popular wikipedia mop and bucket image of an admin is more of a whistle and baton (with a grin and a cigar shall I say?) in fa:wp.
  7. Closed environment: FA:WP reminds me of that novel "Lord of the Flies" in which a closed environment (an island) exists in which a bunch of children have little or no supervision, and reign free amongst themselves, doing all sorts of malice and mischief against one another. FA:WP here is that out-post island, and it is cut off from reality and the proper ways of WP, on both user and admin levels. There is little communication with other wikis, or wiki projects. For example, there is a quasi-disregard for consensus here. Even if all users reach a consensus e.g., an admin can veto it, citing the WP maxim: "Wikipedia is not a democracy". And if you go crying for help on Meta, the usual response is: "It's a local thing. We cant interfere in local matters". Hence the Lord of the Flies island situation.

Should there be need for more elucidation or discussion on my behalf, I am available. Please dont hesitate.--زرشک ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۸:۲۲ (UTC) (a.k.a. User:Zereshk in EN:WP)[پاسخ]

ترجمه متن بالا. translation:

با سلام نزد استواردها و دیگران:

از این فرصت استفاده کرده و قصد بازگو کردن چند مطلب کلی در مورد ویکیپدیای فارسی (که زیاد هم بی ربط به این مسئله دم دست نیستند) را دارم. احتمالا من تنها کاربری اینجا هستم که هم در اینجا و هم در ویکیپدیای انگلیسی، از زمان نخستین ویرایشاتم در ۲۰۰۴، دارای سابقه زیادی هستم، هم از نظر تجربه و هم از نظر ویرایش. موارد (pattern?) زیر را که در ویکیپدیای فارسی مشاهده نموده ام به اعتقاد من جای نگرانی دارند:

  1. جو منفی: به چند دلیل همزمان، جوی بشدت منفی و ناامید کننده تدریجا در اینجا ایجاد شده که بسیاری از کاربران را، اعم از کهنه کار و تازه کار، از خود رانده و طرد میکند. نبود صمیمیت و اعتماد پیشرفت این پروژه را بنظر من دچار کسالت کرده است.
  2. کمبود مدیر: چندین بار اینجا عنوان شده: مدیر به تعداد کافی اینجا نداریم و این مسئله عواقبی داشته و دارد. مثلا براحتی این تصور را ایجاد میکند که در ویکیپدیای فارسی جوی توام با پارتی بازی و انحصارطلب حاکم شده است. این مسئله بایستی سریعا مورد توجه و حل شود، اگر قرار باشد به تغییراتی محسوس و مثبت دست یافته شود.
  3. جبهه گیری های مدیریتی: یک pattern که من اینجا مشاهده کرده ام، جبهه گیری و فراکسیون بازی نه تنها بین کاربران، بلکه بین مدیران است. درگیر بودن شخصیتی بین برخی مدیران ممکن است تصویر خیلی بدی را بر روی کاربران مشاهده گر از خود بر جای گذارد.
  4. کمبود دیوانسالار: در واقع، ما دیوانسالار حقیقی نداریم. تنها دیوانسالاری هم که داریم، منتخب نبوده، و جمع کثیری از مخالفین در طی سالیان علیه خود جذب نموده است. حال این ممکن است به نحوات برخورد ایشان و روشهایشان مربوط باشد یا نباشد (که در اینجا به بحث من مربوط نمیشود)، اما حتما یک دلیلش همین است که ایشان تنها دیوانسالار اینجا هستند. متاسفانه شک دارم که فراکسیون بازی و جبهه گیری های مذکور اجازه به دیوانسالار شدن هر کاربری را در آینده نزدیک به ما بدهند. برای همین است که من فکر میکنم حضور و نظارت شما امریست لازم.
  5. جو یهودستیزی: همانند بسیاری از ویکیپدیا ها، جنگهای ویرایشی ایدئولوژیکی بسیاری در اینجا داریم. خب این طبیعیست، و قابل پیش بینی، و من مسئله ای با آن ندارم. (مردم بلاخره باید یاد بگیرند که با هم زندگی کنند). چیزی که طبیعی نیست، آن است که توهین های علیه برخی کاربران اقلیت در اینجا بارها و توسط برخی مدیران مورد بی اعتنایی واقع میشود. بخصوص کاربران یهودی و بهایی در بسیاری موارد توسط کاربران دیگر مورد حمله مغالطه توسل به شخص میشوند که در آن مدیران از آن سرسری میگذرند، حال یا بدلیل اینکه نمیخواهند درگیر مسئله شوند، یا اینکه بدلیلی نمی توانند. در هر حال، جوی با بار harrassment بر علیه برخی کاربران اقلیت اینجا حاکم است، و ناتفاوتی مدیران باید بنظر من در این مورد متوقف شود.
  6. تخطی مدیران: تکرار میکنم، همه مدیران از خود رفتار خاطی نشان نمیدهند، اما گاهی مشاهده کرده ام که برخی مدیران از اختیارات خود مستقیما در جایی استفاده میکنند که خود یک طرف درگیر مسئله هستند، از جمله قفل کردن مقاله و سا حتی بستن کاربر. این مسئله جوی را ایجاد کرده که در آن برخی کاربران صرفا از بازگو کردن نظرات خود از ترس مواخذه قرار گرفتن خود توسط مدیر میترسند. کاربران اینجا مدیران را بسان شهروندان برتر مینگرند که کلامشان حکم فتوا دارد. اون تصویر مشهور ویکیپدیا از یک مدیر، که سطل و یک چوب‌ گردگيري را نشان میدهد، اینجا بیشتر شبیه یک سوت و باتوم است (میتوانم بگویم سیگار بدهان و با یک نیشخند؟).
  7. محیط بسته: ویکیپدیای فارسی مرا به یاد اون داستان مشهور "سالار مگس ها" می اندازد، که در آن، محیطی بسته (یک جزیره) بود که در آن یک مشت بچه آزاد و با اختیارات کامل، بدون حضور ناظر یا بزرگتری، دست به هر گونه شیطنت و آزار میزدند. ویکیپدیای فارسی همان جزیره دور افتاده است، و از حقایق و درستی های ویکیپدیا های دیگر هم در سطوح مدیریتی و هم در سطوح کاربری بدور قرار دارد. ارتباط کمی اینجا ما با ویکیپدیا های دیگر داریم. بطور مثال، ما اینجا تقریبا احترامی برای مفهوم اجماع نداریم. حتی اگر تمام کاربران بر سر مسئله ای به اجماع برسند، مدیری میتواند بخود اجازه داده و آن را وتو کند. بهانه اش هم، آن گفته ویکیپدیا است که "ویکیپدیا دموکراسی نیست". و اگر کسی به متا شکایت ببرد، جوابش هم معمولا این است که "مسئله ایست بومی. ما در مسائل بومی دخالت نمیکنیم". لذا وضعیت یالار مگسها کماکان برقرار میماند.

چنانچه کمک و یا توضیحات بیشتری مورد نیاز باشد، در خدمتیم.--زرشک ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۲:۰۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Thank you Zereshk but now I don't see "Pervailing anti-semitism" as our serious problem. maybe needs more citation.مهدی.غ ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۱:۴۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

User:سندباد[ویرایش]

Thanks for taking interest in the deteriorating situation of fa.wikipedia.

As a direct result of series of abuse of Bureaucrat's power, conducted by the current unelected Bureaucrat and his admin supporter, there is a great sence of hostility, fear, despair and mistrust between the users.

Therefore as a first step, I am suggesting one of the Stewards to close the discussion on Zereshk's RfA, in which case the current Bureaucrat failed to close, with about ~90% approval pass!

As a second step and because of the especial circumstances of the case, in which the community is stuck and imposed with an unelected crat with no popularity and trust among users whatsoever, I suggest a confidence vote on the continuing of his crat status to be considered. --سندباد ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۴۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Dear احسان, everyone has it's own opinions and it should be respected. In my opinon, with all this gross abuse of bureaucrat privileges that is practice by an un-elected user on fa.wikipedia, I don't see any real progress for a change, and until this type of power abuses continue, it would be deteriorating and harmful for the project. --سندباد ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۳:۰۶ (UTC)[پاسخ]

user:taranet[ویرایش]

As you may know, there is an ongoing election for a new elected Bureaucrat that will solve most of our problems and the community will not need an external help on elections . but on the other hand, it is better to strengthen the ties between the community as a whole (and not just sysops) and Meta wiki. This will reduce the sysop power abuse and dictatorship allegations, which are very often legitimate.--Taranet ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۱:۰۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

فارسی:همانطور که احتمالا می‌دانید اکنون یک انتخابات دیوانسالاری درجریان است. با رای‌گیری برای دیوانسالاری جدید، مشکلات جامعه ویکی فارسی کم خواهد شد و به کمک از بالا احتیاج نخواهیم داشت. اما از سوی دیگر، بهتر هم هست که ارتباط متاویکی با کل جامعه ویکی فارسی مستقیم‌تر باشد، نه اینکه از طریق مدیران در ارتباط باشند (چیزی که منجر به نارضایتی جامعه ویکی فارسی تا کنون شده‌است و آن را دیکتاتوری و سوءاستفاده از قدرت نامیده‌است).--Taranet ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۱:۰۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Dear Taranet, Thanks for sharing your opinon with us. But I am afraid that you are way too optimistic about Behaafarid's BfA. Some, who benefit from the current situation on fa.wikipedia, would not let any good change to take place.--سندباد ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۲:۰۶ (UTC)[پاسخ]

I'm afraid too امیرΣυζήτηση ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۶:۲۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

I am not optimistic too. I think like previous time this request will be refused. But I hope to hear good news. We did our best and we have to wait for others to make their final decision. --کامیار ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۲:۳۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

user:Aparhizi[ویرایش]

I thank the Stewards for their attention to the internal problems of the Persian-speaking Wikipedia community. I know the Persian Wikipedia has problems, but as I mentioned, these are internal problems, and I believe that today's community of the Persian Wikipedia has enough abilities and awareness to solve these problems successfully. Such problems are unavoidable in the path to our growth and development, and learning how to handle the problems and taking care of them is itself a part of that path. Although I know that the Stewards have had good will in the suggestion, I am worried that such an interference would create a divide among the users and increase the load of problems, considering that none of the Stewards understand the Persian language. Still, as Behaafarid said, whenever we fill that we are in an acute situation, we will immediately ask for the help and advice of our friend in Meta.Aparhizi ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۱۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه:از توجه ویکی‌بدها به مشکلات درونی جامعه ویکی‌پدیای فارسی زبان تشکر می‌کنم. می‌دانم ویکی فارسی مشکلاتی دارد، اما چنان که گفتم این مشکلات درونی هستند، به گمان من جامعه امروز ویکی‌پدیای فارسی زبان آنقدر توانایی و آگاهی دارد که به خوبی از عهده حل این مشکلات برآید. در راه پیشرفت چنین مشکلاتی ناگزیر هستند و دست و پنجه نرم کردن با آن مشکلات خود بخشی از مسیر توسعه‌ است که باید طی شود. با آن که می‌دانم ویکی‌بدها در طرح این پیشنهاد حسن‌نیت داشته‌اند، اما می‌ترسم که این دخالت منجر به ایجاد دودستگی در میان کاربران شود و بار مشکلات را بیشتر کند بخصوص که متأسفانه هیچ کدام از ویکی‌بدها با زبان فارسی نیز آشنایی ندارند. با این حال چنان که به‌آفرید گفت هر گاه احساس کنیم که درگیر مشکلی حاد شده‌ایم بی‌درنگ از دوستان خود در متا برای حل آن کمک و راهنمایی خواهیم خواست.Aparhizi ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۱۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

"I am worried that such an interference would create a divide among the users and increase the load of problems"

100% agreed.

--Wayiran (ب) ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۴:۵۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

user:Taslim[ویرایش]

Guys, Please let us know how you understand that we may need your help? In other words who exactly informed you about this issue?--Taslim ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۴۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

دوستان، لطفا به ما بگویید چطور در یافتید که ممکن است ما به کمک شما نیاز داشته باشیم، به کلام دیگر دقیقا چه کسی در مورد این موضوع به شما اطلاع داد؟--Taslim ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۴۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Inappropriate question. --سندباد ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۵۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

agree. --سلحشور پارس ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۵:۰۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Millosh's comments[ویرایش]

I'll try to give answers to your questions at once. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

First of all, you should understand that stewards are not judges (as well as they are not admins of your project). To be honest, we have a lot of problems when we get ask for help from any developed community (and Persian Wikipedia is, whithout any doubt, a developed community). As bigger community is, our concerns toward interferring in internal matters are bigger. What stewards are -- is the question on which giving answer is very hard. We have some set of the rules, we have well known permissions (all permissions at all projects), but it is very hard to give the answer for what purpose we are able to use our permissions. (Except, of course, some obvious reasons, like spam prevention is, for example.) --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

However, Wikimedia community doesn't have all needed institutions (like Global ArbCom is) and, from time to time, we are getting requests like this one -- to try to solve some local problem. But, we are not able to make any decision instead of some local community. The only thing which we may do is to help to a local community to make their own decision(s). --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Number of admins[ویرایش]

As Lar said, we are aware of the number of admins at fa.wp. In comparison with the Wikipedias with developed communities from your area and similar cultural background (of course, not the same) -- Arabic and Turkish Wikipedias -- they have 35% and 80% more users than Persian Wikipedia, but more than 100% and 150% more admins than Persian Wikipedia. It should be mentioned, too, that Turkish and Arabic Wikipedias are very conservative in relation to giving admin rights. For example, Norwegian Wikipedia has something more than 80.000 of registered users (Persian has something more than 96.000 registered users) and 64 admins (8 times more than Persian Wikipedia). --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

My personal opinion about this fact is complex: At the one side, it seems obvious that number of admins correlates with culture background of contributors (which doesn't mean that it is good or bad). At the other side, it is, also, obvious that Persian Wikipedia has the lowest number of admins at all, even in the comparison with other Wikipedias from the same cultural background. So, it is up to you to decide what should you do. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Again, my personal opinion is that having more admins means that you will have more highly motivated contributors. I'll give to you the comparison between your community and community which I initiated -- around Serbian Wikipedia: --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Also, except some marginal cases, like Yiddish Wiktionary (note: not Hebrew, not Wikipedia) is (53 admins, ~170 articles), it seems to me that number of admins has a strong correlation with the number of edits and the number of articles. If not so, Turkish Wikipedia would be at 11th place by number of articles and (it is now at the 19th place), Arabic Wikipedia would be at 14th place (it is now at the 30th place) and Persian Wikipedia would be at 15th place (it is now at the 38th place). --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

So, in my opinion, having more admins is a very positive input for one Wikimedia project. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Of course, there are problems which may raise from such open policy. Giving permissions to every user which is willing to have them and who didn't make any big mistake may be dangerous. Serbian Wikipedia had hard times because of that, but those times were passed. My suggestion (but, which you have to analyze, not to adopt without any criticism!) here is to give admin rights to every constructive contributor who didn't make any non-trivial mistake in some longer period (three months, six months, a year?). --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Relations with the rest of the community[ویرایش]

Taranet mentioned that you should make ties with the global community stronger. It is very true, not only because of possible abuses of the rights at the local level, but especially because of making possibility that the voice of your community become heard by others. I suggest to every contributor interested in the global issues to: (1) subscribe to the foundation-l mailing list and (2) to become involved at Meta. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

A very important issue here is that we are able to build free knowledge and the culture around the free knowledge only if contributors from different projects start to contribute to the communication mediums of the common interest, like the foundation-l list and Meta wiki are. Of course, if any of you need some help for involvement in global issues, I would be glad to help them. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Stewards' help[ویرایش]

Behaafarid and Aparhizi mentioned that they prefer to ask stewards for help only from issue to issue. Eh kia said that they don't prefer stewards' help in policy making processes. Those issues are connected, so I'll give the answer on both issues: --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

First of all: We are not able to help you if you don't want it. It is related to this poll now (as a global quesiton), but to every specific decision which you would willing to make even if you give to us a positive answer. This is because of the two main reasons: --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  1. A technical one: we don't know Persian, some of the stewards know to read Arabic/Persian alphabet, but for the most of us it is easier to us to "read" encoded URLs like "%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7" than to read Arabic/Persian script. So, if you don't say anything, if you don't show links to us, if you don't translate your positions in English, we are almost absolutely unable to do anything. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  2. The reason related to the policy and stewards behavior: As I mentioned a number of times, we are not here to make any decision. Decisions are yours. Persian Wikipedia has developed community and we didn't come here to tell you that "Wikipedia is not a blog" or that "someone made important objections for hate speech at your project" or that "you made large scale copyright violation and that you have to remove all of that" and so on (yes, we had such situations at other, not so developed projects). As I am aware from different sources, including this page, community around Persian Wikipedia is far from such position and, of course, it should stay far from that. In other words, as a developed community, from stewards' perspective Persian Wikipedia has the same status as English, French, German, Japanese etc. Wikipedia. Our rules prohibit to us making any decision at such projects. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

At the other side, it is very hard to move stewards from the position of not-doing-anything. Giving to you support for one RfA and one RfB seems to me like giving two fishes to the hungry person and thinking that the problem is solved. I want to give to you those two fishes, but I want to give to you a fishhook and to teach you how to fish, too. But, of course, I can't do that if you don't want to take and learn that. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

As I understood, you don't have developed local policies (which is not good); as well as you have a general rule to adopt the rule from the English Wikipedia if you don't have your own (which is in the most of the cases a very useful custom). The main reason why I said that we are willing to help to you in policy making process is that: You should make the set of the basic rules which are appropriate to your situation. In other words, stewards didn't offer to you a help related to, for example, notability issues; but to the articulation of your own basic rules which would drive your project: How to introduce the new policy? How to change some policy? What are the requirements for the new admin or bureaucrat? What are the rules for recall of one admin or bureaucrat? And similar. When you make those rules for your own project and when such policies are clear to (almost) all of the contributors, you will not need our help anymore and we will be happy because of that. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

About Zereshk's comments[ویرایش]

Zereshk made a very good and informative analysis of the situation at Persian Wikipedia. I have to say that there is no a lot of differences between Persian Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. Of course, some projects are using one path, some other are using some different. However, all of the mentioned problems are problems which in bigger or lesser amount exist at the most of the projects: --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  1. Negative atmosphere is usual everywhere from time to time. You are the most responsible for the atmosphere at your project and you have to work on that. It is not easy, but it is achievable! I and other stewards may help in this issue by talking with you about your problems. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  2. Lack of admins and lack of bureaucrats. Yes, this is some kind of the specific problem of your community and this is some kind of the central point around the whole of the issue. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  3. Admin factionalism. Take a look at the English Wikipedia :) OK, this is the problem, but you should work on that. And if you find some solution, please tell that to the rest of the community (at foundation-l, for example)! It may be very useful in solving other similar problems. Also, take a look at the policies around adminship ad the English Wikipedia. It may be useful to you. They are dealing (while not so successfully) with that for a long time. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  4. Anti-semitism (and nationalism). This is a problem, but, this problem exists more or less intensive at the most of other projects. You have to work hardly on that. At sr.wp we did a lot of things to prevent those tendencies and one of the best qualities there is the lack of any kind of discrimination. (Which, of course, doesn't mean that sr.wp doesn't have any problem.) So, this is your job. Other Wikimedians (including stewards) may help to you with advices, but there is no one outsider who is able to change that inside of your community. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  5. For solving sysop violations there should be a clear policy for removing rights. Admins may become not so popular because of their actions, but, if, let's say, one (existing) admin doesn't have simple majority support at the poll for their recall -- they shouldn't be admin anymore. Of course, the other issue is election process, when at least 2/3 support should be achived, but 80% is more common at the most of the projects. In other words: One admin may be elected with 80% of support, but may be recalled with less than 50% of support. The difference of 30% is used for doing not so popular actions at the projects (for example, even removing copyrighted images may be very unpopular at one Wikipedia). --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  6. Closed environment. I said above that you should become more involved in the global issues. This is, again, your responsibility. And, again, a lot of Wikimedians (including, of course, me) will help you in such aims. It is true that more Perisan Wikipedians involved in the global issues means that you will have more open environment. --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Of course, feel free to comment any of my statements. We are discussing and I would like to hear what do you think :) --Millosh ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

I'm using bkg color to increase readability, and to decrease eye strain.

Thanks for your detailed response. It was encouraging (that an outsider would pay attention to us). At the same time though, I felt discouraged as well, because if stewards dont have at least some authority or degree of enforceability, than I fear nothing will ever change here. If fa:wp was capable of making their own decisions, the stewards wouldnt be here, and this discussion wouldnt exist. The reason fa:wp is so stuck is not because users dont know how to run things and make decisions, but because they dont want to progress, unless their individual factional and political interests are secured. Allow me to go into details a bit further on the points you discussed:
  • Domestic policies: I do think that there is a lack of interest on developing domestic policies. For example, on July 2, here I wrote a proposal that (on par with en:wp:pg) we add a sentence to the current translated policy, further delineating the difference between a guideline and a policy (as I have seen some users are still confused by the two). It has been 4 days now, and not even one response has been given to my suggestion. That needs to change, and it is something that I (and other users) can work on. So there is certainly room for optimism there.
  • Lack of crat/admins: I do think that the most effective solution to the present crisis is the proliferation of admins and crats. However I fear that, left to our own devices, such things will never happen easily. People here, including current admins, often vote for a RfA or RfB, based on the person's political, religious, and factional leanings, instead of based on the person's technical abilities, maturity and skills. I can right now name at least 4-5 users here that are more than eligible to become admins. But they are so hesitant. Why? Because they have seen what happens to current and recent RfAs and RfBs. Take for example this failed RfA: One of the reasons given against the RfA applicant was that he has spelled his name with an Arabic Y, instead of a Persian font y! When people dig up things like that against you, and discuss 20-30 kilobytes of RfA talk space on that very trivial matter, the RfA process never reaches any consensus. When users vote based on ideology, instead of meritocracy, that makes an RfA or RfB a very frustrating experience that many people will want to avoid.
  • Abuse of minorities and anti-semitism: That you are unable to help here is a bit discouraging, because this matter runs a bit deep. It is a cultural phenomenon IMO, and discussing such things is even a taboo here. I am probably the first non-minority user here who has had the guts to bring up this issue in the open. And already, in the past 24 hours, I have received messages, scolding me for even mentioning such things to you. Many users (as you noticed one case above), dont even acknowledge the existence of such matters. If people here were capable of correcting these faults and solving these issues here, there would be no call for help to you and to Meta. I fear that the only thing minorities here can do is continue to tolerate the abuse, and hope for the better.
  • Recalls: Your point 5 is perhaps a crucial issue here as well. You mentioned that "if, let's say, one (existing) admin doesn't have simple majority support at the poll for their recall -- they shouldn't be admin anymore". To the best of my knowledge, there is no functional mechanism here for recalling an admin or crat. There is intense and severe resistance to even having a policy on recalls (mostly by admins themselves). Factionalizing always prevents such things from happening. Every admin always has a posse of followers. Every user here goes to his or her admin of similar political/religious affiliation, when in trouble. As for the percentages you analyzed, here, they almost dont have any meaning (unfortunately). An issue can have a +90% approval rate of consensus, but it can be vetoed and shot down very easily, using some form of excuse. There is always an excuse to be found by opposing factions. Always.
Again, Millosh, I greatly appreciate your willing to come here and discuss things here. I just hope that some change comes out of this all.
--زرشک ‏۶ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۲:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

(Yes, different colors are helpful; I noticed that some parts of wiki syntax doesn't work here. So, I'll continue to write without colors [white background] and others may choose their color.) --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

There are two different kinds of help which you may expect from me. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

The first one is strictly related to the question and it is related to other stewards, too: If you agree that you need stewards to guarantee your processes (elections and policy-making for some time), guaranteeing of that assumes some level of enforcement (but I am sure that it will not be needed). --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

The second issue is related to me as a Wikimedian. I am willing to participate in your discussions, to tell you what do I think that may be the best for your case, etc. In that case there is no need for any formal approval, as well as there is no any kind of enforcement. It is, simply, an offer for good will service. Of course, it is obvious that you need to accept that offer; otherwise, I won't be able to participate in your discussions. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

I see that the community wants some changes. If it is not true, stewards wouldn't be aware of the situation here. This is good for the beginning. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

There are two issues related to policies, lack of admins and recalls. First, stewards came here to guarantee that the community is able to articulate their own will. Second, you should start to think (I may try to help; as well as I already gave to you some proposals) what policies would be the most appropriate for you. For example, you may introduce yearly confirmation of the admin and bureaucrat status. Note that if you have some policy, with or without this process, stewards are obligated to work according to the local policy. For example, if you introduce yearly confirmation and some admin doesn't pass that, stewards have to remove his or her permissions. This means that well defined policies at your projects are mandatory for stewards, too. If you develop them, it may give to you a possibility for easier functioning. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

About the problems related to the culture: While Wikipedia works greatly toward intercultural understanding, it is not a magical tool for solving all problems inside of some culture. Also, Iranian society is not any kind of an exception for problems inside of the culture. As a linguist, I may give to you a lot of examples all over the world: Some of them are funny, some of them are far from funny, but that opposition -- funny or not funny -- is deeply related to the picture of the world which every person has. It is very possible that I may treat something as "funny", while you will treat the same issue as "not so funny". --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

So, we need to find some way how to deal with our problems. First of all, we need to talk a lot; to find what are our common goals and what to do to minimize harming each other. This is very complex issue. Solution can't be find during the night, but it is achievable. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

So, I am here not only as a steward, but as an ordinary Wikimedian willing to help you. It seems that I'll start to learn Persian, finally :) I am starting with that for a long time, but it seems that it seems that I am not able to delay that anymore. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

And I have to say that I am impressed by the number of independent minds here, at Persian Wikipedia. I am sure that you have a very good future, as an important part of the Wikimedian community as a whole. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۹:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Dear millosh, I think it is a good time to strat a project for recalling Admins an Crats in fa wiki. As you said you are here to help us make new and effective regulations an policies. In the past we were trying to make these kind of regulations but unfortunately we couldnt make those effective because a little groups of user who they have powers in their hand were not agreed and actully we couldnt make those effective. in fact in the past times fa wiki was very little with a few active users and our Admins were selected easily with just 10 or at last 15 possitive vote with no discussion and any kind of controversies. after years fa wiki become popular and many user now working here and maybe some of those old admins and only Crat are not longer reliable and popular in the sens of new wikipedians community. We need such a system to recall them at least one time after specific time and they have to show their popularity and reliability to us. You could easily see the number of active wikipedians and you can find among them many new users who are not satisfied with their Admins or Crats and they are begging for changes but no one will hear them. anyway if you are agree with this POV please let me know. I am sure many wikipedians will support this idea and will follow this issue up.--کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۰:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Stewards are here to help you to make your decisions related to your policies. So, you should start with doing that (and link to your discussion here; and try to keep important parts of the policy talks translated into English). This is my official position. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

As a Wikimedian, i suggest to you the next formula: --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه: من فرمول زیر را به شما پیشنهاد می کنم:--Taslim ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۵:۳۸ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه: مدیران باید با حداقل 70% آراء پس از بحث انتخاب گردند. مثلا بحث باید 7 روز و انتخابات 7 روز به طول انجامد.--Taslim ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۵:۳۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه: دیوانسالاران باید در فرایند مشابه ولی با 80% پشتیبانی انتخاب گردند.--Taslim ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۵:۳۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  • Once per year (let's say, during the first month of your calendar; I suppose that it is something like April or May) you should confirm all admins and all bureaucrats. Let's say, admins with less than 50% support and bureaucrats with less than 60% support should lose their permissions. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه: سالی یکبار (مثلا در ماه فرودین ...) شما باید تمام مدیران و دیوانسالاران را ابقا کنید. مثلا مدیران با کمتر از 50% پشتیبانی و دیوانسالاران با کمتر از 60% حمایت حق دسترسی خود را از دست بدهند.--Taslim ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۵:۳۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Needed majority is somewhat lower than your current customs, but it seems to me that it is good enough for having more admins; and I think that you need more new admins. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

However, you should discuss about this proposal, as well as you should think about your own solutions. As I said above, make the page for the new admin and bureaucrat policy, link it here, keep the most important parts of the discussion translated in English and start with discussion. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

It is useful to put some frames for discussion and decision-making process: Let's say that you should discuss for 15 days and that you should vote another 15 days for policy adoption. 80% of agreement would be the best solution, but every agreement made by more than 2/3 of contributors should be adopted. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

As this policy seems to be urgent, you should make it first. However, the most important policy which you should adopt is needed majority for not general purposes. English Wikipedia has 80% rule, Serbian Wikipedia has 70% rule, but there are communities which are making some decisions with simple majority. It is up to you to decide what should be the best. I think that you shouldn't go below the level of 2/3 contributor in favor of the decision. At the other side, you should think carefully is your community able to function with 80% or more level of agreement. (At sr.wp we realized that it is not possible to function with such required level, so we made the rule to require lesser amount of agreement.) --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Dear Millosh

I have just made a related page in english for gathering our colleagues' views and making some result and policy. --کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۶:۲۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

the page address is :

ویکی‌پدیا:انتخاب مجدد مدیران و دیوان‌سالاران در ویکی فارسی

--کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۶:۲۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

User:Agha Behzad[ویرایش]

I am an active editor in other wiki projects. Although I have joint wikifarsi recently, I have been observing the situation of wikifarsi for a long time. Unfortunately, admin shortage has resulted another problem. The quality of articles in Wikifarsi is not comparable with many other projects. This is highly due to lack of admins who are familiar with useful wiki polices that are necessary to produce good quality articles. Maybe it is exaggeration, but sometimes I think that WP:POV, WP:CITE. ویکی‌پدیا:منابع معتبر, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and... are forgotten policies in wikifarsi. Definitely, wikifarsi needs more admins who are familiar with these policies. Most of current admins have almost the same skills. If there are more admins, there is more chance to have different admins with different adminship skills. --آقا بهزاد ‏۲۴ نوامبر ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۵:۰۴ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Arbitration committee[ویرایش]

Dear Millosh, nowadays we are trying to stablish arbitration committee to solve our problems systematically and almost all active users are taking part in this activity and now we have candidates and poll is open for gaining consensus. actually I have to say that we were trying to make mediation committee one years ago but failed to response and no one pursue that issue and now it is obsolete. is it possible for us to have arbitration committee without mediation system? is there any relation between them? now there is good chance for users to getting involved in making necessary policies. would you please instruct us in this matter? thankx

--کامیار ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۶:۲۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Everything which you are willing to have as a mechanism for solving your internal problems is possible to have. So, there is no problem to have the ArbCom and don't have MedCom. Maybe, later, you will realized that you need MedCom as a step before the ArbCom level. I'll give to you an example from sr.wp, again. The most active contributor in the community regulation proposed a couple of months ago (which was adopted), some kind of MedCom which has some enforcing powers. So, by function, it is a pure MedCom (resolves disputes), but it has power to say that someone will be blocked for limited amount of time. However, it doesn't have a power to deal with anything else (electing CheckUsers, enforcing policies and similar). Maybe, you need something like that? The name is not the problem (you may call it as ArbCom), but the sense is important: it wouldn't be a body with superpowers, but a body which deals with disputes between contributors. --Millosh ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۲۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Thank you, our project is running and user contribute widely in this matter. Our views are almost near to each others and I think we have to use this chance for some changes. I will add the necessary links for you but those talks are in Persian and we have to make an abstract for you in near future or just after ending the project we will inform you the result. --کامیار ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۳۴ (UTC)[پاسخ]

See also[ویرایش]

برگرفته از «https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی/نظارت_ویکی‌بدان_بر_انتخابات_و_سیاست‌گذاری_در_ویکی‌پدیای_فارسی&oldid=31759951»