विकिपीडियासम्भाषणम्:प्रबंधक/Discussion archive

message: This Discussion is currently closed. Apply for any changes here.
__TOC__

message: This policy is currently under discussion. You can decide to Support the proposal, or Oppose it. Any feedback would be appreciated. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ११:०१, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
=== Support ===
* ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛
*  Support--Mayur १३:००, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Support. (Subject to resolution of the "Inactive admin" section) Rao7 •Talk १७:१७, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Support because this statement of Mayurभवानी गौतम ०१:४७, ८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  SupportKrantmlverma (चर्चा) १४:५१, २४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  SupportUser:Mr.ankit97
*  --आशीष भटनागर (चर्चा) ०७:०३, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
=== Oppose ===
# I oppose (My oppose is for only This- भवानी गौतम १७:१६, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)Moved to support because  this statement of Mayurभवानी गौतम ०१:४७, ८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  OPPOSE Inactivity is NEVER a reason for losing rights. --Rsrikanth05 १२:१२, १० जून् २०११ (UTC) As per my talk with Mike, votes of Non community members can't be counted. You are most welcome to comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ १२:५३, १० जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :Wait a minute. I mean that people outside the community get lesser weightage, they are not restricted from making notes in support or oppose sections. Rao7 •Talk १८:२३, १० जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :@Srikanth, In many wikis, there is an inactivity clause in their policies. This is primarily in order to ensure that the tools do not get into wrong hands, in case the accounts are compromised. Having said this, I'm not a huge fan of this clause, and I only reluctantly support this. Rao7 •Talk १८:२८, १० जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  अहह, क्षम्यतां मित्राणि। अहं न तिष्ठामि समर्थनाय। प्रथमं वदतु मां, को नाम प्रदास्यति पुनः प्रबंधकत्वं प्रशासकत्वं वा नितरां जनाभावे अत्र, षण्मासपश्चात् पुनरागमनेऽपि। सविस्तरं टिप्पणी अधस्तात् पश्यतु। -Hemant wikikosh (चर्चा) ०९:१४, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
=== Neutral ===
 We hardly have 10 users who regularly edit and there is hardly any need for an inactive admin policy. Pardon me for being cynical but this whole effort seems to be futile for me at this point. - रामप्रियः सम्भाषणम् ०९:४१, ११ जून् २०११ (UTC)
 Having second (third? fourth?) thoughts on this one. I really don't see a pressing need. Rao7 •Talk १२:१४, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
=== Comments ===
* Comment: I am tweaking this a little bit. It should not make users feel like administrators are special users or anything; let us allow any user to apply (as in enwiki, and some other wikis), but let the editcount requirement be suggestive rather than compulsory. Feel free to comment/criticize my comment, and comment accordingly. :) Rao7 •Talk १८:४०, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Comment: I have changed the text quite a lot; It essentially means the same thing, but I've broken it down. Please read the whole thing again carefully and place your comments (I hope you don't mind that I took that liberty). Rao7 •Talk १९:०९, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Suggestion: I think it is only fair that all the clauses mentioned in this policy be effective after this is passed. Any requests placed before this is passed should not come under this policy. Rao7 •Talk १९:२४, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Comment Thanks for your suggestions. Just wanted to know Do we need to make some changes on the required edit count. Also I want to have a requirement for crat that the user should have experience of adminship and a time period like Admin from 3 months, 6 months. I think 3 months would be fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ०७:१५, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)

text: :I think 6 months would be ok, though I am perfectly fine with 3 months. Rao7 •Talk ०८:००, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think it should be 6 months as a admin--Mayur १४:३६, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* hi: परन्तु हमें पहले यह सोच लेना होगा कि छः-सात माह बाद जब वह अधिकारवंचित प्रबंधक पुनः अनुरोध करेगा तो यहाँ कुछ सदस्य सक्रिय मिल पायेंगे। क्योंकि अन्यथा तो उसे पुनः अधिकार देगा ही कौन? 
en: First of all I welcome all our friends here over sa.wiki, as I've been trying hard to instigate activity on this wiki, during the times of wildernesses. I also welcome our hi.wiki friends, to share their experiences and know-how here. Secondly, I should make it clear that I am not an Admin or Sysop or Bureaucrat on this wikipedia (or any other for that matter), lest the reader should think that this is self-promotion (or self-dilution, as the case may be). Rather this is an benevolently given thought. 
This is strange that on such a wikipedia where people hardly peep, we are thinking of how to remove admins from their rights on the basis of their inactiveness. Though this not totally useless subject; but we should first try on constructive things. First of all our community should test themselves (rather than the illusive 'post' of admin/bureaucrat) whether the community can remain active for continuous 1 year (or 8 months, say)? If we can pass that mark then only we can plan about what to do with inactive admins. Because otherwise we will end up losing our admins, who would then apply again after coming back and waiting infinitely for 7 votes (or 8 as be applicable). Further, sa.wiki is not only un-comparable to en.wiki but also so to hi.wiki. In case of Hindi large masses know that language (and %age growing with 74% literacy reached). While Sanskrit is 'Greek to' most of Indians, and if some good Sanskrit knowers  somehow become admin, they should not be bewildered by these petty requirements, at least for now. Why not to give our energy to standardizing Sanskrit wikipedia, because several important subjects (including when to use Halant in foreign words, which Vibhakti to be used in titles, What topics to be emphasized, and so on..) are waiting for attention from the time immemorial over here. I think we should definitely heed for norms for when to give adminship, but when to revoke it, has yet to be tested by level of activeness on this wiki. All the best to all of our wiki-friends. Thanks.
sa:रामप्रियवर्येण राववर्येण च सत्यमेवोक्तं यद् अत्र प्रथमं विकिपीडियायाः संवर्धनं कर्तव्यम्, पश्चादेव किंचिदन्यत् चिन्तनीयम्। पुनश्च धन्यवादाः सर्वेभ्यः विकिशुभचिन्तकेभ्यः। -Hemant wikikosh (चर्चा) १०:४४, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)

text: Hi hemant, a lot has changes since you have come back. Lot of work is being going on for making sanskrit wikipedia better. Admin policy will ensure that we don't come to a situation where there are 25 admins and just 4 of them are active, the same situation hi wiki has suffered. As of today also, 3 of our 6 admins, are heavily inactive. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ (चर्चा) १०:५५, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Comment against proposal This may be useful on the wikis like English wiki which has crores of articles and hundreds of adms and bureaucrats. Sanskrit wiki, which is just growing, it has less than ten active community members. I think let's first discuss how to grow our numbers secondly grow qualitative articles. If any person has contributed a lot then is absent for more than six months is to be considered, we should not be ungrateful for his/her work. He may not be on line or logged in but may be working offline( talking about wiki with friends, encouraging people to join wiki, writing article on the paper due to the unavailability of internet facility- as the facility is not available in all villages in India), He may be on long tour to abroad or may be fallen sick or hospitalized. 
Dear friends why we think to subtract? Let's add first to make our wiki strong. Let the name of absentees to remain here, it will not take more space, they will come and work for wiki, thanks-भवानी गौतम १७:४८, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :I actually agree with Bhawani Gautam on this. Rao7 •Talk १९:१३, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: ::I disagree on this point, bcoz purpose of that removal policy is to increase activenss of an admin, How can we give a admin flag to such a user who is not able to perform 25 edits in 6 months, that will not only increase inactive admins in sa wiki but also vandalism too.Adminship should not be considered as a Post, it a package of rights that are given to a reliable user to perform such deeds regularly.By revoking their sysop tool, we are not revoking their Editing right.--Mayur ०४:३७, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
If this increases the activeness, numbers of articles and quality of articles, I too support strongly this. Let us see the rules of others wikis and decide the matter. There are many adms inactive for the last eight or more on Nepali wiki but we are waiting their return. And without removing them we have increased articles from 5000 to 13800 within eight month (ie after October 2010). We should not decide in hurry , in Hindi wiki also one year absent thanks.-भवानी गौतम ०५:२२, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
====sysop tool back as soon as they become active====

text: ::Hindi Wiki we removed nearly 18 inactive admins but we didnot remove two users which having very good editing career in hindi wiki and we will also return back the desysoped admins their sysop tool back as soon as they become active, Same can be done for Sa wiki.A desysoped Admin should be returned their sysop tool back as soon as they become active.--Mayur ०६:१०, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :::As Mayur says, many wikis do have an inactive admin policy. Though I agree with Bhawani's rationale, I wouldn't mind supporting an inactive admin policy. Rao7 •Talk ०७:४९, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)

text: :::A point to note is that, as Mayur says, inactive admins can be given their right as and when they resume editing. Rao7 •Talk २०:४१, ७ जून् २०११ (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: * ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛
*  Support--Mayur १३:००, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Support. (Subject to resolution of the "Inactive admin" section) Rao7 •Talk १७:१७, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Support because this statement of Mayurभवानी गौतम ०१:४७, ८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  SupportKrantmlverma (चर्चा) १४:५१, २४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  SupportUser:Mr.ankit97
*  --आशीष भटनागर (चर्चा) ०७:०३, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # I oppose (My oppose is for only This- भवानी गौतम १७:१६, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)Moved to support because  this statement of Mayurभवानी गौतम ०१:४७, ८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  OPPOSE Inactivity is NEVER a reason for losing rights. --Rsrikanth05 १२:१२, १० जून् २०११ (UTC) As per my talk with Mike, votes of Non community members can't be counted. You are most welcome to comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ १२:५३, १० जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :Wait a minute. I mean that people outside the community get lesser weightage, they are not restricted from making notes in support or oppose sections. Rao7 •Talk १८:२३, १० जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :@Srikanth, In many wikis, there is an inactivity clause in their policies. This is primarily in order to ensure that the tools do not get into wrong hands, in case the accounts are compromised. Having said this, I'm not a huge fan of this clause, and I only reluctantly support this. Rao7 •Talk १८:२८, १० जून् २०११ (UTC)
*  अहह, क्षम्यतां मित्राणि। अहं न तिष्ठामि समर्थनाय। प्रथमं वदतु मां, को नाम प्रदास्यति पुनः प्रबंधकत्वं प्रशासकत्वं वा नितरां जनाभावे अत्र, षण्मासपश्चात् पुनरागमनेऽपि। सविस्तरं टिप्पणी अधस्तात् पश्यतु। -Hemant wikikosh (चर्चा) ०९:१४, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: We hardly have 10 users who regularly edit and there is hardly any need for an inactive admin policy. Pardon me for being cynical but this whole effort seems to be futile for me at this point. - रामप्रियः सम्भाषणम् ०९:४१, ११ जून् २०११ (UTC)
 Having second (third? fourth?) thoughts on this one. I really don't see a pressing need. Rao7 •Talk १२:१४, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: * Comment: I am tweaking this a little bit. It should not make users feel like administrators are special users or anything; let us allow any user to apply (as in enwiki, and some other wikis), but let the editcount requirement be suggestive rather than compulsory. Feel free to comment/criticize my comment, and comment accordingly. :) Rao7 •Talk १८:४०, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Comment: I have changed the text quite a lot; It essentially means the same thing, but I've broken it down. Please read the whole thing again carefully and place your comments (I hope you don't mind that I took that liberty). Rao7 •Talk १९:०९, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Suggestion: I think it is only fair that all the clauses mentioned in this policy be effective after this is passed. Any requests placed before this is passed should not come under this policy. Rao7 •Talk १९:२४, ३ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Comment Thanks for your suggestions. Just wanted to know Do we need to make some changes on the required edit count. Also I want to have a requirement for crat that the user should have experience of adminship and a time period like Admin from 3 months, 6 months. I think 3 months would be fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ०७:१५, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :I think 6 months would be ok, though I am perfectly fine with 3 months. Rao7 •Talk ०८:००, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think it should be 6 months as a admin--Mayur १४:३६, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* hi: परन्तु हमें पहले यह सोच लेना होगा कि छः-सात माह बाद जब वह अधिकारवंचित प्रबंधक पुनः अनुरोध करेगा तो यहाँ कुछ सदस्य सक्रिय मिल पायेंगे। क्योंकि अन्यथा तो उसे पुनः अधिकार देगा ही कौन? 
en: First of all I welcome all our friends here over sa.wiki, as I've been trying hard to instigate activity on this wiki, during the times of wildernesses. I also welcome our hi.wiki friends, to share their experiences and know-how here. Secondly, I should make it clear that I am not an Admin or Sysop or Bureaucrat on this wikipedia (or any other for that matter), lest the reader should think that this is self-promotion (or self-dilution, as the case may be). Rather this is an benevolently given thought. 
This is strange that on such a wikipedia where people hardly peep, we are thinking of how to remove admins from their rights on the basis of their inactiveness. Though this not totally useless subject; but we should first try on constructive things. First of all our community should test themselves (rather than the illusive 'post' of admin/bureaucrat) whether the community can remain active for continuous 1 year (or 8 months, say)? If we can pass that mark then only we can plan about what to do with inactive admins. Because otherwise we will end up losing our admins, who would then apply again after coming back and waiting infinitely for 7 votes (or 8 as be applicable). Further, sa.wiki is not only un-comparable to en.wiki but also so to hi.wiki. In case of Hindi large masses know that language (and %age growing with 74% literacy reached). While Sanskrit is 'Greek to' most of Indians, and if some good Sanskrit knowers  somehow become admin, they should not be bewildered by these petty requirements, at least for now. Why not to give our energy to standardizing Sanskrit wikipedia, because several important subjects (including when to use Halant in foreign words, which Vibhakti to be used in titles, What topics to be emphasized, and so on..) are waiting for attention from the time immemorial over here. I think we should definitely heed for norms for when to give adminship, but when to revoke it, has yet to be tested by level of activeness on this wiki. All the best to all of our wiki-friends. Thanks.
sa:रामप्रियवर्येण राववर्येण च सत्यमेवोक्तं यद् अत्र प्रथमं विकिपीडियायाः संवर्धनं कर्तव्यम्, पश्चादेव किंचिदन्यत् चिन्तनीयम्। पुनश्च धन्यवादाः सर्वेभ्यः विकिशुभचिन्तकेभ्यः। -Hemant wikikosh (चर्चा) १०:४४, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)

text: Hi hemant, a lot has changes since you have come back. Lot of work is being going on for making sanskrit wikipedia better. Admin policy will ensure that we don't come to a situation where there are 25 admins and just 4 of them are active, the same situation hi wiki has suffered. As of today also, 3 of our 6 admins, are heavily inactive. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ (चर्चा) १०:५५, २८ जून् २०११ (UTC)
* Comment against proposal This may be useful on the wikis like English wiki which has crores of articles and hundreds of adms and bureaucrats. Sanskrit wiki, which is just growing, it has less than ten active community members. I think let's first discuss how to grow our numbers secondly grow qualitative articles. If any person has contributed a lot then is absent for more than six months is to be considered, we should not be ungrateful for his/her work. He may not be on line or logged in but may be working offline( talking about wiki with friends, encouraging people to join wiki, writing article on the paper due to the unavailability of internet facility- as the facility is not available in all villages in India), He may be on long tour to abroad or may be fallen sick or hospitalized. 
Dear friends why we think to subtract? Let's add first to make our wiki strong. Let the name of absentees to remain here, it will not take more space, they will come and work for wiki, thanks-भवानी गौतम १७:४८, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :I actually agree with Bhawani Gautam on this. Rao7 •Talk १९:१३, ४ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: ::I disagree on this point, bcoz purpose of that removal policy is to increase activenss of an admin, How can we give a admin flag to such a user who is not able to perform 25 edits in 6 months, that will not only increase inactive admins in sa wiki but also vandalism too.Adminship should not be considered as a Post, it a package of rights that are given to a reliable user to perform such deeds regularly.By revoking their sysop tool, we are not revoking their Editing right.--Mayur ०४:३७, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
If this increases the activeness, numbers of articles and quality of articles, I too support strongly this. Let us see the rules of others wikis and decide the matter. There are many adms inactive for the last eight or more on Nepali wiki but we are waiting their return. And without removing them we have increased articles from 5000 to 13800 within eight month (ie after October 2010). We should not decide in hurry , in Hindi wiki also one year absent thanks.-भवानी गौतम ०५:२२, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
====sysop tool back as soon as they become active====

text: ::Hindi Wiki we removed nearly 18 inactive admins but we didnot remove two users which having very good editing career in hindi wiki and we will also return back the desysoped admins their sysop tool back as soon as they become active, Same can be done for Sa wiki.A desysoped Admin should be returned their sysop tool back as soon as they become active.--Mayur ०६:१०, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :::As Mayur says, many wikis do have an inactive admin policy. Though I agree with Bhawani's rationale, I wouldn't mind supporting an inactive admin policy. Rao7 •Talk ०७:४९, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)

text: :::A point to note is that, as Mayur says, inactive admins can be given their right as and when they resume editing. Rao7 •Talk २०:४१, ७ जून् २०११ (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: :::Hindi Wiki we removed nearly 18 inactive admins but we didnot remove two users which having very good editing career in hindi wiki and we will also return back the desysoped admins their sysop tool back as soon as they become active, Same can be done for Sa wiki.A desysoped Admin should be returned their sysop tool back as soon as they become active.--Mayur ०६:१०, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :::As Mayur says, many wikis do have an inactive admin policy. Though I agree with Bhawani's rationale, I wouldn't mind supporting an inactive admin policy. Rao7 •Talk ०७:४९, ५ जून् २०११ (UTC)
replies: text: :::A point to note is that, as Mayur says, inactive admins can be given their right as and when they resume editing. Rao7 •Talk २०:४१, ७ जून् २०११ (UTC)
thread_title: sysop tool back as soon as they become active