Requests for comment/Sindhi Wikipedia, a house of problems
Sindhiwikipedia @ http://sd.wikipedia.org
Keeping in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis allowed? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس
Other problem is we (Sindhi) call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his own word "Ganpukar" for Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books in Sindhi called it Computer not Ganpukar.
http://sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction from Sindhi community. Because admin imposed personnel rules and regulation on users. Plz check the record history of activities there.
Other issue, admin locked CSS due to that in the pages there are different font and sizes are in use. May be he is not able to set commonCSS or MonoCSS. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language.
I appeal plz warn him to follow http://en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue using his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there.
And last, plz suggest me how can I raise this matter for our local community at http://sd.wikipedia.org Can I create a new discussion page for the issues? and If admin disturb us to raise the issue, what will be the option for us?
Alixafar 08:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Any suggestion to resolve the problems
Plz suggest how I can involve Sindhi community in this regard? It is legal that I invite sd.wikipedia.org members to post the views here, or we have to create a new page at sd.wikipedia.org for the healthy discussion there to resolve problems? and last who will track the record and decide who is correct or wrong? Alixafar 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest you forgot to consider that there are really strong linguistic barriers between "meta's people" and sd.wiki. Actually I cannot understand even the title of the article you deemed "personal thesis", I can only see it's something about image analysis. Anyway, those problems should be solved locally but I'm wondering if sd.wiki's community is too small in order to have permanent sysops, we will probably reject any further request for permanent adminship. --Vituzzu 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The principle of balance - at least two people active at any time - is probably appropriate here. If there is a desire for another admin, they should certainly have one; no wiki should be 'administered' by someone who is not responsive to the editors' needs. –SJ talk | translate 00:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Vituzzu, Suppose community want to choose any other admin, what will be the option? We have to create new "discussion" page there or here? Or is there a rule of any type of voting system to change or elect new Admin? I want only the correct manner way to raise the issue for meta.wikipedia.org. Because only they will give last verdict through history and record that who is active, real and legitimate member. I think meta officials are super user who can decide which candidate is eligible to be Admin there, and also which members are just puppets are making present Admin as a Hitler. (Sorry English is not my native language). Plz suggest the correct way how to resolve the issues. And last is it legal that I say to all members of sd.wiki in this new created request to come here in meta to raise the real issues? I am really confused and frustrated. Alixafar 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alixafar: where did the community discuss the current admin's request for adminship? Please make another request on sd.wiki for someone new to become an admin, and link to that discussion from this RFC on Meta. The best place to discuss this in on sd.wiki, however you can let people on Meta know about that discussion and point us to it. If you feel there are "puppets" involved in the sd.wiki discussion, you can explain that here on Meta. –SJ talk | translate 00:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I created this page http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/25Nov2011tem2
Alixafar 11:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- sd.wiki does not need to follow the rules of en.wiki. Every wiki can make its own rules. Only a few rules are universal: no discrimination, anyone can edit, content should be neutral.
- and "no original research" Przykuta 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- people can share their own work on Wikipedia, as long as it is well-sourced. Different projects take different approaches to original research. Allowing original work without safeguards encourages cranks.
- If an article uses terminology that is different from the standard terminology, you can edit it.
- You say "admin imposed personnel rules and regulation on users." What does this mean? Please give examples.
Deciding if a particular content is acceptable on a given wiki is not something for stewards to decide, it is a decission that can only be made by the local community. es:Magister Mathematicae 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Alixafar
I agreed with him, my suggestion is to change the Admin or also make a co-admin to Alixafar. Snazsindhu 08:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Working Wikipedia very hard in Sindhi
Some days I'm working Wikipedia, but here is what I do not know how the Administration calculates, they work very hard in Sindhi should be easy but he does not listen. She only listens also, are you sitting on his resolve our problem, I support Alixafar. Thix to all sindhi074 (UTC)
- You must set up a local vote, in each case, but, frankly, I'll deeply look for sockpuppets. --Vituzzu 17:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
So I am not interested more to become Admin at sd.wikipedia.org. Alixafar 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)