Talk:Requests for comment/Indic Sysop

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please share your thoughts about this here. All discussions and votes should be put in the respective sections.

Discussion[edit]

  1. Can somebody provide a statistics of the no of existing admins on each of Indic language Wikimedia projects ( including sister projects )? This would perhaps help people to more understand the need - Tinucherian 02:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, It is a nice move, but Indic sysop rights should be according to common need of all projects, because giving all rights of a sysop is to indic sysop useless, there should be some limitations so that local admin may not Object it. I think the main purpose of this indic sysop is-

  1. To provide required inteface to any indic project(edit interface)
  2. To cover vandalism activity on indic wikis(rollback,delete,undelete,protect,block)
  3. Another way to make seperate groups like Indic interface editors, indic anti vandal unit member. Any user according to his choice may opt for that right--Mayur(TalkEmail)  20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. one more suitable option is indic sysop should be granted sysop right at indic wiki on which they can communicate, like aryan languagges seperate with dravidian languagges--Mayur(TalkEmail)  21:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

Please provide a brief explanation on oppose votes.

Questions[edit]

  1. Could you define "Indic" in this context? Do you mean just the Hindi projects, all Indian Subcontinent languages, or do you include Indic language projects such as Sinhalese also? Tibetan?
  2. I'm a fan of solidarity, it's occurred to me before that similar-language projects could use other administrative functions across multiple projects, such as if you formed a unified Indic dispute resolution process (RfC/MedCom/ArbCom as needed) as well.
  3. (Technical) Is there a possibility that the developers can create a method of having a wikiset group (like "Indic Bureaucrat") that could add/remove the "Indic Sysop" wikiset group without farming the task to stewards, yet still have the normal restrictions that bureaucrats may have on Wikimedia projects, such as the inability to add checkuser/oversight/steward rights? (Note: I understand that this is not currently possible, I'm asking if it's possible in "some future yet-to-be-programmed way")
  4. For trans-project issues that are not global, is it better to:
    1. Host the relevant pages on Meta,
    2. Host the relevant pages on an "Indic Languages Collaboration Wiki" of some sort, or,
    3. Host the relevant pages on an existing Indic language project?

Just some stray thoughts. Kylu 20:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Ideally all the languages of Indian subcontinent can be included in this. But as of now I suggest to include only Aryan and Dravidian language wikis for this proposal. These are the languages on which potential cooperation exists between different language groups. If Tibetan, Burmese or some other language wiki communities which are not Aryan or Dravidian is fine with this grouping then there is no harm in including them also.--Shijualex 03:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Also, added an example wikiset for use in discussion: Special:EditWikiSets/8 Kylu 03:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Preventing overzealous use and removal methods[edit]

While I appreciate the premise for this RfC, I have a few hesitations.

  1. There's no provision that specifies unnecessary intrusion to Indic Wikis duly watched by a sufficient number of admins. Ideally, the Indic sysops should focus on smaller wikis without enough admins for round-the-clock sysopping. If they start doing admin activities on the mature wikis without being a regular contributors, it could irk the users there. after all, these sysops were not selected according to their local wiki process and mandate.
  2. In case of large scale admin actions, there should be some oversight on whether the admin is not overstepping their function. Some wikis might have slightly different standards for certain things like redirects and it's not good to impose an arbitrary standard on them. There should be enough stewards that would listen to complaints and redress soon. Otherwise, it could lead to cross-wiki friction.

-- Sundar 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Like the policy for Global sysops, the opt out policy for each wiki needs to be implemented. Then the above issues can be sorted out. But this needs to be done project wise for each language. The reason is, there is no community in most of the sister projects of almost all Indian languages. Those inactive wikis require some sort of voluntary involvement from interested people. --Shijualex 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the same concerns that Sundar has expressed. Further I don't see any real need for this indic sysops (or the needs that are perceived can be met by other means, say like inviting contributors from other wikis; I don't see any NEED for SYSOP privileges, and that too with such broad powers and implications). Excepting some clear cases of vandalism, I believe it would be difficult to judge a contributors actions without s/he being an active contributor in a given wiki. The "powers" of the indic sysops is quite broad and I don't think it will be wise to grant such powers without earning the same from the user-community. For the record, I had made contributions as a user in Malayalam, Marathi, Hindi and Benglai Wiktionaries.--C.R.Selvakumar 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, we should think about the projects that have very low activity level, where sysops does not show up for months at a time. We can opt out all the active wikis from this and provide the support needed for the smaller, sleepy little projects. Just see the below table for some examples. We are trying to help these kind and not trying to step on anyone's toe with this proposal :). Atleast in some cases, we can see that admins are editing it once in a while, but in many cases its not.

PS: Examples are not intended to be personal. This is purely for statistical analysis.

Project Bureaucrats Sysops Last bureaucrat action Last sysop action
sa.wikipedia 1 3 1560 days ago 135 days ago
or.wikipedia 0 0 - -
ta.wikibooks 2 2 314 days ago 88 days ago
hi.wikibooks 0 0 - -
hi.wikiquote 0 0 - -
gu.wiktionary 1 2 never 1757 days ago
te.wikisource 0 2 never 493 days ago
pi.wikipedia 0 1 never 301 days ago

Time permitting, I will try to compile the full list. --Jyothis 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where would you set the cut-off line? Seb az86556 21:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

may be a project that has atleast one active admin who edits regularly can opt out of this? Just a thought --68.50.141.37 01:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Kylu's suggestion of opt-in, in gerneral, and automatic opt-in for projects with no local admins or some such measure. Also, no Indic sysop should feel compelled to take some admin actions to meet her 10 actions per year quota. -- Sundar 09:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Marathi Wikipedia already has opting out policy[edit]

Marathi Wikipedia and Marathi Wiktionary has already voted to opt out from SWMT and Global Sysop so the same policy would continue for Indic Sysop

Marathi Wikibooks and Marathi Wikiquote are already being covered by Global Sysop, Personally I am quite concerned with concept of Indic Sysop working on Wikiquote and Wikibooks Wikisource since even most of regular Indic Wikipedians and in most cases Indic Sysops on various Indic Wikipedias too are not aware of line of difference between various sister projects like Wikisource and Wikibooks Wikiquote Wikiversity etc and so I doubt their capacity to guide rest of the people.

I would support Indic Sysopship only for Sanskrit and Pali wiki projects.

Really speaking I am not for any controls and intervention from top of any kind at all.What we need is more online and field level promotion activity to get more editors for less active wikis.

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) 06:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I share the same feelings as Mahitgar. Further Wikipbooks and such sister projects are not something that would require daily updates (at least at this stage) and even in active european language wikis the difference between wikipedias and their sister projects would be something similar, I would guess (I mean active but not as active as the wikipedia in that language). --C.R.Selvakumar 02:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest, instead, support the Indic Sysop proposal itself and the option for all Indic projects to opt-in, with automatic opt-in for projects with no local administrators? I like the idea of language-family solidarity, personally. Kylu 01:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Explain[edit]

Please explain this line Candidate should preferably be able to read/write multiple languages in the Indic language group. . As you know there are near about 22+ Indic Language, and there are few people who read/write 22+ Indic Language.Jayantanth 05:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

pretty much a mute point. I've seen people claim all sorts of skills; y'can't prove it anyways. Seb az86556 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Have them supply specific responses in X or more number of Indic languages as part of the requirement for candidacy? Kylu 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting... we've never done that before... I wonder (in general) how many admins boast an XYZ level 3 or 4 on their userpage but actually don't know how to say much more than hello... Seb az86556 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It being a wiki and all, I'm tempted to suggest that folks could have a page in their userspace where folks can opine on their language skills, then (via a mechanism I have not yet thought out) a composite "score" of language proficiency could be built in order to include the resultant skill on the userpage. There's the obvious issue that simply being a native speaker doesn't mean you understand jargons which are part of that language, and there are some folks who may well be a -1 or -2 in the language, but can readily speak or understand concepts related to a specific area quite well. Then, of course, there's people who can read and write a language but not speak it and vice-versa... the whole babel template concept is a compromise. This is all applicable outside the Indic languages also, of course. Kylu 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Sysop workload for Indic languages[edit]

Info on current sysop workload for indic languages would be helpful. Agree that the proposal be helpful for emerging/dormant wikipedias.-- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arjunaraoc (talk • contribs) . 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For the number of actions, see #Preventing_overzealous_use_and_removal_methods above. For the actual work that needs to be done, that's going to be more difficult to both define and determine. Kylu 20:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose[edit]

I am totally against this proposal. There are many issue withing the Indian community currently, I complete oppose this proposal as I do not see a necessary need of it. Vibhijain 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)