Sgwrs Categori:Gweinyddwyr Wicipedia

Ni chefnogir cynnwys y dudalen mewn ieithoedd eraill.
Oddi ar Wicipedia

Gair o esboniad[golygu cod]

Roedd hwn yn gategori gwag (wedi'i gamsillafu yn wreiddiol - "Wicpedia"!) tan rwan. Wrth ei lenwi heno dwi heb gynnwys y gweinyddwyr hyn:

Pur ysbeidiol ac ymylol yw cyfraniadau ambell un o'r gweinyddwyr sydd wedi'u cynnwys yn y categori hefyd, ond o leia mae nhw yma weithiau.

Dwi'n gwybod bod hyn wedi cael ei drafod rhywle o'r blaen, ond ydy hi'n rhesymol cadw rhywun sydd heb gyfrannu ers blynyddoedd yn weinyddwr? Rydym yn "top heavy" fel petai cyn belled â mae nifer y gweinyddwyr fel cyfran o'r cyfranwyr rheolaidd yn y cwestiwn yn barod, mewn cymhariaeth â'r wicis eraill. Mond codi'r pwynt, ond mae'n werth ystyried y sefyllfa ('sgen i ddim clem be' di'r arfer ar y wicis eraill mewn hyn o beth...). Anatiomaros 23:34, 21 Rhagfyr 2009 (UTC)[ateb]

Sorry to reply in English. It really doesn't matter the percentage of the user base - all that matters is that there are enough admins to ensure that admin tasks are done speedily, while not giving permissions to anyone who will misuse them. I have no opinion on what should happen to inactive admins, but I would just like to say that I was very impressed with how quickly Defnyddiwr:Rhion acted on a request of mine recently to edit a protected page - and also yourself when I tagged a couple of pages for deletion. Thanks to both of you. Luke 00:04, 22 Rhagfyr 2009 (UTC)[ateb]
Diolch am yr ymateb a'r gwerthfawrogiad, Luke. Maybe I just want to be too "tidy", but it seems a bit ridiculous to keep someone who has left Wicipedia with no intention of ever returning - they scrambled their password as well to prevent their reusing the account! - and someone who hasn't contributed for five years, almost, as admins. It seems reasonable at least not to include them in this category, in my opinion at least (or be a true wikibureaucrat and create a sub-category for "inactive administrators"?!). Anatiomaros 00:22, 22 Rhagfyr 2009 (UTC)[ateb]