User talk:Rschen7754

I manage my talk page with the following guidelines: Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if it is related to a section above. Otherwise it is difficult to find the posting. I will reply to your posts on this page to keep threading unless requested or unless it is extremely urgent. I don't check Meta as much as I used to; for urgent matters, please contact me on the English Wikipedia.

Archive: Rschen7754/Archive 1 Rschen7754/Archive 2

Contents

Have you thought about being a steward? Or voting for one?

As a former steward, I thought I would share my thoughts about the process, what makes a good steward, and what voters should look for. Those thoughts can be found at User:Rschen7754/SE2015. --Rschen7754 07:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Noting

that Cekli had blocked me for a week and re-moved that genocide article to the previous article. His comment over the t/p thread (The sources are inaccurate and do not reflect the truth. A large part of the Azerbaijani community do not agree with those sources.) is par excellence. As I said, it's brazen POV pushing per the pro-government line :-)

On a side-note, he has the chutzpah to continue with his usual abuse of tools, despite the the stuff that's happening over Meta. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry to hear about it. Just document it as best as you can at the RFC. (FWIW, I don't know that I would have made those changes myself, just because I worry that I would have made a mess of things, not knowing the language. Plus, it makes it easier to document their POV position). --Rschen7754 15:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought that they had the scope of saying that no user proposed to move the article; hence they did not bother any et al. So, I took the risk and his' blocking me coupled with moving the article back confirms the POV stance, even more. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, how much participation/time-span does these RFC require? RFCs over here tend to run for years and years......Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The average user just doesn't care about something that complicated and complex and that will probably never affect their editing career. With these RFCs, you have to fight tl;dr, and the RFC being archived for inactivity. I've got some ideas but I'm waiting on someone to get back to me via email with a second opinion first. --Rschen7754 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal musing

Taking it here because I think having it on the proposal itself would be distracting, but it might be worth toning down the WhatsApp/FB group issue on the az.wiki front. I think we both know that this is to some degree a norm in many non-Western wikis (It has definitely been mentioned re: zh.wiki, and I'm less sure about ar.wiki, but I suspect it is there just from the sense I get being fairly involved with xwiki socking issues on that project.) I personally agree these type of things should likely be done on-wiki, but from a pure feasibility standpoint when your dealing with suggesting removing admins from a wiki, it might be worth leaving that bit out since many of the people who are going to be interested in the proposal likely have some version of that on their home wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That is one issue that I struggled with.

• It does seem to be a common theme among some of these other wikis that go bad (Croatian Wikipedia had a lot of complaints like this). And I know one past steward who was a hard-liner in this respect.
• However, on enwiki you could say that IRC tends to be abused in this regard or in other regards, especially -en-admins. (Or even arbcom-l, as some would say!) Personally, I do think that some form of strategy/brainstorming is fine, but when people are blocked based on comments they make in the Facebook group, that is completely something else. I guess I'm not very familiar with how arwiki and zhwiki run things, but my impression is that things aren't so bad that they need to have all their admins removed. --Rschen7754 03:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I highly doubt on either of those projects the FB/off-wiki stuff results in blocks on-wiki. I suppose my point is that to some extent, the use of commercial group chat tied to RL identities (or even specific social media profiles for WMF projects) is much more prevalent in non-Western wikis than it is on en.wiki. My point here was that from a political (for lack of better word) perspective, you're likely going to get people commenting from wikis where this is more common, and knowing how Wikimedia works, some people will latch onto one thing and ignore the larger point that you're making: that there is something seriously wrong going on at az.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I've clarified that point a bit to better convey what I was getting at (namely that they might be using that group to coordinate efforts to derail any critical discussions that locals might use to intervene). --Rschen7754 04:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of block tool in azwiki

Hello. I have also suffered from abuse of block tool by "nicat49". During my wikipedia life only he blocked my account and he did it several times. I am sure he keeps his eyes on my account, in every my edit he puts something, when i argue something he just block my account. I think it is unfair block your opponent as an administrator, but someone third person should decide. This is like, i have a conflict with police, after a while, the policeman does not listen my opinion and just shuts me in jail. This is unfair. Administrator should not be able to use their block rights in their own conflicts. And he finds some expressions from my answers, which he does not like and tells that i was rude. And he blocks my account as much as he wants..Totally unfair. And no-one reacts, almost other administrators do not interrump to solve the issue, becouse most of them know each other personally.

Rschen7754, if you are able to interrump and re-organize az-wiki, please do something. HulaguKaan (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@HulaguKaan: Please voice your concerns on the RFC, where they will be seen by more people. --Rschen7754 00:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Ceckli829

FYI, there are some copyright problems with the user over at gag.wikipedia.org. You may want to keep an eye on this discussion.  — FR 18:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it but I'm not exactly enthusiastic about doing anything about it at the moment. --Rschen7754 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User script to access other watchlists

Hi Rschen7754,

If you remember, you participated in the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey, including the discussion for reviving "Crosswatch" to allow for cross-wiki watchlists (Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool).

I sent you this MassMessage because I wanted to let you know that I have made a user script to make accessing your watchlists on different wikis easier, since for now that wishlist item has not been actioned.

The way it works is that, on any wiki, when you look at your watchlist, there is a button labeled "CA" that takes you to the CentralAuth page for you. There, when looking at your own information, each link to a wiki ("meta.wikimedia.org", "www.wikidata.org", "de.wikipedia.org", etc.) is changed so that it links to your watchlist on that wiki.

If you are interested in using it, just add mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DannyS712/Watchlist.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); to your global javascript page. This imports the code at m:User:DannyS712/Watchlist.js.

If you want to learn more, there is documentation for the script available at w:en:User:DannyS712/Watchlist. If you would like to discuss the script, talk to me at m:User talk:DannyS712.

Thanks, --05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)