Have you thought about being a steward? Or voting for one?Edit
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)
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 :-)
- @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)
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)
Abuse of block tool in azwikiEdit
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.
User script to access other watchlistsEdit
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
Thanks, --05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)