User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


I plan to write a guide this year. --Rschen7754 04:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That last section, are you doing an open campaign for the candidates?--AldNonymousBicara? 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I plan to express my opinions about their candidacies, since that is what a voters guide is for. --Rschen7754 01:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question to board candidates

Hi Rschen!

Thanks for submitting a question for the board candidates. I wanted to let you know that I added a header for your question to make it easier to link directly too from the table of contents etc. Are you ok with what I put? ("WMF role in disputes") obviously feel free to tweak if that doesn't get your message across or let me know if you want me to do so. Jalexander--WMF 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Thanks! --Rschen7754 15:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum(_AT_) Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Have you thought about being a steward?

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations start in January. --Rschen7754 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you thought about being a steward? [repost]

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations have started and run until January 28. --Rschen7754 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting and instructive. Thanks.--Syum90 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for third party closure of RfC

Hi Rschen, I hope that you are well!

I'd be very grateful if you would be able to close this "meta" RfC: Requests for comment/Closure of old RFCs. As the proposer, I really can't.

Once that is closed we can go about closing some of the old RfCs that are lingering.

Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented in it, so unfortunately I can't close it either. --Rschen7754 17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh great. Is there another user who you could recommend? I really don't have any idea who to ask up here. I've already posted at the Stewards' noticeboard (to no avail). --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You could try asking at RFH too. --Rschen7754 02:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Talk page stalker) @LT910001: and Rschen: if a non-admin closure is ok, I'll do it. (I'm an admin on Outreach but not Meta). --Pine 07:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no "formal" standard that says who can close it; I closed a few after I resigned my Meta adminship. If it could be controversial, it should be left to an admin, but (my opinion anyway) I think it's fine. --Rschen7754 21:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've thought from time to time about requesting adminship on Meta primarily for the purpose of closing discussions, but I think that I need to be an admin on a content wiki first, and Outreach doesn't count.--Pine 21:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
(Also a TPS) it's a clearcut case, shouldn't matter who closes it. Go for it Pine :) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 :) Thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Steward votes

Except for 2 cases where I'm still deciding, I do intend to vote keep on all the confirmations I have not supported, just ran out of time. --15:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rschen7754, I have replied at Stewards/Confirm/2016/Taketa. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Taketa: I was looking for comments about the OS/homewiki matter the most, as that's what baffled me. --Rschen7754 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That was the first time I encountered a request from Wikidata. As I mentioned in my text, I was still getting to know SRP in August. Even though I am an admin on Wikidata, I have never been that active in the community. I did not notice it was a home wiki until I had already granted the right. I did notice after I had granted the right, and did not repeat this during the next 6 months. This confirmation is the first time this incident is mentioned to me. I knew it though and I was more careful afterwards. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems my message is read as being I don't know where I am when granting rights... This is not what I tried to convey. I will add further context. Ofcourse I know what wiki it was being granted on. I did all checks as I always do, and as I have always done during my 6 years as bureaucrat granting rights. I did not realise it was my homewiki. I had never before had to take a homewiki into consideration. This is a steward only limit, that I had never experienced before. Even though I know that I should not act on a homewiki, I am only highly active on Wikidata in content and never was active in the community disussions. If it had been a Dutch project I would have realised, but on Wikidata I simply didn't realise. I made a mistake not noticing the homewiki guideline applied. This happened 1 time, and never after. No complaints were noted during the 6 months since. The user who noticed, did not think it necessary to inform me at the time or anytime after to prevent repeats. And I have also never repeated. If you think that I will repeat a homewiki action, after a single incident and no repeat in 6 months, vote against me for sure.
You mentioned that I make more mistakes than other stewards. I dont think it is true, and people notice me probably due to the type of actions. I answered about 100 individual requests on SRP. For example in the history you can see out of the last 1000 edits, my name is mentioned the most of all, namely 119 times. Considering 70% of the edits there are from non-stewards, I did about 30-40% of the steward edits out of 35 stewards. Yet I am seen as inactive because I dont fight vandals. Many stewards mostly give userrights to themselves to fight vandalism [1], or remove rights that expire, or work on AAR. Notice in my example that all actions were the ones I described. Not removing bureaucrat rights is something I fix [2]. But since it is a one time thing it is not mentioned now. I did more then 10x more SRP actions, and I did not do 10x more mistakes. Saying I make more mistakes then other stewards, I think is simply not true. Because I do more, it simply adds up and you notice it. None of the mistakes were harmful. All actions lead to good results. All users I helped were helped. Many of them voted just now, or thanked me. Please check my talk page. None of the incidents mentioned lead to bad results. No incident was repeated. You say I should be active in AAR. No AAR occured during my time. The current AAR is being organised and I am not a bot user to help with the current informing of people. I helped with global bots [3]. I helped with global permissions [4]. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

pl take note

I was a global sysop from October 2014 to February 2014, and a steward from February 2014 to March 2015. ? This is what you had written about you. Pl correct it. Wellwisher--Drcenjary (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Global list of pages for deletion

Hey Rschen7754,

A while ago, you had a tool that listed all pages nominated for speedy deletion on small wikis. Do you still have that somewhere? The link is now broken :(

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Matiia has given me a link. Problem solved :) Ajraddatz (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think MarcoAurelio is working to fix it up, see phabricator:T128743. --Rschen7754 01:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your administrator status on my.wikipedia

Hi Rschen7754, Rschen I still want to keep my rights in my.wkipedia. I am dealing with Myanmar government and Myanmar Ministry of Education about Myanmar fonts. Myanmar has dispute about Unicode and ZawGyi fonts. Wiki is using Unicode but most of the myanmar companies like and facebook using ZawGyi fonts but all sites need to be used Unicode is my fight. Thanks for understanding. kyawgyi

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:


RFC of SPcom

@Rschen7754: Good afternoon, I changed the RFC of SPcom: Ñow I propose and elected comittee. Archi38 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Srhat's admin status on Turkish Wikinews

Hello Rschen7754,

I have seen your message so I'd like to ask a question about Srhat because of it's a admin on Turkish Wikinews but he didn't work since 2013 and inactive for 2 years but Turkish Wikinews has just a admin. What we should do? --Merhabaviki (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Since then, I stepped down from being a steward. I do know that there is another round of AAR running, so you will need to wait for the current stewards to approach that user about their inactivity. --Rschen7754 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Merhabaviki (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That RfC

Hey Rschen7754, I deleted that RfC you commented on. It was created by some LTA (Boxtools I think?). I must've missed it a month ago. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Designated space for editors to give and seek advice about topic bans and other sanctions

You are being contacted because you commented on the proposal for a designated space in which users, including topic-banned and other sanctioned users, could ask questions and seek information about topic bans and other sanctions, "IdeaLab/Area for topic banned editors to talk freely about their ban, e.g. to ask questions of experienced wikipedians." There is now an RfC in progress concerning this proposal. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin activity review/Notice to communities

Hi, just FYI, it was reported to me, that you didn't use the latest Finnish translation (Admin_activity_review/Notice_to_communities/fi) of the notice when you posted your message on wikis. --Stryn (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going off the saved copies I had from early 2015 since I was short on time and we were already six months behind in sending out the notices. If I wind up being involved next year I'll try and pull fresher copies. --Rschen7754 07:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Close Wikinews Norway

Link : [[5]] --Pitpisit (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Not protecting CU/OS list pages

Point taken. :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey


You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Managers who have not been editing for 2 years

Hello dear Rschen7754 I am Doruk455 I have the right to patrol in Turkish Wikipedia and I am a member of the Turkish language There are administrators who have not been editing in Turkish Wikipedia for 2 years I do not know if they should be sent a warning to them I want help from you while I use translation for english I do not know much 1 2 this is the link good whiskey --Doruk455 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doruk455: They will remain administrators until the next round of AAR (probably in 2017). --Rschen7754 15:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for informing and helping you in the next round of what will be warned after 1 month will be taken to the authority of the bide will be asked a month after the stimulus good whiskey --Doruk455 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies and Best Wishes !!

Very Sorry Dear Rschen7754 :(
Best Wishes, Rschen7754!
Hi Rschen7754, I apologies and really sorry for my past activities. Also, I wish you and your loved ones Happy New Year 2017. Dear, Have a great time !! Face-smile.svgTBhagat (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2017

Have you thought about being a steward?

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations have started. --Rschen7754 00:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rschen, I've got two questions for you:
First of all, are there existing other pages about the steward role (or what stewards do or should not do or the like) other than the policy and your page? If those exist and you know that, it would be great to link on your subpage also to similar pages (maybe also to the steward policy or the like), so they can be found easily.
Second, what do you think about translations of your thoughts into other languages? Maybe m:User:Rschen7754/SE2015/de for German or the like (without the translation feature). Or do you plan to update that page regularly, so that translations maybe would become inactual?
Thanks also for your thoughts on the candidate/confirmation pages. Normally, users don't notice much of that, what stewards do or don't do, and don't know many of the stewards at all, so it's not easy with those elections or new candidates.
I've got another question about stewards and CU at Meta, hope you don't mind asking here: Is it right that stewards can check users without even telling them or the community and without posting onwiki at Meta that there has been a CU? I think it's very strange, what has been written at Stewards/Elections 2017/Questions#Defender that there could be a check after a mail request without even posting any results of that request onwiki, but only giving it to the local CU who maybe also doesn't post anything onwiki. But nobody seems to mind about it. Is that a normal procedure for CU here at Meta? I don't know that at all from dewiki, where all CU results have to be posted onwiki and I'm wondering that nobody wonders about this. So there can be a CU about anyone (certainly with a reason for doing that) without even telling the checked users (at that time or maybe later for some reason) and without posting the fact and result anywhere publicly? This is very strange for me. Are there some good practices for that? I don't want to ask any candidate, because it's a basic question. Or have there been discussions about this before anywhere at Meta which you might know and could point me to? Kind regards, --Bjarlin (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I can certainly look into adding links to the main policies. I would be reluctant to have translations, largely due to the possibility of my essay changing, but also because that might give it official status that I don't want to give it. There are parts of it that are certainly not endorsed by some stewards. For what it's worth, all current stewards understand English (at least enough to be able to converse), and 90%+ of CheckUsers across Wikimedia do as well (at least, from the impression I got reading checkuser-l) - any steward who didn't understand English at least on some level would have significant difficulties working with the current team. It may not be ideal for an international group, but it is reality. For de, I'm sure DerHexer has written similar thoughts elsewhere.
As far as your other question, we have to take a step back and look at dewiki. I'm no longer a steward, so I can be more blunt than I would be if I still was in the role. dewiki is quite unique in how it uses (or often, does not use) CU. The vast majority of the major projects (including enwiki, commons, meta, frwiki, nlwiki...) do not require any public logging of the use of the CU tool: see CheckUser policy/Local policies. However, there is a private log of all CU actions which can be viewed by all stewards, local CheckUsers, some WMF staff, and ombudsmen. On English Wikipedia, this is around 70-80 people who can view the log; in my opinion, this is sufficient to prevent abuse, even though people complain about the ~1000 checks a month run there. (Why all those checks? We have an unrelenting supply of vandals and trolls, just take a look at w:en:WP:SPI). I worry more about the project with only 1-2 active CheckUsers on a medium-sized project that probably shouldn't have CheckUsers and that nobody really pays attention to; I can name a few such projects but it would probably not be appropriate to do so on a public wiki.
But for what it's worth, stewards aren't really CheckUsers in the same sense as a local CU is. Any granting of CU is logged at Special:Log/rights; they have to give it to themselves before using it and return it when done. They generally cannot/do not use it on wikis with CUs. This includes Meta, which has its own elected CUs (most CU actions here are spam-related). There are sometimes CU actions done on what is known as loginwiki, but this is technically limited to new account creations (great for spam-related checks and some cross-wiki vandals but not that useful for much else). So a steward abusing CU would be more difficult to get away with and would be more likely to be noticed, especially since stewards can view all CU logs now. (Such reasons are why I never really learned how to use the CU tool well as a steward). --Rschen7754 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bjarlin: I'm afraid I have not written many essays about stewards besides my notes in the Kurier. My presentations in German and English can still be found, though. Further, I collected some desirable skills for become a steward for this election that I could share. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WMF Board elections

I do not plan to write a guide this year. I feel that past guides I wrote for these particular elections were near-useless. I may ask a few relevant questions that reflect current issues on Wikimedia. --Rschen7754 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin activity review at Cantonese Wikipedia (yue)

Hi Rschen7754, just noticed you had posted the message regarding to the Admin Activity review and the Messages had been translated into Cantonese. Please use the actual Cantonese message instead of the Simplified Chinese message as the translated message is already there. (Notice to communities, Notice to inactive right holders) If there's any messages are outdated and needs to be updated please let me know about this one. Thanks! :) Shinjiman (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, there wasn't one in past years so I didn't pick up on this new one. --Rschen7754 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It's okay for that, I've helped you to update the message there. For the next time (probably on next year) you can use and publish the translated message in Cantonese. :) Shinjiman (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably "no-go area"-like needless "oppose"

Hi sir, I've looked your comment under Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Albanian Wikinews, so I'm rather wondering that, is "Oppose Inactivity not a reason for closing the project under policy. --Rschen7754 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)" really needed? And that's happened after a much more needless enwiki notice from George Ho? This pcp is already judged as unlikely to be happen, your "oppose" could only drop more salts on wounds. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not intend to reply on behalf of Rschen7754, but I do not see any problems in voicing an opinion when we're called to give it, and when his vote is a faithful reproduction of what the closing projects policy said. Apologies for the instrusion. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. FWIW, I did not see the notice on enwiki (and think it was completely unnecessary). If you wish to withdraw your proposal, that is an option. --Rschen7754 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Rschen, thank you for being the first on my GS request. I was getting worried about anyone giving an opinion. Thanks again. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers...

My Meta watchlist has been broken since I returned from vacation. No changes are displayed even though I know there have been changes to those pages. This is only happening on Meta. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 03:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Now resolved. --Rschen7754 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


I will admit that I wasn't fond of the condescending words he used but Billinghurst is more than qualified to be a Bureaucrat here on Meta, just see the way he conducts himself in deletion discussions here and he's always one of the most objective admins on he Meta-Wiki, though I can't say that I like the way he expresses himself sometimes, he is always objective and all of his actions are always in the benefit of Wikimedia projects in general as well as preserving local autonomy and being for the community to be able to make up their own minds. I hope that the next time he requests Bureaucratic status that you would go through all the finer things he's done here on Meta, he really deserves an endorsement (and believe me, I don't have much kind words for his condescending behaviour but he's one of the best and most helpful admins on this project and usually resorts to discussion rather than imposing his opinion.). Just go through all the archives of the deletion discussions on Meta. (well, except for his recent conduct with User:abd , but in general he's almost always very objective), I hope that the next time you could endorse him. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to form my own opinions about users, thanks. --Rschen7754 18:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe You haven't seen

You mentioned this Requests for comment/Hard line nationalism on the Croatian Wikipedia.
Started by user VS6507 [6][7], at first signed as "Alex".
He complained about being "harassed because of his nationality".
Rschen, have You read the answer?
That user on May 16, 2009, [8] wrote to our female contributor "come to my place to suck my c..k", in Cyrillic. National-chauvinist sexist escapade.
After all he dared to complain. Kubura (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, maybe not everything said about the Croatian Wikipedia is to be believed, but can you explain to me why there seem to be a disproportionate number of complaints from that wiki compared to say, English Wikipedia or even some of the other larger wikis? --Rschen7754 00:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you thought about being a steward?

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the role here. Nominations have started. --Rschen7754 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, have you? :-) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm flattered, but I just don't know where it would fit into my schedule. I could do 10 actions a year, but I assume you don't want that, and I'm not that kind of a person anyway. Plus, while I take it things are better than they were during my term, it added a considerable amount of stress that I didn't/don't really need at this point. I'm happy to sit on the sidelines, point out a few things that might have been missed, and work on AAR once it gets months behind. Face-smile.svg --Rschen7754 08:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi! Please see your email. Trijnsteltalk 00:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences ready for testing


I am contacting you because of your support for Global settings in the 2016 Community Tech Wishlist. Global preferences are now available for beta testing, and need your help before being released to the wikis.

  1. Read over the help page, it is brief and has screenshots
  2. Login or register an account on Beta English Wikipedia
  3. Visit Global Preferences and try enabling and disabling some settings
  4. Visit some other language and project test wikis such as English Wikivoyage, German Wiktionary, the Hebrew Wikipedia and test the settings
  5. Report your findings, experience, bugs, and other observations

Once the team has feedback on design issues, bugs, and other things that might need worked out, the problems will be addressed and global preferences will be sent to the wikis.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Activity note

Warning I will be mostly inactive for the next few months to take care of pressing matters. I do not have an exact date for returning to full activity, but I hope to be back around June or July. If you have any time-sensitive matters, it would be better to ask another editor. Rschen7754 21:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Now July or August. --Rschen7754 17:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Now August 26. --Rschen7754 05:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

request for test.wikidata

Hello, when you have a free time, see the second link on this request --Alaa :)..! 17:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”

Logo Feedback round in the Technical Wishes project.png

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

anon ip is blacking pages

how do we stop it?

--Heytherekings (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait for an admin or steward to come online. --Rschen7754 18:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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)


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 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:, and I'm less sure about, 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 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 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)