User talk:Az1568

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

Thank you for your translation help!

Translation Barnstar.svg The Translation Barnstar
Thank you very much for your help translating the 2016 Strategy Consultation pages! I am so grateful for the energy you and others have put into helping the consultation reach speakers of as many languages as possible. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your comments as trolling and threats

I just wanted to let you know I reverted your comments on my talk page as trolling and threats. If you want to block me then just do it. Because I am not going to stop fighting my bullshit bans on IRC or EnWP until they are lifted. So if you and RD and others want to create a disruption just so you can justify an otherwise unjustifiable ban then ok fine. Because the reason I am fighting my IRC ban is because its utter bullshit being driven by an utter bullshit ban on EnWP.. Reguyla (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassment

NounProject Leaves.png

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Announcing a new mailing list for Meta-Wiki administrators

Hello!

As a regular administrator on Meta-Wiki, you're allowed to subscribe to the recently created metawiki-admins mailing list. This is a closed mailing list for announcements, asking for help and discussion between Meta-Wiki administrators. If you wish to subscribe, please fill the form at this page and then contact Savh or MarcoAurelio via Special:EmailUser using your administrator account so they can verify the authenticity of your request and address. You'll find more information on the mailing list description page. Should you have any doubts or questions, feel free to contact any of us. We hope that this tool is useful for all.

Best regards,
-- MarcoAurelio and Savh 12:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Mailing list administrators for metawiki-admins mailing list.

Message sent to members of Meta:Administrators/Mass-message list. Please see there to subscribe or unsubscribe from further mass messages directed to the whole group of administrators.

IRC

Hi, I send you some messages at my ircd about the current developmentstate of the project, would be nicem if you can give me a feedback about that, that would make it easier for me to plan my priorities. Cheers, Luke081515 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin@cowiki

Hi Alex. I wonder if you still need the adminflag at co.wikipedia? Looks like it was granted temporarily back in the days? Regards, —MarcoAurelio 13:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marco. I usually clean out the spam/speedy pages there every few months, I think for the past... seven years or so? At this point, I'm probably the only admin remaining on cowiki that wasn't removed for one reason or another. I don't mind having the flag, I also don't mind not having it either. I'm mostly surprised no one has ever brought it up until now lol :-) .--Az1568 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep my question posted on the community page.

(→‎Removal of page edit history: question asked and answered, the comment "I beg your pardon" gave the assertion that I was being rude, so it does not need to stay. If you feel that archiving it would be worthy then go right ahead.)

Hi there, please don't remove content from pages, especially if they contain comments from other users. --Az1568 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

regarding this guy, I've seen this guy trolling on srg on some stuff. MechQuester (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone ahead and protected the page for now. --Az1568 (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
and hes back. Hes addimg requests that stewards wont act on. MechQuester (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the mess and blocked the IPs but left the requests intact as some are accounts that could be locked. Though a handful of them had been created a few years ago and are unlikely to be valid. --Az1568 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Im gonna post a request on Steward's noticeboard. MechQuester (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
letting you know, the guy has been extremely obsessed recently. He's blocked on enwiki from what I can tell. MechQuester (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5

When we will have Wikipedia in Montenegro language. That differs from Serbian. 'Gorski Vijenac' is written by Njegos. Language has 2 more letters. Language is spoken by 232.000 people. For thr formation 3 people voted in favor, while 2 were against. I would ask some of Wikimedia team to create Montenegro Wikipedia. Sonioa (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea if or when it would be approved. I'm not on the language committee, so I don't really have any sort of say in what projects get approved for creation or not. Perhaps you could ask the committee? --Az1568 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Az1568: I moved my copy of message to the langcom talk page. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

user page

Hi I have made no indication whatsoever for further persons other than myself to edit that page
I have made no request for anyone else to touch that page - please do not second guess my reasons for blanking the page
please unblock and leave alone- thank you :JarrahTree (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You had blanked the page and that falls under Criteria G6 for deletion on Meta. I've also noticed a repetitive pattern between you adding content and then blanking the page repeatedly, is there any reason for this? --Az1568 (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
you have an email about that - and I am asking you to revert your action please - I will have to change the modification process so I dont attract on the issue again - if you did that on 'wp en' there would be outright war :) :JarrahTree (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I also received your email and unfortunately, I still do not understand... since blanking your user page does not actually hide the content from other editors it simply just adds more revisions that anyone can see. If you want some content hidden from it, I would be more than happy to restore a specific version for you. --Az1568 (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
very kind offer - explanation in a further email :JarrahTree (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

IRC cloak status

Hey there, I applied for the IRC cloak in somewhere around Nov last year and haven't got any update on the status. It will be great if I could know it. I apologize if this is a wrong approach to seek help on this issue, but I couldn't figure out any other way. Thanks! Simranpreet singh (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, so it looks like you'll need to put in a new request, as we've since changed cloak systems. I suggest you head over to the IRC/Cloaks page and follow the instructions there. Thanks! --Az1568 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Az1568, applied for a new one. Hope it gets processed soon. Face-smile.svg Simranpreet singh (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Cloak

Hi, I used to have a cloak about 4 or 5 years ago. My nickname expired and I just renewed it. So, I guess that means the cloak expired too. I tried requesting a cloak again with the instructions at IRC/cloak, but it is saying that i need to be registered and identified, which I already am. Can you perhaps help me on that? GoEThe (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You can disregard. Just tried again, and I managed to submit a request. Thank you in any case. GoEThe (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

RevDel

Can you revdel the edit summary in this diff as spam? Special:Diff/18109052 --Cameron11598 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Az1568 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Block of 3d-copier

Hi! I am a bit confused about your recent indef block of User:3d-copier. Was there really a "ban" on that user? His main account User:Ciphers at least seemed to be compromised and was blocked for disruptive editing. I cannot see that this pattern has been continued with the new account. Am I missing something? Regards, --Vogone (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm, I came here for the same reason. This is a checkuser at another wiki who has run foul of a supposedly hacked account. Beside that, if you are going to state that someone is banned, I would hope that you would be able to reference such a ban, not just make the claim. We all know that a ban is a heavy word around here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vogone: You may want to review the edits at simplewiki. --Rschen7754 03:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@Vogone and Billinghurst: see Special:Diff/18629714 where he admits his account is locked/banned... --Cameron11598 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: It is known that the main account has been compromised and has been locked by stewards; and it is an open conversation on this wiki about that matter; it would do well for you to read that whole conversation. If there is a ban, then they are community- or WMF-issued, and they should be linked where they exist as part of a good practice for documenting a bloc. I see no evidence of such a ban, and waiting for Az1568 to point to it, rather than ignore such requests from fellow administrators. It would do you well to understand the experience and history of those asking the questions, neither Vogone or myself are newbies or unaware.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
After their main account was locked, they were given an indefinite block on meta for disruption on the Ciphers account by -revi and subsequently created this new account to continue to disruptively contest their ban on-wiki, that appears to be ban evasion to me. They also seemingly have not resolved the issue with their main account yet, despite being told repeatedly to email Trust and Safety, so I don't see why we'd continue to encourage the behavior here instead of having them contact T&S by email. --Az1568 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up some events here. Ciphers is the main account, and the local block happened 4 minutes before the lock of the account, after it had been discovered the account issues had not been fixed, yet. I agree the posting on Matiia's talk page was not ideal (I reverted it myself, fwiw), but mostly because it was an abuse of Matiia's talk page, while requesting a response of a different user. Certainly no reason for a "ban". --Vogone (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Will just changing the block reason from ban evasion to block evasion solve this entire issue?--Cohaf (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)--Cohaf (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Vogone, I'm aware that Ciphers is the main account, but you do realize it makes absolutely no sense for them to be making a sock here on meta to contest a lock when they need to email T&S to resolve it, right? --Az1568 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
T&S did not issue the lock, so there is absolutely no reason to contact them, as far as the lock is concerned. The discussion on Matiia's talk page was obviously related to the removal of checkuser permissions and subsequent individual blocks on wikis where disruption occured. --Vogone (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I now do see where you got the "contact T&S" from (-revi included it in his lock summary). However, the question how this is possibly a ban or a ban evasion remains. I hope for -revi to comment here on this. --Vogone (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
This account has already been blocked for vandalism on simplewiki.
I personally would encourage all of these discussions to be closed down and all further discussion to be handled by WMF T&S. Quite frankly, Ciphers' abject refusal to communicate with WMF and their attempts to get stewards to intervene instead make me think that they are being dishonest and trying to forum shop. Also see this statement from the enwiki CU who discovered the multiple account abuse. --Rschen7754 05:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi all, I've been asked about this from Az1568 and admins from other projects since I was the local CheckUser who made the first project block on this. @Vogone and Billinghurst:, I'm mainly commenting in response to your comments that this is a compromise: this is not something that is universally agreed upon. There is not technical evidence to support the claim of compromise in my view.

    I asked Risker to independently review CheckUser data from three wikis on cu-wiki on this. She can comment on her own conclusions here, and has not looked at this before tonight. There is also strong behavioral evidence that all three sock accounts are the same person dating back at least a year. It is my opinion based on looking at the technical and behavioral evidence that no compromise occurred.

    From my conversations with -revi, I was under the understanding that the word "possible" was added to the lock rationale intentionally: Ciphers claimed compromise and was blocked on 9 wikis. This would be enough reason to lock as a claimed compromised account blocked on multiple projects should not be active even if the claim is false. There is however, in my view, not any evidence to substantiate the compromise claim. Whether this means that this account should be blocked on meta wiki is a local matter for meta admins to decide. Also ping Rschen7754 since he's commented TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

    Thanks a lot for this additional input. --Vogone (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Following up on Tony's comments above. I have reviewed the CU evidence, and I don't see any obvious evidence of account compromise. I'll leave it to the WMF, the stewards and the local administrators for next steps. Risker (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment My issue is the commentary around "the ban" and an infinite block, and if there is a ban for it to be properly documented against the block, as I am unaware of a ban on the user. From what I see it is a punitive block, with inaccurate reason: 1) they have not edited in a means to receive a block; 2) multiple accounts are not disallowed at meta; 3) if one is looking to discuss a matter about a locked account and not wishing to display an IP address and to ensure it is the one person, how else can it be done?; 4) please point to the global ban. [Their primary account has been rightly locked, be it compromised or otherwise problematic and that account is being managed by those with the rights and the vision. I am not commenting on local wikis applying their local rules about multiple accounts.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
    • Risker and I both said that this should be handled by local admins, but were addressing the issue of a claimed compromise, which neither of us could find evidence for in the technical data. I also think there is a strong case based on the behavioral evidence on en.wiki against a compromise. How that is dealt with on meta should be handled by admins here. Just clarifying this for the record in case it was missed in my commentary. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
So, it sounds like you'd like me to modify the block reason? I could certainly do that. They still appear to be banned on meta, as you can see here but to address point 1&2, sockpuppet accounts that are connected to abuse are routinely blocked on meta despite us not having a firm policy in place on it. As for 3, there was no need for them to create a second account, as they could of simply used the email user function from their original one to contact the WMF or just sent an email directly to T&S. I'm also not fully convinced per the comments above now that their requests for an unlock are even legitimate now. --Az1568 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It should be known to you that a lock does not allow a user to log in, anymore... --Vogone (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
My bad, granted they can still send an email from a service like gmail and others. To be honest, I take the opinion of a brand new account claiming to be an experienced editor and checkuser with a grain of salt, they should have attempted to establish their identiy via the proper venue by contacting the WMF. In any case, I'm more convinced now that a ban on the account was the correct option in light of the findings brought here. If you still feel diffrently, by all means you can go ahead and contest the block and request an unban. --Az1568 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I recently noticed this discussion above, and would like to make certain people recognize that the sort of edits Ciphers made leading to the lock of that account are concurrent with edits by 3d-copier. Their disruptive edits with the 3d-copier account extended to my home wiki, the Simple English Wikipedia, resulting in their indefinite block after disruptive editing and civility problems. They continued to make useless or semi-disruptive edits on multiple wikis similar to the final edits of the Ciphers account. Furthermore, multiple CheckUsers have stated there is no evidence of a compromise. Thus, I do not see an issue in blocking the account on meta as block evasion. I would also support a lock pending T&S action. Vermont (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Taking over the #wikispore channel

Hi Az1568!
(This message is sent to the other IRC group contacts as well.)

We'd like to take over the #wikispore channel for use by the Wikispore project. It was used by the community of the Spore video game Wikia, but they have moved on to Discord and the IRC channel has been pretty much unused since mid-2017. The channel owner has been inactive on Freenode for over two years and I couldn't identify their wiki account or other contact details. I asked one of the Discord admins about taking over the channel and they said it's OK (admittedly this is a bit short of giving notice to the community).

How should we proceed? --Tgr (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of removal of adminship

Hello,

I regret to inform you that, in accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and as a result of your inactivity, administrator rights have been removed from your account. Please see Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2019 for details. Kind regards, Matiia (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)