User talk:Barras/Archive 7

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

... And new Message :)

I wish you (a lot of money, health, long life, peace, success.....) and more :) Grind24 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

IRC for User:Iwan Novirion

Hello Barras, I just relaying a message from Iwan (Iwean for his IRC nickname) to you regarding IRC cloak request (id:Special:diff/8363467), he happen to pick Wikipedia for IRC cloaks, he was asking me if you can change it to Wikimedia instead, because he also edit on multiple project. Thank you.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirm.  Ę-oиė  >>>  ™ 13:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Globally unlock Newman2 for good

This is Newman2 speaking. I would like to have my Newman2 unified login unlocked globally because I promise I will not cause the trouble on Wikimedia that I did in the past. Even though my IP is different now, I am still the same person. And could you please globally unlock my account? 98.144.91.43 16:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

IRC Cloak

Hi Barras, according to my contribution log, I submitted my IRC cloak request on January 3rd, ref diff 640799207 seen here on my user page. I have yet to hear anything. Can you advise? Thanks! RegistryKey (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello RegistryKey, we've received your cloak request, however, it has not yet been handled. It will be done within the next queue. -Barras talk 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

user name

Please, user name can be written entirely in capital letters? thank you, --= Vincenzo (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, yes usernames can be written entirely in upper case letters. -Barras talk 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Barras, want to know why have not responded to the request of cloak I did?. I have long been waiting for and nothing. Is there a problem?. I don't know if this is the place to leave you a message, but I have no idea of another place where contact you.--McVeigh (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Answered on IRC; see internal documentation line #2699. -Barras talk 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IRC cloak

How do I, or can I, go about recovering an IRC cloak? I used to use #wikisignpostconnect a lot and now have reason to start using it again, but I've no clue what my nick was. Resident Mario (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cookies

Per your request, here are some cookies.

Choco chip cookie.jpg Choco chip cookie.jpg Choco chip cookie.jpg

Enjoy! --Az1568 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

IRC request

Hi Barras, I sent you a memo on IRC (#wikimedia-admin, nick: minhhuywiki, cloak @wikimedia~Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy). Did you see the message yet? Thank you. --minhhuy (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You already have access to the channel, I just checked that. However, whoever gave you access did not update our wiki page... -Barras talk 11:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

What kind of work do users do in Meta? I would like to help with what's going on in the project. Thank You. 1989 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Taking part in discussions about policies, helping and coordinating with cross-wiki issues and keeping meta clean of spam and stuff. That's pretty much what meta is about. -Barras talk 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser

I am an admin on the Wikispecies project and it seems we could probably have benefit in having a couple of checkusers. I have read your policies on this and realise this is normally given to stewards and that I must obtain aproval for myself from the local community first. I would also need at least one other person nominated to meet the minimum 2 people requirement. My question though is do you consider it likely if meeting those conditions a small wiki such as wikispecies would be granted this? We currently have about 9 Beurocrats and 24 admins. It is true that some of these are not active. Before bothering the community with this I would appreciate any suggestions or advice. I know we can request CheckUser and have one case currently. I would like to see Wikispecies grow and develop and be able to take care of business well also. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to add there has been some discussion on this at wikispecies among Beurocrats and Admins Here Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Faendalimas: Generally, a wiki where you are able to gain the needed 25 supports/votes should be good to have local checkusers. (See myself, I'm a CU on a fairly small project.) So, if the candidates meet the formal requirements (at least 25 supports, 70-80% approval (depending on local policy), two people are elected and both are identified to WMF), the stewards will grant the right. There is no reason why we shouldn't do that when the formal requirements are fulfilled. However, I think most CUs on your project are related to crosswiki things especially spambots, so I'm no sure if you actually really need local checkusers - however, that is up to the local community. Regards, Barras talk 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot to WL

Thanks for the memo on IRC. I didn't know that bots couldn't be added to WL. Since the bot is controlled by a very trusted user I thought it was a good idea to add it to WL. Sorry for my mistake and thanks again. --Nastoshka (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got a mail

OccultZone (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Replied. -Barras talk 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hello Barras !

I've requested last friday a cloak for my IRC account (Rifford). I don't know if the request has been accepted, can you help me ?

Thank you. Rifford (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It has not yet been dealt with as cloaks have just been set last week and we're waiting for more requests. -Barras talk 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hi, Barras. As per your instructions I tried registering on IRC, but got a message that I was already registered. I then run the command to confirm my cloak request and nothing happened. In case there was a misunderstanding, my username on IRC is bmansurov. --Bmansurov (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! As I can see, you've registered your name on IRC correctly. However, we did not receive a memo, which we need to confirm that the IRC account really belongs to you (just saying, we've had people who claimed they own it but actually didn't). Please log in on IRC and simply type /msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request. That will give us the needed info and I can get you the cloak set. -Barras talk 11:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Barras. I've successfully sent a request to wmfgc. I had to login first ;). --Bmansurov (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Memo received. Will get you the cloak soon. :) -Barras talk 11:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Barras, thanks again. I received my cloak. Yay!

Email

Just pinged you and billinghurst a mail re. a request - perhaps you could take a look. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Already done and replied. -Barras talk 13:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Never sure how quickly people get email; mine takes hours to arrive sometimes. Appreciated. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Bot is on the run...

... so, could you "bring it back", like Limp Bizkit? I'm talking about bRCBot-pl on channel #cvn-wp-pl. We (at least I) kind of miss your little robot. Thanks in advance, tufor (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be back. I can't check IRC myslef. -Barras talk 19:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hi! Thank you for your message on my talk page.

I think that I may have asked for a cloak for two different accounts, because I thought that my first attempt did not work... :P

I think I would rather have the cloak for the name "Melancholia", which is my username on Fr.wikipedia.

I'll try to do as you explained. Hope I don't mess up :)

Melancholia (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Melancholia: We still have not received a memo from you. Did you already try to send it again? -Barras talk 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I don't really understand what I need to do. I tried it once but it seems like it did not work. I don't know whether or not you have received any other results by now... Regards, Melancholia (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Global checkuser requested

Dear member of the Ombudsman Commission. Yesterday (July 18) I filed a formal complaint by sending an email to the OC (see here). I've been falsely accused of having a sockpuppet and, in spite of my requests, the checkusers at the Spanish Wikipedia keep on claiming I control Pelayo Calderón account. That's not true and, IMHO, the only way to clarify it is to perform a global checkuser verification in order to compare my alleged sockpuppet editions (AFAIK, all of them in the Spanish Wikipedia) with mine (mostly in commons, but also in wikidata and other wikipedias... possibly there are a few records of mine also in the Spanish Wikipedia). I'm perfectly aware of the expiration of logs and therefore I'd like to get a fast response, as it seems to be the only way to clean my name. I'd like to get, at least, an acknowledgement, as I haven't received any news after sending my email. If necessary, I can contact you by mail. Just let me know. Many thanks into advance --Discasto (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC) PS: I'm leaving this message to all the members of the OC. Sorry for the spam.

Hello Discasto, we received your complaint. You should've gotten an acknowledgement that we received your mail. All other communication will be done by mail to ensure your privacy. Please leave us a day or two, it's summer and I think some of us are travelling or at Wikimania currently, so replying may takes a day or two. Regards, -Barras talk 12:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A problem with op on IRC

Greetings Barras, I don't know if you have echo turned off so I thought I would leave you a note here. I started a discussion about an issue that occurred with the conduct of one of the channel ops on #wikipedia-en, here. Reguyla (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I just wanted to followup with you and see if you had a chance to look in on the IRC situation mentioned above. I hadn't heard anything so I just wanted to check. Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, afaik Fluffernutter talked to you already about it together with RD. I'm pretty sure from what I read in my scrollback that there is nothing more to mention. -Barras talk 08:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So I guess you decided not to do anything about RD on IRC and now he just blocked me on a doze different IRC channels. Two hours after I was critical about him on #wikipedia-en. He's clearly only doing it in retaliation for starting this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is not my decision alone, however, we think that his actions were justified. (No idea what happened now again...) -Barras talk 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I looked into the situation of the current block a short while after RD placed it, since "I got banned for mentioning someone's name" would indeed be a pretty weird situation. Reguyla, you were doing exactly what we've asked you (and then instructed you, and then begged you) multiple times to stop doing: you were using #wikipedia-en as a soapbox from which to go on about administrative conspiracies, how you've been wronged, and how your onwiki ban is utterly wrong and why you thus won't abide by it. You were told a few weeks ago that you could continue to use -en if you dropped your fixation on discussing those topics; you declined to do so, and so your ban remains. Nevertheless, we're relatively lenient with you evading it: as long as you don't use the channel to soapbox on the usual topics, we tend to let your presence slide. There's really no cause to be surprised, however, when you evade your ban and take that chance to do something you've been repeatedly asked to stop doing, and find yourself removed. Fluffernutter (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Fluffernutter - First I want to clarify I haven't evaded any bans on IRC as far as I know. If someone has claimed to be me using an alternate account, its not me. There also is no conspiracy. Its typical though for admins to protect their own regardless of what complaint is made so that the victim is the one that's to blame. Its a matter of admins refusing to do what the community decided should be done and then not allowing me to discuss it anywhere, at all, with anyone. The fact is its embarrassing to admins, it makes the admins look bad for me to criticize them for blatant violations and manipulations of site policy and its a matter of protecting your own. If the admins don't like it, fine, then do what the community said to do last year so I won't have anything to complain about. My original ban was the result of a couple people submitting ban requests over and over until one stuck (which is an obvious violation, but was allowed because it was directed at me, an editor). You wouldn't allow that for other things, why allow it to ban me and since when do we ban longterm high output editors for a snide comment on a userpage. We don't, it was an excuse used by admins to silence a critic. The Arbcom told me it was the communities problem and wouldn't do anything, then the community discussion was created thanks to you, a decision was made that although was still not perfect, was a compromise acceptable to both sides. But John Carter, Chillum and Goodday, who all voted against my unban decided they didn't agree with that decision and created a disruption on my talk page to justify going to ANI to change the outcome to what they wanted. So now I am going to continue to ignore the current and invalid block put in place because a couple people didn't like the community decision. That's my soapbox, thats how I was wronged. You don't want me telling the story, then the admins of ENWP along with the ops of IRC need to quit protecting their fellow admins for making mistakes and blaming the victim because they cannot block their way out of the situation. RD is an abusive OP on IRC and everyone knows it, but because you force everyone to keep their complaints on IRC to hide that fact, he continues to get away with it. So if you and your fellow admins don't want me to complain about getting screwed, repeatedly and in violation of policy, then fix it and address the problem. Otherwise I am going to continue to discuss it, bring it up, defy it and ignore the current invalid block. Because the community unblocked me in February, its not my fault that the admins of ENWP are too corrupt to carry out the result and I am not going to just let a couple bullies bully me off the site so they can continue to be abusive. If your fellow admins want to use me to create a disruption on the site to justify your existence then you shouldn't be admins. Reguyla (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Fluffernutter, Barras Still no comment I guess? This is exactly why we need a central place on wiki that we can use to complain about the conduct of the IRC mods. If it stays on IRC, off channel then it doesn't get documented and there is no history. RD has a history of abusive conduct on IRC and everyone knows it. Protecting him and his actions doesn't help him, it makes you look bad because you are supporting and enabling his conduct. He see's you don't care what he does and it ensures that he and others will keep doing it. Reguyla (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what further response any of us can give you, Reguyla. As I said above, I looked into your complaint and found RD's actions to be reasonable. If I had found otherwise, I would have said so and taken steps to fix the situation, believe me. Given your refusal to change the behavior that got you banned from the channel (which you find to be perfectly reasonable behavior, and which the rest of us don't), there's really not anything any of us on this end can do at this point. The choices are all yours. All of us repeating the same things over and over - ops, "You were banned for repeatedly disrupting the channel with the same rant over and over", you: "Yeah but I was mistreated so I have the right to rant endlessly even if I'm asked to stop" - won't change any of this. At a certain point you need to make your choice: either you follow the rules and restrictions everyone else in the channel does (which includes stopping something when the ops ask you to stop), or you realize that the channel is not a place that is compatible with what you want to do, and you go elsewhere. It doesn't really matter why you're tilting at the windmills; whether it's because the ops are in an evil conspiracy or because you've just exhausted community patience, they're still just windmills and repeated charging at them isn't going to change that. Fluffernutter (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FluffernutterThe outcome I would like is to be unblocked and for RD to stay away from me and let someone else deal with it if needed. I also don't think RD should be an IRC mod but I realize you aren't going to change that because I suggest it. Which is also why complaints are kept on IRC and off wiki so as to minimize the chances that it will get support but that's common sense and anyone can see that.
  • RD comes in and makes excuses to block me regardless of what I do. I can't even comment in a channel he is in because he is always looking for a reason to block me for anything. And there is nothing wrong with my behavior. I am pissed because the community voted to unblock me on ENWP, as you know, and I am still blocked against that decision because a couple people who opposed it changed the outcome. Its not my fault the conduct shown by some admins on ENWP to ignore a community decision and allow the outcome to be manipulated by people who didn't want it is an embarrassment to the admins. It should be embarrassing because they are ignoring policy and the community. That doesn't excuse RD from coming into a channel and blocking me from it long after the discussion had run its course. Its not my fault if others bring up my ban, I cannot stop that and even when I try and change the subject I am the one that gets blocked for it. That my friend is the definition of abusive behavior. As far as the same rant over and over, the reason it hasn't changed is because a)_Its the same story as it occurred and is exactly as it happened so there is nothing to change and B) because I am still blocked against policy. If I wasn't blocked, there would be nothing to complain about. Since I am still blocked now, months after the community determined I should be unblocked then I have a valid complaint. There also isn't an evil conspiracy and I never said that. What there is though is a growing culture of abuse among admins, especially on ENWP because they know that no one can do anything about them and the WMF refuses to get involved. The admins know that the Arbcom is the only one that can remove the tools so "tell it to the Arbcom" has become a joke consistently cited by admins because they know its like saying tell it to God. If an admin would unblock me then there would be nothing to complain about, but they are too busy using me as a symbol to the community of what happens when you criticize Admin conduct and the Arbcom. Its simply a way to make the community fear the outcome of what will happen if they criticize admins and arbs because if they do, they will find a reason to ban you from the project and keep you that way even if the community decides otherwise.
  • As I stated elsewhere, I am functionally unblocked on ENWP and have been per the community as of February. Its not my fault that the Arbcom won't allow anyone to carry out the unblock and those admins who would are afraid too get drug to Arbcom over it. So I will continue to edit according to the communities decision, using alternate accounts if I must and the only thing the Arbs and admins can do is unblock my account like they were told to do in the community decision. I am not evading a block because I am not blocked and I am not avoiding scrutiny because I am editing the same areas. Anyone can see it was me and literally more than a dozen people knew it was me the last time with the RingofSauron account. I am being forced to create a new account by the Arbcom and some admins because they won't allow my account to be unblocked per the community decision. That's not my fault. I am not going to let abuse and bullying kick me out of a project I care about. They want me to quite editing, so everyone will see they drove me from the project and I am not going to allow that. Personally, if I were you, I would feel insulted that they are ignoring it since you are the one that started it. Reguyla (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. 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@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. 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 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Thanks!

Hi Barras! Thanks for the permission, I was trying to make the banner but It´s really very confuse to me and I need more time to learn the correct use of the platform. Sadly this law is in congress now and we need to spread the word very quickly. Can you do it the banner of Wikipedia se puede quedar sin fotos de la historia argentina for me? I´m already put in the calendar. Thanks again and I´m sorry for the request. --Giselle Bordoy WMAR (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was pretty much away this week. Do you still require help? -Barras talk 15:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Code of conduct for technical spaces draft

I wanted to make sure you aware of the work being done on the draft code of conduct for technical spaces (ongoing discussion). Thanks. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfairly blocked again by RD

@Barras and Fluffernutter: - Greetings Barras. I want to complain that RD has again blocked me from #wikipedia-en, this time indefinitely, for precisely no reason. Someone mentioned my ban and I told them to change the point because some are actively looking for a reason to block me from that channel even if someone else brings it up. True to form, RD took that opportunity yet again to prove my point. He also clamed that he and several other ops had discussed how I had That regardless of what I do, he and others are actively searching for any and all reasons to block me from that channel. Of course I know that you don't care and don't have any desire to do anything about RD and his abusive demeanor on IRC. But I wanted to mention it again in the hopes that at some point someone will actually do something about his repeated abusiveness. Reguyla (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I also left a note at Talk:IRC/Group Contacts so there is a record of the complaint in one place. That way his ongoing conduct towards other IRC participants on IRC will be recorded. Reguyla (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that the ban is for no reason. It's rather tiresome to have that issue again and again. I don't think that I will do something about it. I heard enough things in the past which apparently warrant a ban. I'm not going to remove the ban. -Barras talk 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I never really expected you to do anything and RD knows you won't either and the issue keeps coming up because no one, including you it seems, is dealing with his actions. It encourages him to keep doing it and I agree its rather tiresome to keep getting blocked for little to no reason just because RD feels the urge to see if his ban script is working.
In regards to the things you heard. Let me clarify that I admit some are true and some aren't. I am a human person with feelings and I overreacted to a situation that should not have been allowed and violated policy. It made me mad and I apologized multiple times in multiple venues.
A lot of extra blatant lies have been told about me though and arguments that I am disruptive are simply put, complete bullshit. Callanecc even stated that my name is almost always associated with "disruption" when he closed my AN discussion regardless of the fact that its a complete lie and the vast majority of the disruption associated to me is what was made by others. It doesn't matter that the actual period of time that could be argued as disruption was less than a year of my 8 years on the project. That discussion for example is a disruption, but I didn't start it and couldn't even participate in it directly. Which is exactly what the creator of it wanted when he blocked me. I made one comment on my talk page (and yes I shouldn't have done it) that could have been easily ignored. Instead, the community threw out the 3 strikes agreement that I had with WormThatTurned rather than simply remove one and block me for a month. So apparently I am so hated in the community that they would be willing to scrap the whole agreement, spit in Worm's face and then revoke the whole thing and leave him out of the entire process. It should also be clarified that I was "never" unbanned. I have been banned continuously for the last 2 years basically so this current one really doesn't change anything.
So apparently, just like the original ban that was submitted over and over until it was the result they wanted, the Ban review last year that was changed because a few people who opposed it didn't agree and this one shows, the only result that the Arbcom or some members of the community want is me not being able to edit. The Arbocom even stated "or other time stated by the Arbcom", so never. Maybe that's because I think All contributors should be treated fairly or that admins should have to follow the rules they enforce on editors. Maybe they simply don't like me creating Medal of Honor recipient articles and have some desire to keep that content out. Who knows. What I do know is that the people that voted to ban me largely are not the ones creating content on the site. They are the ones keeping it from being created and they are the ones who are creating a disruption but using my name to do it. Yes that makes me mad. So if you want to hate me for that, and give me condescending replies without taking the time to learn the whole story, then that's on you. But I know the entire story and its not as it is being told. Reguyla (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

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

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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 transitioning 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

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@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. 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 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

sa.wiki autopetrolled

Hi ! can you help me for this here I am able to get this right but our admin is sleeping. Please guide me.... Thank you.... NehalDaveND (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! It is doubtable that this right is much needed when the project is that small. We (stewards) don't usually grant such rights, however, you can request it anyway at SRP. -Barras talk 10:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"Recent changes patrol" rights is enable in sa.wikipedia or not

Hi ! @Barras: I have a question. Please tell me that, "Recent changes patrol" rights are enable in sa.wikipedia or not ? And how can I get those rights ? Thank you.

Hi. Please see here for a list of available rights on sa.wikipedia. Look for the group "administrators" to see what they can add. -Barras talk 11:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Request

In this Discussion, Meta has advised me that: Just try to get unblocked your account. Why don't you ask help for that from Stewards?. Once again I am writing here. In addition, what should I do? Thanks in advance. --Idin Mammadof 17:03, 2 November 2015‎ ‎ (UTC)

Yeah, spam on like half the stewards' talk pages. That would technically be reason enough to block here as well. However, I assume, with that much spam being send, that one of my fellows will reply. -Barras talk 19:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. First, you answered me. Well, I need your aid. If you examine the complaint, I do not write to someone else.--Idin Mammadof 19:31, 2 November 2015‎ ‎ (UTC)
Since you already wrote to half the other stewards, I see no purpose in doing something. One of the others surely will reply. -Barras talk 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not have any other way. No one answered. I canceled them. Please, help. --Idin Mammadof 20:33, 2 November 2015‎ ‎ (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

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

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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 transitioning 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

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@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. 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 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

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

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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 transitioning 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

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@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. 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 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

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

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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 transitioning 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

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@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. 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, 17:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Please do not sign it so that we can get someone to replace you as the IRC sponsor who takes the job of monitoring the IRC channel admins seriously and does not let them get away with abusing their access. Reguyla (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Reguyla:, I really think about not signing, however, that would not affect in any way my competences on IRC as this is totally different and not related to this confidentiality agreement. In short, you won't get rid of me. -Barras talk 13:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah I didn't think you would leave, just a playful jab. No one else is going to do anything different in IRC anyway even if they could find someone else to give the role too, no one cares about what happens in IRC. Reguyla (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I certainly do care otherwise I wouldn't be in that position for several years already. Also, there is no need to change something. It works quite well. It's just you who doesn't get it. For like everyone else everything seems good. -Barras talk 19:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said, virtually no one cares about IRC so regardless of anything you do or do not do, no one is going to do anything about you or anyone else with permissions unless it affects someone else with permissions. Your almost never on and its commonly known that you don't really do anything. Its not me saying that, its EVERYONE. And just to clarify "everyone" else does not agree. The problem is they either do not really care enough to speak up or they are afraid to do so because folks like RD are allowed to just block them and everyone knows you won't do anything about it. This blocking me on IRC because other people bring up my ban is a cowardly and problematic manipulation of policy just like my ban on ENWP is. But its not going to stop me from participating there anymore than my supposed ban on ENWP is going to stop me from improving articles there. Its inconvenient at best, but not preventative and it only proves my point about how childish and petty some people on the WMF projects can be when they get a little bit of power and influence over other editors without having any mechanisms in place to prevent abuse by those people. Reguyla (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There are surely enough people who care. I certainly can't comment on whether someone should do something about me or not. However, I assume people trusted me in the past years, just look at my various requests for rights since I joined and especially take a look at the yearly confirmations of my stewardship. However, I could be wrong and by now people don't trust me anymore. I will surely see that in February when the next confirmation is, in the case I run again, which I'm not sure about yet, but that is a different topic. That I'm almost never on is simply nothing more than a lie. I'm usually every day for several hours on IRC, currently usually in the evening/night hours. I just don't often speak in public channels when not pinged. That I don't really do anything is the second clear lie in your statement. I do quite a lot usually. That I don't do something about your ban or about RD banning you is just because there is absolutely no reason to do something. As I surely said already in the past, I did remove abusive ops already. There was (in my opinion) no abuse and I discussed that with other people who agreed with me on that. It's not that I make all decisions alone. People are always free to speak up. I'm not going to ban someone giving an opinion. However, once the topic has been discussed and several people said no, it's just disruptive to go on. Furthermore, there is no real policy we could manipulate. IRC is not same as Wiki(p/m)edia. In fact, I can do whatever I want on IRC in the namespaces I'm responsible for. The point is simply, that there is no policy. I could simply say that I don't care what is written about IRC on policy-like pages on meta or anywhere else. That you are banned on enwiki is solely your problem. I couldn't care less. However, when you are explicitly banned on a project, there is no reason to have you in the related channels at all. So long, I don't think it makes much sense to go on here. Looking at what you wrote, including the lies, there's no need to waste more time on this. EOD. -Barras talk 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
You can call me a lier if you want and you can be offended if you want. I am simply telling to your face what others are saying behind your back. Also, having a discussion with Slakr, RD, Huon and the 2 or 3 others that find any reason to block me and saying they said no isn't a discussion and not involving me in the discussion also doesn't reflect it was a reasonably air process either. Which only again reflects my arguments more than yours. Also, logging into the channel and just loitering isn't participating anymore than a cop hanging out at the donut shop is working. So if you aren't participating, in some way, whether through discussions or function, then that reflects a lack of participation even if your name shows up in the window on the right. And Snarky condescending comments such as the ones you left directed at me do not reflect adult professionalism either. EOD. Reguyla (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Reguyla: As this discussion appears to be verging on harassment. I'm going to ask that you refrain from engaging with Barras on his talk page any further, in regards to this topic. Meta-Wiki prides itself on providing a safe environment for its users, and harassing others potentially compromises that safe environment. Thanks. --Az1568 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Az1568: First of all I just wanted to note that I had already stopped commenting before you posted but I feel like I need to reply to your inappropriate allegations of harassment. I came to Barras with what I felt was a serious matter, not only did he not take action, he was condescending and insulting so I addressed the matter directly with him. If he cannot handle criticism when he does something wrong, then that is more proof he should not be in the position he is. Its unfortunate that you have a problem with that. I also want to clarify there is nothing in what I said that would make Meta unsafe for anyone and I resent the allegations that I did. I was not threatening, I was simply attempting to correct Barras's failure to do the job he was appointed and volunteered to do. I do hope however that the next time some admin pushing a POV threatens to block me you will come to my aid with accusations of harassment and insinuations they are somehow making meta unsafe. If you want to accuse someone of harassment, then I recommend talking to RD. Just because I am only an editor and not an admin and cannot block someone I disagree with to win the disagreement doesn't mean I should be blocked or threatened to be by those who can. They should have their access to the tools removed when they do it. If you want to contact me further, please do so on my talk page so we can leave Barras alone. He isn't going to do anything about the problematic ops on IRC so there is no reason to continue this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, you started off this entire discussion by making a fairly rude comment towards Barras and then proceeded to berate them on their IRC duties, all while endorsing your own ban evasion on enwiki. I'm not sure what makes you think that this is acceptable conduct on Meta-Wiki, but I can guarantee you it's not. I honestly just can't allow this to continue, and I'm certainly within policy to enforce this. --Az1568 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

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

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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 transitioning 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

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@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing related user rights after the 15 December 2015 deadline.

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

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 18:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine

IRC cloak request

Hi,

I have submitted an IRC cloak request around 1 1/2 weeks ago. As I am yet to have the cloak, I am wondering if there's any issue with the request or if it's just that you're yet to get around to the requests?

Thanks, TaqPol (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @TaqPol:, we did not receive many request since I proceeded the last batch of cloaks. That might be due to the holidays. I generally get cloaks done in batches when there are enough requests. I currently can't guarantee to get cloaks set this year since I'm currently busy myself, so you might have to wait until January to get a cloak. -Barras talk 10:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)