User talk:Barras/Archive 8

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 7 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic No renaming between November 20 and November 27

es:wiki email

Hi Barras;

Txs for the heads up. You've got email. Happy New Year. Saloca (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply


Hi Barras, I'm a journalist with Al Jazeera, and doing a piece to mark the 15th anniversary of the creation of Wikipedia later this week - just wondering if you might have any thoughts/be willing to talk about how it works and what it has achieved? I'm on bazleyt (at) hope to hear from you, Tarek

Hi, I'm not really interested in interview or whatever. -Barras talk 15:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Admin

I'm requesting I have access to the IRC Channel IRC/wikimedia-admin, as I'm an administrator on the English Wikibooks. As in the list... it seems like you can give me the access to be able to be in this channel. Thank you. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please PM me (Barras2) on IRC. -Barras talk 15:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It looks like RD banned me on IRC again

Well it looks like RD overstepped his Ops privileges by mass banning me on multiple channels again. I would complain and ask you to do something but I know that you don't care about what ops do on IRC as long as it doesn't affect you or other ops. Eventhough I am welcome to participate in other communities IRC channels like Wikidata and commons he blocked me on those as well. So, if its not to much trouble doing the right thing for once, would you mind please unblocking me on the commons and Wikidata channels. Ps, I would have asked nicer but I know from experience that you aren't going to do anything anyway. Reguyla (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can see, a wider ban has been set for your inappropriateness in apparently different channels. You probably didn't notice it firstly because you already where present in some channels and where not booted from them. -Barras talk 10:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Your right that he banned me from multiple channels and for the most part that's fine because most of the those channels are worthless and I am not missing a thing by being banned from them. It should be noted however that I am still welcome in Commons and Wikidata and quiet frankly a couple of others at least. So unilaterally blocking me from channels where I welcome to participate by those communities is frankly undo ownership. You all support the channels, you do not own them and you are not free to do whatever you want contrary to what you may think. Reguyla (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
In fact all wikimedia channels (among others) are owned by the group contacts. We are not bond to any policy written on any project. We can pretty much do whatever we want. We can even remove people from any our channels without any reason at all. That would be pretty dumb, but it is possible. I just felt it's needed to clear that point. Both, #wikidata and also #wikimedia-commons are under our global ban umbrella. If what you did was worth a global ban, it is possible that you are also affected in those channels. Such bans are not usually set when not needed, as they affected really a lot of channels. It is pretty much just like locking an account on-wiki. Even if you are welcome in one project but being disruptive in several others, it's likely you will be locked. It is not always possible to consider every single channel. -Barras talk 20:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
For the record, what I did was not worthy of a global ban just like my actions on ENWP 3 years ago wasn't worthy of a ban. But just as they ignored policies then and continue to manipulate them not to keep me out to do whatever they want, I guess you and RD are just the same type of individual. I find that unfortunate that you aren't trustworthy and don't respect your position of the rules, but it is what it is. Obviously you can do whatever you want because in fact you do. I would point out however that when you treat the channels like your own private playground, regardless of what Freenode policy is, especially when you don't participate, it makes you look childish and abusive. Which I keep pointing out to no avail. So although Freenode IRC does have certain policies that allow you to do whatever you want, for any reason, you are also doing so as a representative of the WMF and its policies and that precedent. But you don't seem to care about that at all, which I also find unfortunate. It has been established that anyone who is blocked on the English Wikipedia should be blocked on the corresponding English Wikipedia channel and you enforce that vigorously. So clearly what is stated in WMF related policies does indeed apply to IRC when you want it too. So, when you tell me that you aren't bound by it, what you are really saying is that you do what you want and have no respect for teh community, for your position as a representative of the WMF and that disrespect reflects not only on you, but on the WMF projects as well when you represent them. But now that you have seen fit to impose your will on IRC, indefinitely I hear, then I will unfortunately have to simply ignore it and evade it. If its indefinite, then I really don't have anything to lose. Reguyla (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Slakr and Rjd0060: As required by you, slakr and RD I have removed my name from the participants list at Template:SWMT-Members. BTW. SWMT can get busy so since you all don't want me to participate, I might suggest you all pitch in your time to help out. Since you are ok with increasing the volunteer time others spend by removing a member of the team, its only right that you increase the time you spend there to compensate. Reguyla (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
For you to thank me for removing my name from the Small Wiki Monitoring Team shows true immaturity on your part Barras. It shows that I was right that you do not have the maturity or professionalism or the position you have with the project. Its even more so true because its only because of you and a couple others forcing me to do it and gravedancing and even worse because you are not the type to do any of the work there, just the type to keep others from doing it.Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Protected edit request on 28 January 2016

Baras claims to be a checkuser and bureaucrat on simplewiki when he is not. Krett12 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is horrible. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Removing edit request template; Barras will deal with this as he sees fit, but this does not belong in the general workflow of Meta sysops. Courcelles 16:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think he was at one time. He probably just didn't update it on his userpage. Its not that big of a deal. It happens all the time. Reguyla (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply


@Barras, Slakr, Az1568, Rjd0060, and Fluffernutter: Sorry to post here but since none of you will tell me who did it, how long I am blocked for or anything else about the IRC block, I have no other way to contact you. I don't know who actually did it and I don't really care so I am pinging all of you. I know that none of you are as interested in unblocking accounts on IRC as you are with blocking them, but could you please unblock me on just these 4 where I am still welcome since you decided to block me?

You've violated the terms of several of our channels and are therefore banned from the majority of them. IRC is not Wikimedia so queries here or on any wiki related to your consistent IRC trolling will likely not be responded to and surely not be acted upon. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Rjd0060: First of all, you can argue all you want about violating the terms of use but you and Barras have both already established that there are no rules at all for you and the other ops and can do whatever you want. I am also not trolling IRC and I am not asking for access to most of the channels you blocked me from, only a couple for the communities I actively participate and therefore should be welcome to participate in those channels. As much as you may think so, the IRC channels are not your individual fiefdom to do whatever you want.
Also, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the WMF IRC channels are bound by some rules from Wiki so there is no point in you arguing otherwise in the hopes that we are too stupid to know better. For example, its been decreed that if someone is blocked from ENWP then they are blocked from the corresponding IRC channels as well and you follow that so the precedent of wiki rules applying to IRC has been set. I have also seen where conduct from IRC has extended and been used to block people on Wiki (like The Devil's advocate recently in ENWP) so again arguments of IRC has no rules and Wiki rules do not apply is an obvious lie. Additionally, if you block me from all the channels and then tell me you aren't going to respond to inquiries here, then you are telling me and everyone essentially that there are no rules on IRC and its just a free for all for you and the other ops to do whatever you want. You should also know that by acting the way you do, as a representative of the WMF, it reflects extremely poorly on the WMF whether or not the rules of wiki actually apply to IRC. They still fall under the WMF sphere of influence. Reguyla (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Most channels have guidelines, and the freenode network (as a whole) has guidelines as well. You've managed to violate so many of them to the point that you've exhausted the ops, abused the system and therefore are now banned from most Wikimedia channels. As a former IRC group contact - and more importantly a long-time IRC user, I know how these things work. I don't need advice, information or anything else from persistent network trolls such as yourself. By continuing to bring this off-wiki issue to the wiki it a manner that can be perceived as harassment of several users (including but not limited to myself), I would suggest you cease your inappropriate behaviors. And that's all I have to say - that's all that can be said. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well the feeling is mutual Rjd0060. I have no more respect for you and your conduct as an IRC op and using your access to get your way than you do for me having discussions in channels you don't even participate in. If you didn't use your op access to actively threaten and harass other users, including myself, I might have some respect for you. As it is, you calling me a troll is nearly meaningless to me because of your own conduct, insults and arrogant attitude. Regardless of whether you agree, I have brought a valid complaint and a reasonable request here because this is the only venue available. You and your friends have abusively manipulated the situation so that I do not have anywhere else to go. If there were somewhere else, I would go there, but there isn't. Furthermore, your baseless threats of trying to turn a valid complaint and a reasonable request into a complaint about me harassing you, for being abusive, is insulting and laughable. You have total control of IRC with no checks and balances and no way to appeal it other than a couple of people including you with unlimited control to do whatever you want and if anyone complains, you insult them with baseless arguments of harassment? Complaining about abusive conduct of admins and ops isn't harassment, admins and ops doing whatever they want to an editor they don't like is harassment and you know it. Further, the issue with you problematic conduct on IRC needs to be documented on wiki so it can be addressed. Continuing to keep it off wiki and out of site out of mind is the reason most of you haven't been removed from the job long ago. You keep it off wiki and out of the eyes of the community and keep IRC for you and a few of your friends. Reguyla (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Your failure to understand the IRC Wikimedia relationship is sad. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
And I think its said that you have no respect for the relationship between your position and how your conduct reflects on the WMF. When you treat the position and the IRC like they are yours to do with as you will and that the IRC channels have no relevancy to how the WMF is perceived, then that is a bigger problem than how I, as a non op and non representative of the WMF understand the relationship. And that's all the more reason you should not have the role that you do. Reguyla (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Firstly, I did not ready any word of this section. I've the feeling it's not worth it and it would just be waste of my time. Secondly, I think it's just all again what we discussed already anyway. So long, summary for me and this section. RD just told me he won't reply here anymore. I did not read this section. I feel it doesn't belong to my talk page anyway. So if either of you wants to go on with the discussion, please find a more general and better suited place to do so instead of using my talk page. EOD. Regards, -Barras talk 13:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
You didn't read it because you already have preconceived notions of guilt towards anyone who comes here that was blocked by one of your ops on your IRC channels. That's the sort of response I expect from you because, as I have pointed out before, you do not take your position seriously and treat IRC and your position as your own personal playground. So now I'll just create a new IRC nick because you have both stated that there are o rules on IRC and that nothing I do there will affect my standing here because the Wiki and IRC are seperate. Cheers. EOD! Reguyla (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Request to remove rights of User:Orjentolog with blocking and rights of User:Edgar Allan Poe administrator on SH.Wiki

Please remove the nationalistic text on SH.Wiki , because there User:Orjentolog deliberetly denominates Name of the Macedonian State, Name of the People of Macedonia and brutaly attacks Macedonian Nation! If possible remove all his rights and block this person on Wikipedia. Wiki was here blatantly misuse to brutaly offend rights and feelings of all Macedonians. Admin. on Edgar Allan Poe even proteced that page. Please, remove his rights also. Thank you. 13:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm sorry, but I can't really help with that. The project you are refering to has local admins and it's their job to deal with problems. Please talk to a local admin. If that doesn't help, you might want to open a RFC here on meta. -Barras talk 14:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Generaly you are right. But now this is an extreme situation, and your action is necessary. I never in 15 years saw nationalist insults and hatred on identity and dignity of the people of any nation in that magnitude. People from SH.Wiki were engaged in most brutal propaganda and lies against all institutions in Macedonia, all values, identity, including the name of people and the name of language, name of the state, making jokes and defamation regarding government,etc. How one should go and ask them "please remove that nationalist propaganda content" !? Stewards should act now and block and remove all rights to that Vandal User:Orjentolog, and remove the administrator Edgar Allan Poe who protected and supported that masterpiece and destruction of Wikipedia itself. 17:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Barras, this IP has been banned on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia for using multiply accounts and propagating himself as "famous diplomat, philosopher and musicologist" without any reliable sources (see details), so he was banned and his biographical article was deleted. Subsequently he started to vandalize various articles and user pages of all contributors involved in his case, and he even threaten to slaughter us. Alleged "chauvinistic" article is only a parody of his fictional World and it's part of Wikipedia humor category. In short, ignore him. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that name rings a bell. Thanks for the info. -Barras talk 18:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are dissapointment Barras. You even didnt read what they said there. Shame! 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for your vote - I respect it whichever you've done it as per your wise discretion.

There are two points I would like to highlight:

  1. Please do not attribute any message posted by others to me.
  2. I've interacted with you earlier, e.g. this IRC text.

Thanks for your understanding. --Muzammil (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As to the first point, it might make sense to publicly sort that by requesting a CU due to possible impersonation, harassment or something like that. For people passing by, it's a clear case. However, it might change some people's mind if that is clarified. As for the second point, thanks for the link. I've right now suppressed the page. It's nice to know that I was talking to you back then, however, that apparently was in 2014, long time ago. I suppressed it for pretty much two reasons, firstly, with that you potentially violated the privacy policy by posting the IP address of a fellow steward publicly. Secondly, as it was/is even mentioned in the topic you also posted, we don't not allow public logging of that channel (not a reason for suppression but to delete the page). That is now sadly even more a reason for me to oppose you. Publicly logging the channel without the permission of the involved/talking persons is a clear no-go for me. -Barras talk 13:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am ok with your opposition.But at least you can take back the wrong attribution (#1). --Muzammil (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I adjusted my comment. However, as said above, you might want to request a checkuser for that. -Barras talk 13:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is rather serious accusation and CU I feel is unnecessary - although I am open to it should you or some else would like carry it out. That Abbas and me are two different person is explicit from my talk archive - please don't hide or suppress this page as well to completely paint me in black!!--Muzammil (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I won't do a CU as I'm a member of the OC and so I should avoid any kind of conflict of interests. I only run CUs in my capacity as steward in urgent cases, which this clearly isn't. Furthermore, there is no reason to hide that page. I did only hide the IRC log because it included a Wikimedian's IP address, otherwise I'd only have deleted it. -Barras talk 14:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Now it only makes sense if you remove the sockpuppetry accusation. Opposition is ok but character assassination is NOT.--Muzammil (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, I simply rely on a fact that can be found by everyone and that means there is no reason for me to remove that part, hence I adjusted my comment only. Sorry, but it simply looks that way. Either the account is a sockpuppet or someone is impersonating you. -Barras talk 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
What will be your reaction to a negative report? Are you ready to apologize? --Muzammil (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
When I'm proven wrong, I've no issue to apologize. I'm just a human and can be certainly be wrong. However, from the info gathered by now, it simply looks the way I explained above. -Barras talk 14:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Since I've got nothing to hide, I've requested CU asked by you. I respected both people who voted for me and against me but your reaction and comments are highly demotivating and distressing - I feel like quitting Wikimedia movement altogether. --Muzammil (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflicted) I just had a fellow taking a look at the issue for me. We came to the conclusion, that the comment on pawiki was certainly not from you. It's either impersonation or some sort of possible trolling, probably to damage your reputation. I'm certainly sorry for that! However, I'm also happy that this could be cleared. I did right now remove that part from comment. However, especially in delight of posting logs from IRC to a wiki, I still can't change my vote. Again, I'm sorry for the possible trouble I created. -Barras talk 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
In your own words, "...was in 2014, long time ago", have seen me posting any chat stuff after that period? Don't you feel quoting this old story now and passing judgement is rather far-fetched? Besides, the reason the chat posting was apparently similar to (though not exactly as this was in my personal capacity) as the programme officer of CIS (which I was around that time) such as this this chat log post by my ex-colleague. Anyway, I have nothing more to say and I am removing this page from my watchlist. Good night. --Muzammil (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is quite long time ago. However, you rather promptly pointed me to it today, so you apparently still remember its existence. It would've been better to ask for it to be deleted, or in this case, to ask for having it suppressed instead of linking it like that to me here. Furthermore, It's rather disappointing that you posted it at all, no matter if that was 1.5 years ago or yesterday. I was involved and talking in there and I don't wish to be quoted like that on-wiki. Furthermore, the topic clearly says no public logging, you did even post the topic of the channel on that page. At least by doing so you should've noticed that what you were doing might be against some rules. The public logging is something I'm very biased with. As for the other log you just pointed me to, that is from a different channel. Different channels may apply different rules to their channels and that log is less concerning, at least to me. -Barras talk 17:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Confirmation discussions

Dear Barras,

As you probably know, the confirmation discussions for Stewards have been closed. In order to determine the outcome of these discussions, you are invited to comment on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2016 before scheduled closure of the confirmation section "one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards" (Sunday 6th of March, 17:22 UTC), though the closing time might be extended at the ElectCom's discretion for an extra week if it is believed "further input is required before concluding". All stewards are welcome to comment, including those newly elected.

For those who ran for confirmation, consider revising comments regarding you, and replying to those where appropriate. Savhñ 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Removal of Dschwen's adminship

Hello Barras!
Apparently you mistakenly removed the admin rights of User:Dschwen. Since this happened for the third time in a row (e.g. here, too), I would suggest adding a note somewhere so that this doesn't happen again. Thanks, --Vogone (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my recent absence, however, I see that it has already been dealt with this. Feel free to add a good visible note somewhere and sorry for the extra work that might have caused. -Barras' sock talk 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a Request for Comment on the Emmaus Nicopolis Talk-Page

User:Barras, I will be greatly honored to have your participation on a troubling issue on the Wikipedia "Emmaus Nicopolis" Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Barras

for the suppression on the Grants:IdeaLab page. Cheers, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Recover password

Hello, Barras!

I think I lost my IRC password. Can you help me recover that?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind... I just took care of it after 13 attempts. :) —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 04:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Alright. For the future, there is also the possibility to send a password reminder via nickserv on IRC. -Barras' sock talk 09:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for proving my point

You must really think I and the rest of the community are stupid and can't see what you are doing. But thanks for lying and proving my point by protecting my talk page.

Discussing the issue is NOT inappropriate use of a talk page. Just because I didn't beg to be allowed to edit doesn't justify not unblocking it since it was me that requested it be blocked in the first place.

The only reason I am even upset is because Az now won't allow anyone to unblock it and is using his influence as an admin and functionary to prevent it.

When the first person to decline the block did so by enflaming the situation in order to justify it and you did it the second time after declining my submission to the Ombudsman commission and both of you have shown and stated repeatedly in multiple venues that you don't like me. Your actions show beyond a doubt there are serious problems with the admins on the WMF projects acting in a corrupt and abusive manner to support their own agendas. Kumioko/Reguyla73.12.101.178 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Announcing a new mailing list for Meta-Wiki administrators


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)Reply
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.

@Savh and MarcoAurelio: Just subscribed. -Barras talk 03:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No renaming between November 20 and November 27


You’re getting this because you’re a steward or global renamer. The Community Tech team are working on cross-wiki watchlists. We need to add a couple of fields to the localuser table in centralauth database. In order to be able to do this, we’d need to run a script that will get in the way of renaming users. Our apologies – we realize this is getting in the way of your work.

We ask that you do not rename anyone between 00:00 November 20 (UTC) and 00:00 November 27 (UTC).

(UTC means that if you live in the Americas, it will be on the evening or afternoon of November 19 when the script starts running, and if you live in Oceania or eastern Asia, it can be closer midday on November 27 before we can be sure the script is no longer running.)

Phabricator task.

If there are any problems related to this, or you have any questions, please write me on my talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply