User talk:Az1568/Archive4

help if needed

Hey, I just learned about the work of the Translation subcommittee at Wikimania. I know quite a few languages, translate also actively Ubuntu distros on Launchpad so I think I could be of use. If you need any help or have tasks please just let me know! --Dimi z (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to work on translations! Our regular requests for translators are listed on Translation requests. Linked from that page are specific requests, such as translations for the Wikimedia Foundation's official website (https://wikimediafoundation.org). If you are interested in article translation, we recommend our international collaboration page as a great place to begin: "Translation of the Week".

Thanks again for your interest --Az1568 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology for removal of admin rights

Dear Alex,

I'm sorry for the abrupt removal of admin rights on the Foundation wiki, which wasn't announced in advance. We've been talking internally for a while about making the governance structure of this wiki more clear, i.e., decisions regarding content and practices in this wiki are ultimately up to WMF staff. There may be projects during which it makes sense to assign temporary adminship to volunteers, as well, but we wanted to start with a clear separation of roles and responsibilities.

I apologize, though, for the hasty implementation of this decision! I didn't intend to express any disrespect or distrust. On the contrary, I'm very grateful for all the work you and other volunteers have done on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki over the years, and I hope you won't be too discouraged by this experience. I'll be posting an update about the next steps for wikimediafoundation.org on the wikimedia-l mailing list soon.

Please do reach out to me if there's anything else I can do. Gyoung (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Викимедија ЛГБТ

Hi. Can you please explain why this should be deleted? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. As you can see here, the original page was a broken redirect. So it was tagged as such for deletion as part of a batch of broken redirects that I was clearing out. I see that you edited the redirect and linked it to the translation which is great, so there's no need to delete it now. However, "what links here" shows that nothing else on Meta links to that page currently. So at the time I didn't feel it was absolutely necessary to keep it, as the majority of users would typically find that page via the header on the LGBT portal. --Az1568 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but I'd rather leave a redirect as it is harmless (and could potentially help someone). Thanks for the explanation. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

#wikimedia-roles

Is this channel active? Can it be redirected to #wikimedia-affcom? --Nemo 10:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe It's been dead for quite a while. But I'll see if I can place a forward in later today. --Az1568 (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Superprotect letter update

Hi Az1568,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect status

Dear Az1568, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.

• Request for comment: Requests for comment/Superprotect rights
• An open letter about its implementation: Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer

Peteforsyth 09:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Global CSS/JS migration

Hello Az1568. You have global.js and global.css pages which contain your global scripts and styles for all wikis. Since August 19^th, your global.js and global.css pages are loaded automatically on all wikis (see announcement). Since you already load them yourself on some wikis, you may experience script errors or issues like tools being added twice. I can fix that for you by merging your local scripts and styles into your global pages, and deleting the local pages with synchbot. Do you want me to do that? —Pathoschild 18:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Pathoschild, that would be great if you could! Let me know if you need any additional information from me to help with the request. --Az1568 (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Done! You can see the full log on your archive page. —Pathoschild 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

Thanks for your recent cleanup of Meta. It is appreciated. Good to have you back. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PiRSquared17! :-) --Az1568 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sysop flag

Per RfA unanimous support I have granted you a brand new sysop flag, and here is also my very warm "welcome back"!

--M/ (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back Az and congratulations! Best, -- M\A 12:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :D --Az1568 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cgratz! Now +V me on all CVN Channel >:D.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi Az1568, congratulations of the new job. Already you've even started. --Uğurkent^talk 21:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Az1568 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell me you won't leave Wikibooks ;( --Atcovi (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aw, I'll definitely still be around just as much as usual. There's always lots to be done there! --Az1568 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Strategy Barnstar
		For your contributions to the 2015 Strategy Consultation. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PB! --Az1568 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My Userpage

Hello, I wanted to create my userpage here on meta, when I saw that the page was deleted on February 25th. Can you tell me why the page was deleted? I've never edited my userpage on meta before --Korrektor123 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone other than you made a test edit there and it was deleted. --Az1568 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Updated scripts

Hi Az1568. I edited your pathos.js to update you to the latest version of ajax sysop and TemplateScript, which are compatible with the latest MediaWiki changes and reside on the Wikimedia Tool Labs for easier updates. I also updated various deprecated functions, made your scripts HTTPS-compatible, and removed the obsolete babel transition script. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 03:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pathoschild. --Az1568 (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! I edited your templatescript.js to update TemplateScript. I also removed the sample code, since it was broken (it had subst: fragments that got parsed) and only made sense on en-wikisource. You don't seem to be using the script anywhere, but at least it's up to date. ;) —Pathoschild 01:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Link FA/GA templates

Hi. Can you please delete co:Template:Link FA? All info is not kept in Wikidata and we are removing these old templates. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been deleted. --Az1568 (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments

Since you want to continue to comment I will reply here rather than on Barras's talk page. Drop it and stop threatening me. Reguyla (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what is driving you to go to such lengths to get yourself blocked here. We have all been extremely lenient with your behavior, considering your lengthy history with the projects. I did feel that you should be aware that at any point and time, you could have been blocked for your continued bullying against Barras, RD and the other IRC contacts, despite others suggesting that you take this up elsewhere and asking you to stop. As such, I decided that a warning should have sufficed and that you'd get the hint and end this campaign of yours. Please don't make me re-consider that. --Az1568 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My lengthy history? Lenient? Are you kidding? You mean the 10 years I dedicated to these projects right? Or the Half million edits? Maybe you are referring to the hundreds of articles I created, the more than 100 WikiProject's I maintained, the Java scripts, the Newsletter, the Collaboration of the month or the featured articles? Those are the "behavior your referring too right? Or are you referring to the lenient way that I a small group on ENWP got me banned by repeatedly submitted ban requests one after the other until they got one to stick. Then there is the Ban review that was overturned by a couple people who disagreed by creating a disruption on my talk page to justify revoking me review. Or the lenient way that the three strikes agreement that me and Worm That Turn agreed to that was thrown out over an insignificant edit on my talk page on the first day I was unblocked. Or then there is the time that someone outed me to my employer trying to get me fired after the Arbcom advocated doing it. Or then there is RD and others who continually block me from IRC for using the excuse of mentioning my ban when others do it. So please spare me the hyperbole abut how lenient the projects are with me and how horrible I have been. Its just hypocritical when you do not deal with the other people who are harassing and targeting me. And for what its worth there is no where else to take it when everyone ignores obvious problems with the admins and leadership on the site. Reguyla (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was in regards to your conduct on Meta-Wiki, there's no need for us to discuss what happened over at Wikipedia or even on Freenode. In any case, what I said still stands and I'm going to just leave it at that. --Az1568 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well my conduct on meta and IRC is linked to Wikipedia because the people here want to make it that way. Its also the elsewhere to bring up the problems in order to make a record of it. If the WMF wants to use IRC, then they need to be able to see the problems with it, not bury them in protected logs that are only kept by people who want to use them against others. Look, everyone knows the WMF doesn't care about Freenode, IRC or non admin/functionary editors, but now there is a record of my complaints so when the next person complains about RD or Barras's failure to address it, then there will be proof it has come up before and it won't be hidden and swept under the carpet. I cannot do anything about my block on Wikipedia but they want to block me on IRC every time someone (even if its not me) brings it up so I complained about it here on Meta and Barras didn't want to do his job and doesn't really do anything. He has literally done nothing in years so its time to replace him with someone who can do some house cleaning over at IRC and get rid of the ops that think they can do whatever they want like RD. Nuff said! Reguyla (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Undelete request

CIS-A2K/Train-a-Wikipedian/Editors is under construction, as a part of CIS-A2K/Train-a-Wikipedian. The enrolment process will start soon. Please undelete the page. --14:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Please note in the future that intentionally blanking a page, is considered a request for deletion. Thanks! --Az1568 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. :) --Tito☸Dutta 09:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving me right on IRC

Hey Alex, I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for proving me right on IRC last night. Maybe when the WMF and leadership is less interested in perpetuating abusive decisions and preventing high output and dedicated editors from participating the community will start feeling better about the WMF and their participation in wiki stuff. Since you only seem to be interested in enforcing bad decisions and policy and have no interest in improving the projects outside feeding your own ego and being in charge, I'll add you to my list of people to avoid who aren't here to build an encyclopedia. My hope is that at some point there will be more people like me trying to build a project and less people like you and Barras who are only interested in controlling it. But I am probably wrong, because editors don't matter here on the WMF projects. Reguyla (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I wish there was more that we could have done to avoid such an unpleasant outcome. Unfortunately, we had exhausted all of the possible options in this case. Due to the nature of your recent behavior, it was freenode staff who decided the best course of action would be to k-line you from the network entirely. --Az1568 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's funny because I was told that someone contacted them and asked them to do it, which I assume was you. Or are they lying?

I also find it ironic that people are so ready to block me for commenting about my abusive ban that never should have been allowed in the first place. But won't do anything about the policy violations of others that created the ban or since. My ban was only done through a few people on ENWP by repeatedly lying and manipulating policies and abuses to keep me banned, simply because I think admins should have to follow the rules and because a few people did not like me keeping the US WikiProjects alive.

I find it funny that its ok to submit ban requests over and over until the result is what you want, but its not ok for me to be upset about that. Its ok for the Arbcom and admins to lie, try to get me fired from my job, block me to prevent me from participating in discussions about my ban to help keep me blocked, creating a disruption on my talk page to justify extending my ban, that the community agreed to unblock me, because a couple people who want me banned didn't agree and wanted to change the outcome. And in all of this, you have the English Wikipedia arbcom, in the center, manipulating the situation to help show everyone that if you do not do whatever the admins say, regardless of what policy they are violating, then you will be banned from the project. And somehow, I am the bad guy in this even though I have been a long term high output contributor who created hundreds of articles, over a dozen featured, did hundreds of thousands of edits, kept more than 100 WikiProjects running, created a collaboration of the month, a newsletter and a whole list of other things. All because no one cares about editors, because editors are second class citizens and the leadership, including the WMF only cares about supporting the admins and making donation money. And yet, I am supposed to be happy about this, just lay down and take it and just turn my back on a project I believe in and have donated thousands of hours to building because a few bullies do not want me to participate and no one has the morale courage to do anything about it.

So no, you did not do everything to avoid it and neither did anyone else. Reguyla (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's best not to assume things. In any case, there's nothing else that I can do for you in regards to this. It's probably best if you just move on and use this as a learning experience. --Az1568 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything at this point. I have had two years of experience being shown what I have stated and I have links and proof to back up every word of what I said. Unfortunately no one cares, since editors aren't needed anymore. The thing I learned from this last 2 years is that the WMF does not value its editors or else it would be more interested in doing something about changing the culture from one where editors are treated like expendable commodities and admins can do whatever they want, including violating policy, POV pushing and article ownership than one that favors abuse by its leadership and complacency. Now I am going to go back to evading my ban on the English Wikipedia just so I can contribute to the project because no one has the morale courage to do the right thing that should have been done 2 years ago. Cheers!. Reguyla (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify my comments above. What really surprises me here Alex is that for the last 3 years, several corrupt admins and abusive individuals who should have been kicked from ENWP themselves long ago have tried everything to make me into a vandal like so many other past editors and yet, I continue to edit positively and will continue to do so. Why are people (including you) trying so hard to make me into a vandal and turn me against the project just to have a reason to justify not allowing me to edit? Can you explain that? Because I can't understand it. Rather than looking at my history and saying wow, this guy has been here for ten years, done all this work, clearly they are trying to improve the project, but instead you and others are saying wow, why is this person evading a ban, how can I get involved in blocking them and help to enforce a gag order on them talking about it to get it changed and help enforce a ban that never should have had in the first place. How can I help to piss him off so bad, that they hate the project, convert them into a vandal, troll or worse and what can I do to help continue to block them. It makes absolutely zero sense to me how you and others are arriving at that conclusion if you are truly trying to build an encyclopedia. I am not a complete asshole, but I do not like being bullied or screwed over in such a blatant way that violates so many policies and no one cares. Reguyla (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue where your going with all this. Honestly, it's just rehashing the same information we all already know... anyways, you clearly aren't a vandal. You do however, have a bad habit of making negative comments that are obviously filled with some sort of misguided anger towards the entire project as a whole. Clearly nothing I say is going to change that, as I've tried numerous times to convince you that we're all not out to get you. Maybe this community isn't a good fit for you. If you hate the place so much, as you say, and think that all of us are just terrible it might be in your best interest if you took a step back and found someplace else where you feel accepted. --Az1568 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth, I do not hate the project or the community or you. I know you don't care and I know that you don't do anything except enforce blocks regardless of how abusive because that is easier than undoing an obviously bad block that damages the project everyday. What I do hate, is people justifying bad actions by admins that are against policy and then blaming the victim for not just taking it and letting bullies push them out like they have done to drive so many out over the years. Its like the police telling the rape victim that they should just live with the act, that they have better things to do and don't have the time or desire to get involved.

It angers me that the people that clearly have the ability of doing something (including you it seems) to fix it do nothing and have done nothing for the last 3 years while the Arbcom and admins on ENWP are allowed to do whatever they want with no regard to policy and act like I am the bad guy because I refuse to just accept getting screwed over. Now I don't know about you but I am trying to improve Wikipedia and will continue to do that regardless of a few bullies and POV pushers.

Now if you and the WMF really cared about the project they would create an appeal mechanism outside the individual community to review bans. That way, what happened to me where a couple people continued to submit request after request to ban me, all coming back as no support for a ban, until they finally got the result they wanted, wouldn't happen again. It didn't matter that the previous requests had no support, all they needed was one with the result they wanted. And they got it for a minor comment on a users page who clearly wasn't there to improve the project in the first place. But they used it as an excuse. Just like a couple users who opposed me being unblocked, created a disruption on my talk page, to justify starting a discussion I could not participate in to extend my block because they didn't want me to edit. Just like when I was finally unblocked a user blocked me for a minor comment on my own talk page that could easily be ignored, so that I could not comment on a discussion they then started to revoke my unblock. Just like the English Wikipedia Arbcom advocated someone contact my employer and then someone did and tried to get me fired.

If no one including you and the WMF aren't going to do anything about the policy violating vindictive admins except blame the victims who are trying to make the project better, because its easier just to not get involved and look the other way, then its all the more reason I should continue to edit. Because clearly the project needs it.

If the WMF wants to improve editor recruitment and retention, then they should do something about the admins and the English Wikipedia Arbcom that does not respect policy, does not respect the editors and do whatever they want with impunity because there is no oversight or outside unbiased auditing. And for what its worth I edited within this community for literally years and worked just fine with others until a very tiny group decided to bully me out. The thing that irritates people is that I am just unwilling to let that happen and just go away, which is what those bullies want so they can continue to push their POV. And for what its worth the ONLY reason I continue to talk about my ban and continue to fight it is because I am still banned. The day my abusive ban is revoked, is the day I stop fighting it. Reguyla (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not involved in Wikipedia, so can't help you there. Start an RFC on meta or something if you wish to persue this topic so badly, my talk page isn't going to be all that helpful in convincing anyone that you should ever be unbanned. --Az1568 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah there is nothing anyone can do. That's how the wiki culture works. Once your blocked or banned no one is allowed to do anything except enforce the block regardless of how ridiculous the reasoning was or how long ago it happened. So I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment that no one can do anything about abusive bans on projects. But I'll leave you alone after this comment. Your just as helpless as I am and don't have the power to do anything about it even if you wanted too. Besides, I can and will still edit regardless of my ban, I would just prefer to use my account to do it so it doesn't give others an excuse to vandalize my edits out of spite and immaturity. Reguyla (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)