User talk:Ajraddatz

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Welcome to my talk page.

To leave a message, press the "add topic" button at the top of the page. I will usually respond on this page, rather than on your talk page. For any private requests, please email me.

Archive 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


... am sad to see you leaving the team, but I wish you all the best for the future and congratulate you for your recent OC appointment. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's been six years, and honestly locking spambots isn't as fun as it used to be. That said, there are 15(!!!) candidates this year and most of them look really promising, so hopefully the team gets a big infusion of new blood! – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a shocking news! It's really sad and painful to see you resigned. To be honest, you are my idol. Thank you for giving me a new life 3 years ago and making me acknowledged what i had mistaken earlier. Good to connect with you! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was surprised to see you're leaving. Wishing all the best in all the activities you have. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the above, sad to see you go. You had processed so much of my requests, Wishing you all the best in your new role in OC. :) --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

👍 enjoy! Fish!  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the kind words everyone. And I'll still be around, just in a different role :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to support you for your service during fawiki elections as a scrutineer, but noticed that you had resigned[1]. It's sad to see that. I wish you the best and hope to see you again as a steward. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, always happy to help out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ajraddatz. Usually I thank those who wish to quit below their resignation note. I couldn't do that for you as you resigned earlier, so that's why I thank you this way. Thanks for everything you did the past years, for being a good steward, colleague and most of all, friend. Good luck in the new role. With love, Trijnsteltalk 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I've enjoyed working with you as well over the years (and it's been many of them!), I'm very glad to see you staying on, and thankful for all the work you do -- particularly with the OTRS queue! All the best, – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was also expecting a message on your confirmation page. First of all, I want to say that you aren't as funny like me, but you are still a very good user and I'd like to thank you for all what you have done like a steward. I hope that you joining IRC when having some free time. Bonne journée :). Matiia (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry[edit]

that my rename request ended as it did, I was too persistent in asking for the application of the policy exactly as it is written.
As I've said before, I respect your stewardship and person very much, but I feel that using the word "wikilawyering" for that discussion was implying bad faith, that's not part of my character. I always assume good faith, even when I experience that my appeals are ignored for as long as 7 months. I believe the proper words to describe that discussion is "citing the policy", "asking for explanation and justification". I'd like to ask you kindly to use these words to refer to the discussion and also my contributions preceding my enwiki block.

I have no intent to continue with that request, as I have written in my last comment, however I was surprised that my inqury for the basis of the decision was answered with a page-block. I have no intent to appeal that block either. To honor our fundamental principle of transparency, I'd like to ask you to document the username of the editors, who have decided the consensus to enact that block and also of those editors, who've decided the consensus to deny my request. I hope this is not too much to ask, nor would you find it "wikilawyering". I believe in honesty and openness and write this question in that spirit.

Thank you for your service.
With appreciation, —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 08:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aron Manning: I strongly suggest you drop the stick and move on. This is exactly the form of behavior which is on the edge. I welcome your apologies but I think ~riley said that there will not be disclosure of the people on the list who voted for or asked for your block. I strongly suggest you to go to other projects, be productive, and then regain your standing in enwp for the rename or whatsoever. Persistent continuation of such behavior here will really do no good for you. Even if it's something decided by a cabal, such continuation is not useful whatsoever. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't seem to understand the issue here, because you keep engaging in the same behaviour and making arguments that entirely miss the point. Your actions have established a relationship with other users whereby they will go to any length to decline even a relatively benign request like a rename. The justification given, that it would obfuscate previous bad conduct, makes no sense to me because you're already blocked on enwiki with no talk page access. But the fact that you have been so disruptive in the past that multiple people would be uncomfortable with giving you any potential new avenues to engage shows what the issue here is. I don't make these comments with a mean spirit; I hope that you reflect on your actions, try to understand why your approach causes such a hostile reaction, and make changes to your behaviour that result in you being a productive contributor here who is able to get along with others. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they will go to any length to decline even a relatively benign request like a rename. The justification given, that it would obfuscate previous bad conduct, makes no sense to me because you're already blocked on enwiki with no talk page access.

Thank you for your empathy. I agree, that's what I was trying to prove.

But the fact that you have been so disruptive in the past that multiple people would be uncomfortable with giving you any potential new avenues to engage

As you might be aware, I've refuted and appealed those allegations multiple times since June 2019 and none of those appeals were answered or even acknowledged. If someone were to suggest the community processes to appeal are a dead horse, I'm in agreement, however I'd rather resurrect those than to beat further into non-existence.
To be clear, I do not think that I've made no mistake. I did many, as I was very inexperienced and I'm aware of it. I've reflected on this many times and changed my approach accordingly. It's unhealthy, that making mistakes escalates to this level.

try to understand why your approach causes such a hostile reaction, and make changes to your behaviour that result in you being a productive contributor

I did. I am already a productive contributor in two communities, where someone else's hostile reaction wouldn't be my fault. Where it was my fault and my requests for help in unrelated hostilities were rejected, I don't want to return to, thus I was patiently waiting for a resolution without persuing this matter. I've only recently submitted an appeal to utrs that was instantly rejected without reason with a template response:

At this time, the English Wikipedia Unblock team is declining your unblock request, and will not hear your case anymore. Your next and final step of the appeal process is to email the Arbitration committee at

As ArbCom hasn't been answering my emails since July 2019, please give specific guidance on which community process will hear my appeal.
Thank you with appreciation, —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your reply still shows that you don't get it. My recommendation is that you cut out the wikilawyering, contribute productively for a while (in this case, maybe even a long while), and request unblock in a year or two at least. Rather than insisting upon bureaucratic application of every rule, understand that our policies and guidelines aren't a legal code and are subject to volunteer judgment and discretion. There is a large history of precedent for how any policy is applied, so it's best to leave the policy complaints to people with more experience -- if an injustice has been done, someone else will comment on it. But as to what you can do, it's hard to rebuild bridges after they've been burnt, demolished, and buried. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your opinion and advice. Does this mean I shouldn't be appealing, or seeking remedy for the bullying I've experienced? AronMan (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. Might as well ask if I've stopped beating my wife while you're at it. We're done here; I've given my advice, it's up to you now. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly have no such thoughts, I don't know how this came into this discussion. I don't have anything else to say other than I wish the best for your wife. —AronM🍂 edits🌾 11:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
w:Loaded question, in case it wasn't clear. I was referencing your question in your previous comment regarding seeking remedy for bullying. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the bullying is unrelated to you. This was a straightforward, procedural question. If you don't understand that, there's no point in discussing it. I repeatedly and respectfully ask you: please stop assuming bad faith which is not there. —AronM🍂 edits🌾 03:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


we add the CNadmin removal to Template:Votings. Is it practice to add removals to the template? Thanks.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say so, yes. I think previous deadmin discussions have been linked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How shall we indicate the removal? Will 1 RFCN (removal) works?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense to me! :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks for your advice. :)--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problemo, thanks for doing the work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think you may have accidentally deleted or omitted some words in this edit. --Yair rand (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mm yes, thanks. Now fixed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Will you let me know if you do something with the information, or if you don't do something? For all I know, you may have never even received it. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 09:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the slow reply; I replied via email last night. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please also notify me on-wiki if OMB does something? (spam filters etc, I sometimes miss stuff) Still hoping for a public notice to say no off-wiki threats (or even off-wiki communication..) exist. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you okay? Just busy I hope? I'm curious, is Ombuds still on track to have all open cases resolved by the end of the year? (still hoping Ombuds will issue a statement to publicly confirm no off-wiki funny business exists) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LTA request[edit]

I am letting you know that an LTA is requesting you here and says you interacted with them about a potential sockpuppet. Whether you want to respond or not is up to you, but I thought I should let you know. IWI (chat) 02:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add that their claim may be legitimate. IWI (chat) 02:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I've responded there. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


... how are you? are things fine there? Matiia (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Yes, things are fine here. Very few cases in my country and city for quite a while now, and life is returning to something that resembles normal. Unlike that giant mess to the south... How have you been? – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. Well, I'm in the south... so things aren't very well. Fortunately, I live in a commune where there's few cases and a sanitary cord since a few months ago and a quarantine to the other side of the sanitary cord around one month ago (here we have obligatory quarantines just in some places, not across the country, but most of us have been in home since around third week march anyway), so I'm safe for now :). Matiia (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am happy to hear this! :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-using this thread to send you greetings. I miss you on the team. I hope that everything is okay. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to hear from you :-). Everything is going well on my end. I do miss being part of the steward team sometimes, but the OC is a new challenge and quite interesting itself! Hope you're doing well also, – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Ajraddatz,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there![edit]

You are doing good! Keep up the good work then you will get the spirit! Bye! --Giratto (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yay, I love getting the spirit. Thanks very much. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bernard Griffin[edit]

Thanks. FWIW, I view the content at UTRS and on meta as a legal threat and more. I was actually sympathetic to the unblock appeal there, but-- legal threat. I recommended they contact ArbCom and Trust and Safety. You saw their trolling response.Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: They are socking here as well, Monsoir Cheesehead + Barry Biggins etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this doesn't seem like the kind of person we want around these projects. Worth noting they've been socking since before the UTRS request and their edits here, and apparently after as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsing on the CW RfC[edit]

Hey, maybe tone it down with the collapsing on said CW RfC. You're kind of being an ass. User:Imjustthere 14:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but I won't. The RfC is a mess, and you are directly contributing to that mess. If you continue with your previous style of comments there or personal attacks here you will be blocked. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So will you change your collapsing on RFC, as meta stewards proven that Kubura used 20 fake acc and that it was not any conspiracy but truth?

Help with sock puppetry.[edit]

I have not been able to prove im not a sock puppet Baratiiman (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Wikimedia Forum#Farssi. I have no idea, just noticed I recognized the username from that discussion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

With Kubura banned, why you aren't pushing the draft for completion? I already given support to all of your proposals. SMB99thx 04:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because there's a lot more work to do on it, and I'm rather busy IRL. I should have more time in the coming weeks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not sure if you noticed, but you've still got a draft banner at the top of your RfC and it's been transcluded onto the main page. -Giraffer (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, moved into my userspace. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Viewing abuse filters on meta for +patroller[edit]

I wonder which would be the right place to request it. I see quite a few hidden global filters that get hit, but cannot find out why such edits trigger the filter. One way would be to request abuse filter helpers (but then I only want to see the meta filters), and another would be to request limited adminship (which I think is too powerful).

My suggestion is to enable viewing (and only that) meta abuse filters on meta to +patroller. After all, users with +patroller are already reasonably trusted, and hence I personally think that's the best alternative. Leaderboard (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. We did give patroller very liberally recently. There are 2 implications to this, we add the filter rights, and we have to remove some (I don't trust some to hold abuse filter private rights), and if we add that, some users might just need the rollback tool might find it impossible to get patroller. I am not keen to do so, I am however keen to explore limited sysop for viewing meta only filters or rather AFH. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the place to discuss this will be Meta:Babel.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Babel is the right place to discuss. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself; there was a push to add a bunch of small (but potentially consequential) rights to the sub-admin groups over the last few years, but that trend seems to be coming to an end. The community recently rejected adding autopatrol to a new sub-admin group. Not sure what the reaction would be to this, and I imagine you would need to tie it to an explicit need over a "nice to have" argument. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021[edit]

Greetings SWMT member,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 10 July, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 03:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Znauri (Qornisi) is part of Georgia and now is occupied by Russia, and there is non-recognized republic South Ossetia, I have made change in this page, I have just written that it's territory of Georgia but administrator of has reverted my edit and now I am not able to edit this page because this user has defensed this page, please help me --ჯეო (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll need to chat with the local admins there, I'm afraid. I don't have any access on oswiki. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

IP_block_exemption request[edit]

Hello, I am working in many wikipedia languages and mostly I use University Wifi, Park Wifi or my Apartemnet wifi and most of the time the IP get blocked because someone maybe do wrong Ze221 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ze221: sounds like you may need a global IP block exemption; you can request one at SRGP. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam page left by blocked vandal, needs to be deleted 19:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't sure about this last night, while being created by an LTA it did not appear to be spam/vandalism. But after review by another editor it does not look to be of value, and I've deleted it. Thanks! – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I acted[edit]

Wave hello. I acted on AP295's editing, with a block at M:RfH for a week. I had warned about behaviour, which has gone unacknowledged, and then the tirade at RfH. Not having that rubbish on site.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey - your warning came after all the comments on RFH, but fair enough, I was probably giving a bit too much rope. I wanted to give him a (last) chance given the other users goading him into replying there, but I expect it would have been a lost cause. Hope you're doing well, – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]