User talk:Ajraddatz

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

ticket to see

Please see ticket:2025120810011181. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

CheckUser Request - Court subpoena issued

Hello, I have a Court-approved subpoena issued by the CACD Federal Court. I need the IP address for the user Sharleenbrando123 who had posted defamatory statements. I can provide the subpoena to you. I served Wikimedia with it but apparently there is no centralized editorial staff to assist and it was recommended to seek a user with CheckUser privelages. Winteryearstudios (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the hewiki case request

Hello Ajraddatz, I'm writing to you as a member of the U4C committee, regarding the status of the appeal about the Hebrew Wikipedia (here). As you might remember, the committee suggested, as a first stage, to open a local appeal process in hewiki, and function as a higher instance to appeals that will be denied. The proposed process received broad support from the committee members, has started well but got stuck halfway through.

Indeed some of the appeals were accepted locally, and several editors whose appeal was denied wrote to the U4C a few months ago asking to review their case as the higher instance. Sadly, these users didn't receive any response from the committee. Also, the appeals were described to us as only the first stage of a full examination of the case, which includes several issues.

I have asked for updates regarding the continuation of the process on the page of the case request (here and here), and reached out personally to two committee members (here and here), but unfortunately received no answer.

The situation in our community remains fragile, and clarity about the next steps would be invaluable in helping us rebuild trust and move forward together. We would be grateful for an update on the status of the process. We are eagerly waiting for your response and for further action. Sofiblum (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sofiblum, sorry for the slow response by the Committee. We are short staffed and have been busy over the holiday season, though it seems the delay goes beyond that. I will chat with other members and see if we can provide an update. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Ajraddatz Sofiblum (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Ajraddatz, can you provide an update regarding the process following the hewiki case request? thanks, Sofiblum (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Still working on it! Updates will be posted to the case page when done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Reminder: global rename policy requirement

You are receiving this message because you are either a Steward or a global renamer. If you are steward and don't perform global rename, you can safely ignore this message.

Hello, this is a general reminder that renames or vanish requests should be reserved for someone who knows the language and local wiki affairs on their home wiki or most active wiki for the first 24 hours after the request is placed.

For the first 24 hours after a rename or vanishing request has been placed, it should only be processed by a renamer who has sufficient proficiency in the language of the requester's home or most active wiki, and is active on that wiki.

— Global renamers#Guidelines

Refer to the 2025 RFC adding this rule, and following global-renamers mailing list emails: 1, 2, 3. Thank you.

— regards, Revi delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Closing

Hi, hope it's okay if I write here, since the topic is closed, so I didn't want to write there. Am I correct in understanding that the topic is completely closed and no more actions are to be taken from either side? Just asking because Udo just posted a copy of your closing statement in the German Wiktionary here, where he interprets the closing as clearing Alexander of all charges. I have no problem with the topic being closed, receiving a warning and with staying away from each other in the future, my problem from the beginning was with the threat of a 1-month ban and what in my view was a violation of No legal threats. Sorry if I misworded something, I want this to be over too, I just wanted some clarity on the outcome. --Mighty Wire (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You and Udo T have been in a longstanding conflict. Time to take a step back. You are not under any active sanctions as a result of this little saga (and yes I confirm the U4C does not intend to take any further action regarding this case), please take that as an opportunity to steer quite clear of him and you can each focus on your preferred areas of dewikt. Thank you. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit to add: The threat of a one month block is relatively standard for admins to do, and within their purview to give as part of a warning. From the automatic translation of the warning it does not appear overly callous or disrespectful, very neutral and to the point. On the legal threats, I did not see any that stood out to me, though Udo of course is making his own unideal comments. My hope is that, if you two avoid each other as much as possible, we can resolve the situation without (further) sanctions on either side. Assume that if Udo is doing something really out of line, it will upset others too and they can deal with it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the situation with bewiki

Dear colleagues @Ajraddatz, @EPIC,

We have conducted a search for Oversight candidates among our active users; however, those who met the necessary security requirements declined the nomination. Additionally, user:Mienski has declined to seek reelection. Consequently, we are compelled to accept the appointment of a steward to serve in the Oversight role.

However, we would like to clarify the terms of this arrangement and know which specific stewards might be involved. It is impossible to ask the community to approve a "pig in a poke" for access to such sensitive information. Who are the available candidates we can choose from?

It is vital for us that the candidate has at least 10 years of experience (ideally more) within Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, they must have no ties to Belarus or Russia, and preferably no connection to the post-Soviet space in general — this includes having no relatives there, never having studied there, and never having traveled to the region.

Is it possible to find individuals among the stewards who meet these criteria? If not, what other methods can you propose to guarantee that our critical data will not be compromised? We already raised the question regarding specific steward candidates on our Village Pump as early as April 16th, but we have received no response so far. Please understand that a transparent, open discussion on that Village Pump is impossible, as our users must prioritize their personal safety.

I am communicating this to you at a certain personal risk. I am not sure where your collective discussions take place, so I would appreciate it if you could convey this information to the relevant decision-making group.

In principle, we are ready to initiate the approval process as soon as we have the necessary information.

Best regards, M.L.Bot (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.L.Bot: I had clarified it in the forum thread as well, but none of the stewards are located in Russia or Belarus nor have any connection with those regimes. Every steward is required to sign a confidentiality agreement, which means that all pieces of information visible and collected by us in our capacity needs to be kept confidential and can only be shared to those with the same level of access. Ajraddatz or me can likely explain more if needed, but if the community does decide that they want to accept the compromise, we can discuss and potentially return with an update on the matter. We do of course recognize the current situation and are trying our best to fulfill the needs of the bewiki community. EPIC (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, @Ajraddatz, @EPIC

We still have many questions regarding what has happened, and we do not see that "are trying our best" is being done, but we will set those questions aside for now.

Our main question at the moment is technical: is there a technical possibility to limit the depth of access to suppressed history for a new Oversight? We want the risk to be shared; if a data leak occurs, it should only involve data from after the Oversight's election. We want to be sure that a leak of the history suppressed since 2022 will not happen.

I want you to understand that any signed confidentiality agreements are nothing under conditions of terror and war. The cost of your mistake, and subsequently ours, will be extremely high.

If such a technical possibility exists, what exactly should we write in the terms of the Oversight election and in the application so that the stewards do not forget to enable such a restriction? Please do not delay your response.

Thank you. --M.L.Bot (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No such restriction exists. Any new oversighters (and indeed all current stewards, ombuds and staff members with the global staff group) will be able to see all suppressed history. If there is too great a security risk to having more than two people view such information, perhaps the answer is to completely disable editing on those pages. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.L.Bot: On an extra note, I will add that stewards, ombuds and some staff have already have access to all suppressed revisions as part of their global rights, and we handle oversight on wikis that have no local oversighters. I don't think this is a sustainable long-term solution, but if the community wants a quick, temporary option, it's what we can offer to be able to reinstate Wizardist. The best option would be to either add another active OS, or coordinate for an automated system. EPIC (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be an eligible candidate for the U4C election

Greetings,

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) seeks candidates for the 2026 election. The U4C is the global committee responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct. Elections are held annually, if elected a committee member serves for two years.

This year the U4C requires candidates to hold administrator rights on at least one wiki, which is why you are being contacted as you appear to hold this right. There are other requirements, such as candidates must be at least 18 years old and may not be employed by the Wikimedia Foundation or other related chapters and affiliates. You can find more information in the call for candidates on Meta-wiki. Additionally, the committee's working language is English; some ability to communicate in English is required.

The election opens on 18 May, if you are eligible and interested you have until 10 May to submit your candidacy. There will be a week in between for candidates to answer questions from the community. Voting takes place privately in SecurePoll, successful candidates must receive at least 60% support. More information is available on the 2026 Elections page, including timelines and other candidacy information. If you read over the material and consider yourself qualified, please consider submitting your name to run for the committee. If you think someone else in your community might be interested and qualified, please encourage them to run.

In partnership with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

About my U4C Case

Dear Ajraddatz. Hi. I saw your decline vote on my U4C Case. This case is not only an example of the broader trend on trwiki of harsh sanctions and limited appeal routes you've noticed. It is also a topic of misconduct where I am infinitely banned for allegedly abusing multiple accounts. trwiki cannot show any evidence of me abusing multiple accounts, and does not engage with my arguments in my appeals. I kindly ask you to reconsider your opinion on the case. Best wishes. 1denizakdemir (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)