User talk:Ajraddatz/Archive 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Become an administrator[edit]

Hello! Thank you for reminding me! I do not know how and where to submit a request for administrative privileges, please help in this Аль-Гимравий (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a section on that project (on a village pump or wherever you posted it last time), wait for a week, then request the rights again on m:SRP even if nobody comments. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time ...[edit]

Just tell him that he isn't my type. No-one with less than a quarter of a brain is acceptable! <eyeroll>  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor guy, lol. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can get globally renamed?[edit]

Does it have to be a really good reason? Or could it be simple? --Goldenburg111 01:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I want to be renamed" is a good enough reason. Which username would you like to use? Ajraddatz (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Atcovi please. --Goldenburg111 15:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it take for my username to be completely renamed to Atcovi in which I can log into my account? And thanks btw. -- 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can take a little while. Check back in an hour. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Came back at French block and it worked :) --Goldenburg111 17:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have e-mail[edit]

-- Avi (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there Adrian, it's me Allen.

I want to say "Hi!" to you. Just reminder that you (along with steward members) look after me on Meta and the IRC channel #wikmedia-stewards. And so far, I don't want to continue with my behavior like in November and then it's my chance.

I assume that my English is my first language ("sorry for taking too long to leave a message here"), and I only use it primarily.

Thank you and brohoof, ;) --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, but welcome back. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please. teach first step.[edit]

I'm hoping to unblock. My account is Excre. I used -- 04:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is locked for cross-wiki disruption. I am hesitant to unlock it. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is I do I do?-- 05:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If jawp-unblocking and unlock.I'll make it a promise.I edit my talk page only, from now to 2015-07-10.
-- 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I call User:Marine-Blue and User:Rxy.-- 14:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In jawp, will be impossible to unblock to the use of multiple accounts . Why?-- 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian's can NOT dissection.Why is it?[edit]

Why? -- 23:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali Language Home Page in Meta[edit]

Nepali language homepage should be मुख्यपृष्ठ but it takes user to गृह_पृष्ठ . I had redirected गृह_पृष्ठ to मुख्यपृष्ठ but @Stemoc: deleted it on 05:04, 4 April 2015 . We'd appreciate if you could help fix this issue .I do not have sufficient privilege in this wiki to change mediawiki to fix this issue.Thanks in advance .--सरोज कुमार ढकाल (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and plz have a love on Seendgay![edit]

bhi adrian, thanks for being at pashto wiki.

plz if you give some time for the contribution of seendgay, mostly he add some useless vulgar selfmade terms, which he pretend are articles abut sexuality, pornography, vandalism, vulgarism, etc.

for the past 3 days, he killed the precious time of the whole community. we cant write a single article, unless to edit his dirty words and make it at-least to be suit to wiki policy and afghan community requirements.

regards --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashto Wikipedia Common.css[edit]

Since there no Admin on PsWp so please upload the data on this page to the ps:Mediawiki:Common.css .--UsmanKhan (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC) moved:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Broken_styles_on_pswiki[reply]

Thanks; I'm quite busy and don't have time to deal with it right now. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed at stewards' noticeboard, please get a consensus for the changes. Then a range of people can add this, not solely stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate verification[edit]

It was mentioned that The eligibility requirements for candidates are the same as for voters.According to the account eligibility of this candidate, he's not eligible to vote. so how his candidature is verified?

You're absolutely right, error on my part. Thanks for pointing it out! Ajraddatz (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of globally locked user[edit]

I see that you globally locked Rahul Love Anu for cross-wiki abuse. He keeps trying: four sockpuppets are listed at en:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahul Love Anu which you may want to consider locking as well. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, dear Ajraddatz,

Sorry, I don't feel comfortable blocking someone who wants to quit. Just log-off if you don't want to come here anymore :) Ajraddatz (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages[edit]

Hi mr Ajraddatz. Please delete all the content of this page, because there is not a admin active in The stewards when I requested to get adminship they refused and there is no apparent reason. There are some articles can not be developed without sysop.

Thank you

--Abshirdheere (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll run through it. Thanks for bringing it here :) Ajraddatz (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for this, it is my "old friend" from English Wikipedia. My talk-page there is now permanently semi-protected, as are several others due to the same person.

I don´t often come to meta, but I see he has followed me here, too: Could you please globally lock it, and rev-del the contributions? It is a good idea to "watch" the user-talk pages that he targets...I am sure he will be back. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologizes for forgetting to respond, but I actioned this. Thanks. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. ...I have just recently gotten a SUL-account (a French lady with 1 edit as "Huldra" on commons in 2008 stopped me before), and I really appreciate it: it makes editing very much easier!.....however, I had not though about the fact that it made stalking so much easier, too. :( The first messages which met my "new" Huldra -account on commons, were his usual rape and death threats. Oh well, if it continues, I guess I have to get my meta and commons user-pages semi-protected, too. Thanks again, cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, let me know if I can help more. That certainly isn't an ideal situation to be in :( Ajraddatz (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Username[edit]


I found that using real name can be a problem sometime and so i want to rename. Please help me out. Let me know what details i should give you. so that it can be changed.

my talk page is Rahulgemawath

Thank You

See Special:GlobalRenameRequest Ajraddatz (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Import facility on hi.wiktionary[edit]

Hi, I am looking at hiwiktionary. There are many pages on hiwiki, which are useful for hi.wiktionary but useless for hiwiki (Hindi wikipedia). I want to put those pages on hi.wiktionary. But on wiktionary, import facility is not there. I am admin at hi.wikipedia and temporary admin at hi.wiktionary. Can you please tell me, how can we impliment this facility at hi.wiktionary? If you can do this for us, then please let me know. I will give you a list of wiki's from which I would like to import.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could perform the imports, but it would be better if it was part of the local interface. To get it added, please open a phabricator ticket and request that the two be added to each-other. A sysadmin should be able to complete your request. Let me know if you need further help with it :) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have zero experience about phabricator but I will try. On phabricator, our one sysop wrote about an problem, few months back. Now, it showing that problem is solved but I saw that problem is still exist. Please check the links:

Phabricator request can be found at phab:T90382.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the devs are investigating. I unfortunately don't have the knowledge or access to solve those kinds of technical problems. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Ajraddatz, please look this. --Vadgt (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked by mistake[edit]

Hi! User:Vituzzu has mistakenly blocked an IP range that includes the static address of my VPS as “Open proxy”. I certainly don’t have any open proxies there. Vituzzu didn’t reply to my mail. How can I get it unblocked? (Preferably without publicly disclosing the address.) Ле Лой (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You can email the block information to stewards (at) (or to me personally at Special:EmailUser/Ajraddatz). Once I have more information I'll get in touch with Vituzzu and see what we can do :) Ajraddatz (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian wikiversity[edit]

You can analyze Romanian Wikiversity page?--Bacria Andrei Catalin (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That project is on the cvn-sw recent changes feed for counter-vandalism, but I do not know enough about the language or scope of the content to evaluate it from that perspective. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But who to pray to verify Romanian Wikiversity page?--Bacria Andrei Catalin (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Ajraddatz, Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-01-06, maybe Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-09-06? Please check it. Regards, --►Cekli829 11:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, absolutely right. I'll update the expiry page. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I note that, we have been elected our two termless. If possible, be taken into account. --►Cekli829 18:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there isn't enough local support to grant permanent access. Please reapply in a year, and if there is ~8 supports from active community members then we can grant permanent access. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Steward_requests/Permissions/2015-07#User_Filnik.40itwiktionary Ciao --Buggia 15:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a notification to their talk page. If they don't reply by the end of the month, then I'll remove the flag. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it's also necessary for Giannib and Nick1915. --Buggia 16:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my username[edit]

Hi, I just wanted my username changed and I understand that I have to ask for your help in doing this? M.n.r.4141994 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest and request a new username there :) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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(_AT_) 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


Hi! This is still needed? If no, maybe delete it? --Kaganer (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, deleted :) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 (gvarnum(_AT_) 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)TranslateGet help[reply]


Hi Dear Adrian, I'm Diyako from central Kurdish Wikipedia, I'm wanna ask a few questions:

  • what I need to be a Manager on my wiki?
  • am I able to remove the bad articles without being manager?
  • am I able to block the saboteur persons without being manager?

Thanks --Diyako kazm (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diyako, welcome to meta :)
You can become an administrator on the central Kurdish Wikipedia through the local RfA process, located at ckb:ویکیپیدیا:داواکردنی_مافی_بەڕێوەبەرایەتی.
To delete pages or block users, you must first have administrator rights. You can also send requests to local admins for deletion and block requests.
Let me know if you have any questions! Ajraddatz (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improper closures by a bureaucract on mw:Project:Requests[edit]

Hi Adrian, I'm sorry to bring this up here one of the bureaucracts on MediaWiki did three improper closures. Two of those users he considerated for a sysop promotion have had a long history of hat collecting. That third one was about me. There was no concern, but there was very little input. Of course this is probably because that there are "Global sysops" and "Stewards", even though both rights require or highly consider having a local sysop right at least one or more projects before anything higher. Unfortunately (unless I'm mistaken), I don't think MediaWiki counts because it's included in the GS wikiset. As that being said, I deeply apologize (even though it wasn't really my fault) that I made some logged actions. This is very embarrassing and I'm a bit disturbed by the outcome, but I'm wanting further review (and actions that I have done) before it is okay for sure. I apologize to all the other stewards and to Az1568, as well as to all others concerned. Tropicalkitty (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Global sysop[edit]

Thank you and for sure I will ask help to someone, since I need some tools to improve my work. :-) Restu20 09:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop permission on[edit]


I am regarding about the sysop permission. Last time when I wrote to you, on your talk page you mentioned that 14 Nov. will be decided. Take a look to the supporters votes here and grant me admin access to the Pashto wiki. You may know that previously I was the Bureaucrat in Pashto wiki and have been working for its development since the very beginning of Pashto Wikipedia project. --ANBI (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?[edit]

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

luri lrc wikipedia admin[edit]

I'm mike mogoei my user name is mogoeilor and I'm luri lrc test admin for six month past and it was expired I renewed this request in this link [2] and I know six months for lrc wikipedia is very short please help me to be administrator of luri lrc for more time as like as 2 year and in my rights in past years I couldn't have to protect luri lrc wiki page please help me to fix this problem.
best wisheslrc lori (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello lrc lori. Because of the size of the community, we cannot grant permanent access to you there. However, if you have already served a six month term, then the next renewal can probably be for one year - extending to 1.5 years after that. Hope this helps, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so thanks could please help me to be a admin of luri lrc? best wishes.lrc lori (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[3]: Have you even bothered to read the proposal? --Vogone (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, since I reworked it from the existing wording. Saying that no other requests will be granted except by some local projects is silly. Let's establish a global policy, rather than one that basically cleans our hands of it and maintains the useless local policies surrounding global action. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have, just found your summary a bit misleading. Why do you think usurpation is a desirable thing? With SULF I thought the need for this abusive and complicated process were finally gone. --Vogone (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The extra sentence regarding local policies was designed mainly for enwiki, by the way, because I indeed doubt they are going to abolish their process voluntarily. --Vogone (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I generally agree. And I dislike usurpation myself, but I want a working policy on it. I fear that if we don't allow for usurping accounts when the owner doesn't respond (even after 4 times the usual waiting time), then the policy won't be adopted. I guess we could allow voting on it with or without that type, and see where it goes? Ajraddatz (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, indeed. Also, some wikis (e.g. dewiki) have slightly stricter policies atm, I also doubt they would be too happy if now more liberal rules from meta are possibly going to be applied. It's definitely not easy to please everyone with such a proposal. --Vogone (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all this waiting time stuff is IMO kind of ridiculous. We didn't even expect one of our stewards to respond to the legal notif within a month, but an occasional reader has to fulfil this standard. I don't get it (unless there is a pressing need, like before SULF, and not just some random desire for an already taken name). --Vogone (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the particular dewiki rule that is more conservative than the proposal? I agree that it is somewhat unreasonable to expect a casual reader to read and understand a message in a month, but I feel like it is owed to the requesting user to be given an answer someone soon. It's also the same interval used for AAR (one notice anyway), so there is some precedent for it. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • FWIW Ajraddatz, as you know (we've discussed last year) I have an usurpation request "pending" for an auto-renamed account as part of globalization that I am waiting on the new usurpation policy to be finalized before resubmitting. Of course I can't expect you to remember everything, but a notification of when it goes through would be appreciated -- but in any case, I keep a watchful eye on the discussions! If you ever feel the need to "make en example" of my case, let me know, I'd be more than happy. Details are still at en:User talk:Salv~enwiki.  · Salvidrim! ·  06:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had totally forgot about it, sorry. We still don't have a usurpation policy, but I can usurp that account for you. Please leave a message on the talk page on nown, asking the user if they agree to the usurpation. If they haven't responded after a month (or respond in the affirmative), then I'll rename it for you. Considering they haven't logged in since SUL finalization I doubt they will respond, but it looks like a month's notice is becoming standard practice for all cases so might as well do it here as well (unless there is some need for urgency). Ajraddatz (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! The user does not have an e-mail configured or I would have also sent a copy of the message. I tried to keep it simple to allow it to be decipherable after a machine translation if the user needs it. I'll ping you back in March if there have been no objections. Thanks again! :)  · Salvidrim! ·  06:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit while logged out[edit]

Hello, can you please hide the IP address from a logged out editor? Thank you in advance for considering. ASherman (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Next time, please email Matiia (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate it and thank you for the email list. ASherman (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results[edit]

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already back as He's known for that. Can I get a few days of page protection on top of whatever blocks you apply? Thanks!  · Salvidrim! ·  06:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hope he leaves you alone. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As an enwiki admin used to dealing with such shenanigans it's always an awkward feeling of powerlessness when the abuse goes crosswiki. :(  · Salvidrim! ·  06:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Can you give me information? --This unsigned article written by: Aguzer 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ajraddatz,

This has has reference to your recent comment about me.

I welcome your personal judgement about my maturity based on your discretion, but the message posted pertains to an edit here on Commons, and is fact and not concocted, if this is what you would like to say.

For whatever reason you might hold, one user uploaded a special barnstar - Commons:File:Commons_Barnstar_for_Hindustanilanguage.png, where he felt that I was silently trying to resolve many user disputes - again his POV and may not be shared by all. I wonder if this is any indication of maturity.

While you've tried to read a sarcastic approach in my statement, I've only tried to appreciate both positive and negative views he shared about me. I respect and thank him for this and I acknowledge the good contribution (s/)he made, including the participation in the discussions we both shared. I don't belittle or criticise him. Is that wrong?

I also appreciate your previous gesture - you retained your first comment (didn't strike it) and added a further note to indicate that though you are original views are same, you've some additional thing to say.

While you have every right to retain your very recent post, I will appreciate if you could remove it in the light light of this clarification. This is just a request which you can ignore by all means, if you would like.

--Muzammil (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the much more reasonable tone of this message from you, it doesn't make up for how you have interacted with myself and others in different cases. Your comment still seems incredibly sarcastic, and of course there is still the issue of you opposing all the stewards who voted against your election. So, my comments stand. I hope you'll take them into consideration if elected. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I think "(that is, wikis)" was there to distinguish the sites from the off-wiki projects we fund through grantmaking. It wasn't very elegantly put, though. "online projects" might have been better. Tony (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I've changed it to a past version of the first sentence which should make more sense now. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation discussions[edit]

Dear Ajraddatz,

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]

Cross-wiki vandal[edit]

I noticed you just globally blocked, but the problem is this same vandal popping up with many other IP addresses, such as, which was blocked by Tegel. Is there anything that can be done to automatically detect this guy? --Wikitiki89 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikitiki89: not much we can do unfortunately; the IPs are too different for rangeblocking. If you see any on enwikt, please report them to SRG and we'll see if we can block his available IPs. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need advice[edit]

Dear Ajraddatz, I am writing to you from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. We are in the middle of a dilemma - the heatly debated topic being how to attribute articles which were translated from English Wikipedia. Since there is no consensus, I thought we should ask someone from the Wikipedia hierarchy. I wonder: who can we contact to give us guidelines? What is the right procedure? If you wish, I will gladly clarify and give you more info.--Seiya (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seiya: Hi, I'm very sorry but I forgot this was here. I don't have much experience with how to properly import articles across languages. I've seen it done a number of ways, from transwiki importing to copy-pasting with a link back to the original article in the edit summary. You could ask on Wikimedia Forum and get some better ideas. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OAuth consumer registration[edit]

Hi Ajraddatz, I've seen you have granted some OAuth consumer registrations this morning. Could you accept mine as well? I'm a trusted user and have been running bots and scripts on the Toolserver and Tool Labs for a long time. This consumer will be a very little script that looks for wikidata items and created them on the user's behalf if they don't yet exist. Thanks a lot, Yellowcard (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yellowcard (talk · contribs). Given the current "limbo" in which approval for these tasks exist, I don't want to do too much with them, but I could approve yours per your rationale there. The one concern I have is with the rollback grant. How is that going to be used within the context of this script? Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ajraddatz, thanks for your quick reply. Regarding the rollback permission, I thought about rollbacking oneself to undo changes when the entered data turned out to be wrong. However, after thinking about it, it does not seem very reasonable, so I don't need that permission. Unfortunately, I cannot edit the permissions (or I don't know how to, respectively). Can you do so or should I withdraw the request and file a new one? Thanks again, Yellowcard (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't think I can edit it either, so please withdraw that one and I'll approve the updated version. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a new one (itemFinder [2.0]). It seems I even cannot withdraw my old request, so I'd kindly ask you to reject the old one and accept the new one. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks a lot for your help. :-) Cheers, Yellowcard (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yellowcard: This is a silly system, with no potential to modify existing proposals. Sorry to make you repeat the process, but the updated request didn't specify wikidata-only. Please create yet another one with wikidata specified, and I'll approve it. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I hope I got everything correct now. Yellowcard (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I've approved try #3, and can now back away from OAuth stuff until the current discussions are resolved... :) Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Ajraddatz! Yellowcard (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hope it's ok but I thought posting here would be better since it's off the other topic. I just grazed Mike V's page and OMG what a mess. He unlaterally removed the IPBE from tons of users who then complained, several of which stated they were having difficulty accessing the site to even reply and he still holds firm they don't need it. He posts generic meaningless replies basically telling users if they want to participate in the project they need to jump through extra hoops to do so by contacting the functionary team. Now I know I am not the most popular guy but that is simply unacceptable. His talk page is full of complaints and pissed off people. Someone needs to get involved and squash that problem. Reguyla (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, actually. I posted a quick question on WP:AN on whether checking 250+ users with the CheckUser tool was justified by policy, and had my concerns completely dismissed as being "explained elsewhere", even though they weren't. I'm in the process of discussing changes to the local IPBE policy (particulary with the audit), and hopefully that'll create a positive solution that involves users in the process, along with an OC decision on whether such mass-checks are actually allowed.
What I have found somewhat distressing about the incident is Mike's unwillingness to re-grant IPBE, even when users have a) previously held it, and b) demonstrated some continuing need for it. We've had a bunch of people come to Meta or the stewards' email queue to request re-exemption, but when I try to bounce them back to enwiki admins they seem to just be ignored. At some point, I don't think it's worth my time to keep pushing on the issue - I don't want to lord over the local admins/checkusers. Ultimately, it's on them if they want to be difficult, and all I can do is try and foster discussion so that we improve the way this is done in the future :) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I completely agree his unwillingness to regrant the permission was problematic. I also appreciate that it's not in your scope to waste your time battling the local projects but it might be worth kicking upstairs to the WMF if various communities are being difficult or not doing what they should be. Just my opinion. Thanks again. Reguyla (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking after the “collateral damage” here, and please do keep pushing the issue!
I hope there will be a long-term solution at some point (but after more than nine years of this, I’m not optimistic).
Where’s the debate about the local IPBE policy? --Babelfisch (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
w:WT:IPBE in the last section. Also, if you're using TOR, the global flag *should* be enough unless the ranges are locally hard-blocked as well. If that's the case, you can message me here or email me, and I'll advocate for you. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got that global flag, but you told me that it probably wouldn't help, and in fact it didn't. --Babelfisch (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)--Babelfisch (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aah. Shame it didn't work out nicely, but at least it seems to be resolved now :) Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WMF jurisdiction here[edit]

Regarding your point here, is it standard practice for the WMF to post WMF policies on Meta? Why wouldn't they post WMF policies on their own site for WMF policies? - Thekohser (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what the policies are, some are posted here. For example, the access to nonpublic information policy is here even though it is a Foundation one. I assume that this fits in the same category, though you could always ask for clarification on the talk page. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please delete my user page in Armenian Wikipedia, or write in that page for delete. Thank you in advance. --Vadgt (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are active admins there. You could tag it with {{delete|author request}} and local admins will delete it. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I in conflict with admins in Armenian Wikipedia. --Vadgt (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that they won't delete your userpage on request... I could add the template myself, but I assume they will decline it because I am not you. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think admins not will decline your addition, because previous I also requested to other Meta user, and I not want to speak this theme to Armenian Wikipedia admins. Regards --Vadgt (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hail im interested in be a stewart Mijo Mojo (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[18:48] <CVNBot5> New user [[m:User:Ajraddatz]] created. Block: - Welcome? :-) Regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm new here! Glad to be around this "meta" place! (looks like the cvn bots don't know the difference between account creation by the user or by someone else :P) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh: (User creation log); 16:48 . . User account Homeontherange (talk | contribs | block) was created by Ajraddatz (talk | contribs | block) and password was sent by email ‎(request) <-- I see. But when I saw that on the channel you had to see my wtf-face... Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at RFA[edit]

I just wanted to tell you that many of your comments on about RFA mirror my own concerns. I do not agree the current process works well to desysop problematic ones though and I could point to several with lengthy records of problems.

A couple of things I would add if I could.

  • Many of the current admins have been admins since prior to 2007 when they were either selected without an RFA process at all (ordained by Jimbo) or the RFA process passed editors merely for putting in their time.
  • Many current admins, for a variety of reasons, would not pass a modern RFA. They know this and as such do not want the process to change. There are a lot of good admins like you, Dennis Brown, Bishonen, WTT, etc. The problem is there are also a lot of very bad ones that bring the project down.
  • There are currently about 1300 admins on ENWP. Of that, all but about 200 rarely do any edits at all. Of the remaining 200, there are only about 50 (and that's being generous) that do most of the work. This causes a couple problems. Burnout and the feeling they don't have to follow policy. Both issues are problematic.

Certainly there is a lot more that could be said on the subject but I'll leave it at that. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad they make sense to someone. There's a big push to unbundle the admin tools, but I don't see that as a solution. I like the idea of people passing requests in order to access advanced permissions. The problem is that people focus on RfA, not the broader context, when looking for solutions. I think there are reasons why RfA is "broken", and it has little/nothing to do with the general idea of a request being posted and people discussing over a week. I don't have the time or the patience to actually propose concrete reform, especially with a global RfC going on now and another one to start in the near future, but maybe learning what systems work elsewhere will be inspiring to some local people who are interested in the process? Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with both sides. Not everyone wants nor needs to be an admin but having the tools broken up into sets makes a lot of sense to me. Most people have areas of specialty they prefer to work on and that's true of the admin ranks also. There isn't a lot of need to have a bunch of access you don't need, so IMO it's good to have the tools broken up into sets based on the scope and permissions needed for the task. On the other hand, I also know without question the RFA process is broken and has been really since the beginning. It was a process doomed to fail when it was created. One thing that will greatly improve the project in general is if
  • a) admins are held accountable when they do abusive stuff and that is something I believe strongly you and others know;
  • b) if there is a process to remove admins similar to RFA because it's so hard to remove a problematic admin, much of the community won't support most nominees and;
  • c) The RFA process has to become far less of a gun fight than it is. No one wants to work in a hostile work environment and that is especially true of volunteer work. No one even wants to run it's so bad. The ones who would do a good job won't even try because they don't want the hassle nor to be associated with the miscreants that are discrediting the good admins.
I understand about not having time or patience. Honestly, the process has to get much worse before the community will be willing to change. I see that now myself. Until the system has completely collapsed, someone will argue the process works even though it clearly doesn't and hasn't in a long time. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I do?[edit]

@Ajraddatz: so what should I do, but I never made the previous account. I do not know what to do. What I buy new sim card if I holiday and stop using vpn or I buy new router, Can you help me? AYST201 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AYST201: the other account is what we call a  Confirmed sockpuppet - it uses the same IP address as you, the same useragent, has the same general behaviour, etc. But that's OK; I don't think that you are trying to be disruptive. If you are having difficulty editing because of global blocks, you can always request local IP block exemptions on individual projects that you are contributing to - these will also keep global blocks from impacting you. If you want, you can send me information on specific blocks that affect you to stewards[at], and I can look at them to see if they need to be blocked.
Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me, why my account and my ip was same with other account.? AYST201 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it means that you are the same person with two accounts. There is of course the potential for that being a false positive; a family member could have made the account. However, the editing patterns are very similar, so I think it is you. It is generally a good idea to stick to one account, especially if you are going to participate in discussions such as the ones on SRGP, or use multiple accounts to evade blocks. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm can't make a account except myaccount real AYST201 before. If this, how are myaccount What you can block me.? I already call Arifys about it, I can wait he respons.

AYST201 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If you are going to just use AYST201, then that is just fine - I get the impression that you're still learning how things work here, and that is good. Don't worry about the concern with multiple accounts. Keep editing with AYST201, and email the steward queue about those blocks if you'd like. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: User:AYST201 I'm sorry he is not guilty, about this. I apologize to two this user. Since I test the ip address to equalize, I already tell User: Arifys, but forgot to tell User AYST201. I only test duplicate ip. I'm verry sorry sorry. @Ajraddratz: you can check my ip about this. Krisplumutan (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm can't do it again thanks and verry sorry.

Krisplumutan (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Why you use myaccount to duplicate ip? AYST201 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only for test how to duplicate ip I'm verry sorry, I can't tell you about this permission before.

Krisplumutan (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for a steward to lock your account about this.

AYST201 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm verry wrong, but if so I accept your decision.

Krisplumutan (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should explain at SN

AYST201 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CU multilock script[edit]

Hi. I discussed this with Trijnstel some weeks ago but there was no issue with it afaict. The script is supposed to add a link (at the bottom of the block form) to meta's Special:MultiLock with the usernames of the selected users prefilled. Note that the link will only be added to the form once you select at least one checkbox. Perhaps you're expecting it do something else? Or maybe you're checking at loginwiki where user scripts are disabled? Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok awesome. I'll give it another try; I must have just been looking in the wrong places. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC of SPcom[edit]

@Ajraddatz: Good afternoon, I changed the RFC of SPcom: Ñow I propose and elected comittee. Archi38 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome! :-) —MarcoAurelio 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now time to start updating and enabling the scripts... Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find User:Glaisher/cuCAMultiLock.js very useful. Hopefully we will have it enabled on login too soon. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 19:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Syum90 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Reguyla (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Just FYI, if I am still able too edit later I am going to start an RFC to globally block WayneRay similar to the one that was done on Tobias Conradi recently. Not sure if you are familiar with that case but just in case I am not around I think it would be a good idea to start that. He is already blocked on multiple wiki's and eventhough the WMF may be planning to do something on their end I haven't seen anything yet so I think it would be a good idea to start it from a community perspective as well. Reguyla (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of this recently, but I can't remember what context. I'll give it a look when I get back from work on Sunday. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request: #87690[edit]


Can you please consider unblocking #87690 and possibly use a narrower block? This has blocked my currency bot which has been operating for many years already. Please let me know if there are any issues with whatever the bot is doing!  « Saper // talk »  15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) the operator[reply]

@Saper: that block is already pretty narrow, so I'm honestly surprised that your bot was caught up in it! I think it is unfortunately still needed, so I've exempted your bot from IP blocks for the time being. Let me know if you need a global exemption for it as well. Apologies for the inconvenience, Ajraddatz (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
/29 as a whole network - 34359738368 /64 subnets and this provider normally assigns a single /64 or maybe /56 to customer...  « Saper // talk »  16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yes. Thought it was /64 for some reason. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Can you please un-ban me?[edit]

You recently came onto the BlogClan 2 Wiki and banned a user by the name of "SlyFoxo". That was me. My friend was on my computer on my backup account. An admin IP banned me, not knowing that it would ban my main profile as well. She was going about un-banning me when you came along and perma-banned me. Can you please talk to the admin and sort this out? This is extremely unfair, seeing as everything was sorted out before you banned me.

Sure. Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it a lot, I've been working on that wiki for a while.

Hello Ajraddatz[edit]

I change mymind, Wikipedia is amazing but I'm sorry Ajraddatz about it or about myuser problem, myintention for wikipedia is good, please accept my apology. Thank you very much Ajraddatz, I will don't again. AYST201 (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...[edit]

Thank you for your swift action on a global lock on that attack account with my name and the "s" word at the end; very appreciated. Mrschimpf (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! If that person keeps making attack names, we can add your username to the global title blacklist with a string that will ensure future ones can't be created. All the best, Ajraddatz (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated if it continues. Thank you. Mrschimpf (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trolling[edit]

Just because I am the one that initiated the RFC that is going to happen eventually anyway doesn't mean I am trolling. No one will revoke my bullshit ban on EnWP or IRC and I am not going to drop it and be bullied out. So it's only a matter of time before it shows up and I would rather be the one to submit it than one of the policy violators and trolls that are keeping me banned from EnWP. Reguyla (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried everything to get back to editing but I'm tired of the bullshit so screw it. If the community doesn't want dedicated editors improving the sites then they can ban me. I tried to get unbanned and no one wants editors, they would rather make positive contributors into criminals because that's how they get street credit on these sites. You can't build a name for yourself watching editors, you get a name by finding reasons to block them. So I am giving them a reason to block me and that way not only will I not be able to edit EnWP, but I won't be able to contribute at commons, Wikisource, Wikidata or any other site either. Reguyla (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EnWP RFA comment[edit]

I saw your comment on the EnWP and although I cannot speak for what Kudpung thinks is the core problem with RFA, the core problem with RFA, IMO, is there are multiple problems with the RFA process and no one can agree on what the core problem is. I think its because the RFA process is a battleground that no one wants to wade into. Others think its just fear mongering. Others still think its a good process and it just needs more people to submit, others have other opinions such as no longer needing so many because the roles have been split off into new rights (File mover, Roll back, template editor, etc.). In reality it's probably some combination.

At the end of the day, I no longer believe Kudpung even wants to change it. Ever since his RFC idea got shot down a couple years ago he has been trolling the RFA talk page shooting down everyone else's ideas for [insert your favorite reason here]. Pretty much everyone agrees the RFA process isn't working and the constant discussions about it show that. Unfortunately however it isn't going to change until it has completely stopped promoting anyone or we no longer have enough admins (which really is already the case). 80% of the admin work is already done by less than 50 admins but unless the backlogs grow to extraordinary lengths or we drop to some ultra low number of active admins, someone is going to argue that the process works and stuff is getting done. Reguyla (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help on the Tswana Wiki (tn)[edit]

Good Day I'm from the Setswana wiki, and I was wondering, who to contact in the event that an Admin has been inactive for almost a year now(There is only one admin at the tn wiki). I wanted some template(s) i created to be deleted because they are of no use anymore. Would really appreciate your help

DonaldSepeng (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DonaldSepeng: you can tag the templates for deletion, and wait for the admin to get to them, or request at SRM if the admin is inactive. If you wanted to be an admin on the project for a few months, you can also find information on that at SRP. Let me know if I can help with any of that :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin's status on Turkish Wikinews[edit]

Hello Ajraddatz,

I'd like to ask a question about Srhat because of it's a admin on Turkish Wikinews but he didn't work since 2013 and inactive for 2 years. What we should do?--Merhabaviki (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Merhabaviki: we have an automatic process for desysopping inactive admins at AAR. Chances are, this process will affect the account in question either this year or next year. The local community of any project is also able to make a local inactivity policy that stewards can then enforce; if you want to do this, please start a public discussion on the local project discussion forum. Let me know if I can help with any of this :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. Thanks a lot. :)--Merhabaviki (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please also block User:Fjfgiphk[edit]

it's also a sock puppet of User:Dsfsswec. he did nothing but only interested in zh-min-nan:Hui-bo̍k-gû-jiân and Carp fjäll (aka 飞莫鱼然).-- 02:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done by another steward, thanks for reporting. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ajr, I have fixed that count mismatch issue that you have pointed out :)--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, thanks for your interest. You might also be interested in this diff from April 2015, specifically: User:OhanaUnited to User:Dan_Koehl " I certainly hope you would stop this character assassination. Regardless of my level of activity, this is not a justification for Dan's unilateral decision process which includes providing a bot flag for an unapproved bot and providing an admin flag for a bot account without going through proper channel (plus many more questionable conduct). In any other major projects, this kind of action would have immediately be desysopped and decratted. Sadly, Dan and his enablers have assembled a critical mass to remove an editor (Stho002) who is not afraid of asking difficult questions. After Stho002 was gone, I have some editors who contacted me privately stating that they have likewise ceased editing and left this project. A few others said in private communication that they also disagree with Dan's actions but never make it public for the fear of reprisal from Dan's group of editors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your further comments on WS VP, I am a little bit alarmed that you may be reading this all wrong again. A consensus at WS for a CU against me means absolutely nothing. The same editors will ALWAYS give consensus for any action which will hurt me. Other editors are too scared to speak out. Stho002 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said here and there, we don't use checkuser based on a community vote. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: they are now busy digging up old dirt on me! That issue was when I was a WS sysop, which I have voluntarily resigned from, thus solving the problem, so I hope you agree that it is no longer relevant to anything ... Stho002 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Now I translating to English my case and corruption allegations fron Aztec Wikipedia (Huiquipedia) and you've removed from Miscellaneous User:Marrovi/Caso_(en). --Marrovi (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot do anything about this. Please try to resolve it within the Spanish Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other steward says me, Miscellaneous is a place, because is Aztec Wikipedia, no Spanish Wikipedia, in Spanish Wikipedia am bloqued and bloqued in Aztec Wikipedia, this was case for write in Miscellaneous.--Marrovi (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, miscellaneous is for requests within the scope of stewards, which this is not. If you are blocked on those placed, then you can request unblock on your talk page. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can not write in Spanish and Aztec Wikipedia in my lap, who I can write in my user page? No is possible Ajraddatz.--Marrovi (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bad English, but will translate this case to English. Regards.--Marrovi (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what now?[edit]

Hi, I have no intention of getting into a dispute with you, but I would appreciate some clarification of the situation now. On the face of it, all that the CU has done is to tell the WS sysops what they already knew, i.e. that the alleged sock accounts, which they have already blocked anyway, are in fact mine. Fine! Again I stress that there is no evidence that the alleged socks were editing disruptively. So, what now? I am uncertain what, if anything, has changed as a result of the CU. Whether or not I continue to sock (nondisruptively) on WS depends on what the consequences are likely to be. Surely it is fair enough to want to know the likely consequences before deciding what further action, if any, I choose to make? Stho002 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned from that project, so ban evasion is a legitimate reason for checking. Ultimately, I can't do much for CU requests to check for the underlying IP, because it violates the privacy policy to reveal it. Depending on what they decide, I could discretely block the IP, though I am hesitant to do so because you are using your socks to contribute positively. I've always been more concerned with what is being done, rather than who is doing it, though I will respect local consensus.
There seems to be a local discussion on Wikispecies regarding unlocking your talk page so you can discuss the ban, and perhaps be unbanned with certain conditions or whatever. I would be more than happy to advocate for such a solution there. You have the potential to contribute well to that project (and do with your multiple accounts), and if you could interact in a more positive manner with the other people there then that would ultimately be the best outcome. Keep in mind that while it may seem to you like you were banned for asking the wrong questions or going up against their mob of out of control sysops, they have a side to the story as well. As to what has changed, I don't think anything has. I would strongly recommend that you try to have a respectful dialogue with the community and don't use meta as a sounding board for your concerns. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also see my comment on their VP. I also got a notification of your email, but didn't get it again. I'm not sure why that is happening. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you are at least trying to be fair, but there is so much that you don't know, all of which is, unfortunately, highly relevant. First up, they all know who I am in real life, and where I edit from (a busy metropolitan university, where I have access to a wide range of IPs). They want an IP-range block so as to block the entire university, either to get at me indirectly (on the assumption that I would cop the blame) and/or to exclude as many potential contributors as they can from "their wiki", which would please them and make them feel "powerful". This I wish to avoid at all costs, as I do not want to risk significant collateral damage, so I give you my word that I will not use IP other than my main one in future. As for unblocking my talk page on WS, well they haven't done so (yet?), and it is just an empty gesture for show anyway. If you were to trawl through the history, you will find that I bent over backwards to try to find a compromise solution, over a long period of time. I had all the rational reasoning in the world on my side, but they just rejected it all, and set about changing allowed WS formats systematically to differ from the ways I used, even though my formats were used on most WS articles, because I created most of them! Now they go through my edits changing hyphens to dashes and similar pointless changes! They recreate my reference templates and delete my old ones, giving the templates new names, even though such templates just have dummy names which don't display anyway! Dan Koehl used AWB to systematically make thousands of changes of this kind, citing as justification that my edits contravened various pedantic points of WS policy, a policy that was written by Koehl and the others AFTER I was blocked! Anyway, the only thing stopping me from "interacting in a more positive manner with the other people there" is THEM. Their local sysop tools are technically insufficient to block me (my IP) out for more than 24 hrs. WS does not recognise accounts created on other projects as part of their "prevent account creation", so such accounts are free to edit on WS when the autoblock expires. The current CU request outcome has not changed that. I have already promised not to exploit other IPs to which I may have access, but I do not promise to cease socking from my main IP, for the sole purpose of continuing to make positive contributions to WS, whether the sysops there like it or not. I was blocked UNFAIRLY, after all! So, you have three options, as I see them: (1) refrain from any IP blocks, because, as you said, I am using my socks to contribute positively; (2) block my main IP (from WS or globally); or (3) block an IP-range (from WS or globally). Option (3) would risk significant collateral damage and risk escalation to an institutional level dispute involving WMF, and for the sake of what exactly? I might cop the blame and suffer, but I might not. I hope you won't go there. I have given you my word that I will stick to my main IP. Option (2) is open to you, and I'm not overly fussed if you choose to do it or not, though you have already given a good reason why you would be hesitant to do so, and it would undeniably also involve pandering to a particularly nasty sysop community who don't care about anyone but themselves. The only loser in option (2) would be the project (and future generations of people) missing out on my positive contributions, whatever that is worth. Option (1) seems like the best way to go, I suggest, though it leaves open the possibility of continued socking from my main IP, which would be good for the project (in terms of contributions), but will continue to greatly annoy the WS sysop mob. The heavy burden of responsibility is in your hands. Please use your judgement wisely ...Stho002 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC) PS: My email address is no secret (they have spammed it already anyway, but the spam filter is good): Feel free to write me ... Stho002 (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about collateral, I can check for that too and it will inform any decision I take. With mobile IP ranges, collateral is the new norm, especially in developing countries and their associated language wikiprojects. With regard to the specific case, I really don't have the time or interest to get into it. But there will always be two sides to the story, and in 90% of cases that I have really looked into the community who did the banning is entirely justified. No amount of good content work justifies behaving abusively to the other people there. That said, I really don't know which case it is here, I'm just going off of the averages and presenting some general arguments on how to move forward here. This is an issue that you and the local community need to work out. If they do unlock your talk page, use it well... Ajraddatz (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "No amount of good content work justifies behaving abusively to the other people there"
My reply: I agree with you 100%. But what (arguably) does justify "behaving abusively to the other people there" is their continued and systematic provokation/hounding in flagrant disregard of reason/rationality. As I have already said, there is only so much prodding that I can take without biting back. It is ironic that you are telling me this, when I, unlike MPF, haven't gone so far as to publicly and falsely (therefore libelously) accuse anyone (i.e. me) of a crime (i.e. copyright violation), without even bothering to check the facts first. Do you know what "punishment" he copped for that? He got immediately promoted to admin and then soon after to crat! I mean, is it just me or what? Why do you fixate on my minor indiscretions and ignore the far more serious abuses by them?
You say: "But there will always be two sides to the story, and in 90% of cases that I have really looked into the community who did the banning is entirely justified"
My reply: I don't disagree, but 10% is still a significant proportion of the total, and they can exploit that argument to their benefit. Would you risk doing something which is fine 90% of the time, but fatal 10% of the time? I think not! Not without a very good reason to back it up, anyway, which appears to be missing here.
You say: "If they do unlock your talk page, use it well"
My reply: I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no point. It is another trick, that's all. No offence, but you yourself admit that you are responding to this issue with ignorance of most of the history/relevant facts, and nobody expects you to take the time to look into it further. This is how they hope to win this one.

Stho002 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't replied to my above points. I have little hope left that anyone will do the right thing and resist giving the WS sysop mob what they want. When I first came to WS, there were only 60,000 articles, now there are nearly 500K. I have done more edits than there are articles. There is no way that a vandal could have made so many edits before being stopped. To some extent, they are now doing my work for me, which is good! They rountinely edit using infrastructure like reference templates that I was the first person to implement on WS. But alas, they now want to cross the 500K line and mutually congratulate each other for their "fine achievements", taking all the credit and making me out to be just some pesky vandal! Well, they might win the battle and even the war, but natural justice will prevail in the end, somehow, I can only hope. Of course, they have merely succeeded in turning my efforts away from WS and to other similar and competing web initiatives unconnected with Wikimedia. One initiative's loss is another's gain. Hence, their behaviour is ultimately self defeating. I think that I will leave them to it (leave the children to play ...) Stho002 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. I've told you, what, five times now that there is nothing I can do? I've learned long ago to stop wasting my time with such drama. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find your admission that you don't care puzzling - what do you care about then? Why are you a steward if you "don't care"? Anyway, the WS sysop mob are still persuing their megalomaniacal agenda. Hopefully this whole business has highlighted how extremely unsuitable they for local CU powers. That's all from me. Moving on now, away from Wikimedia, to other similar but far more constructive and important things ... Stho002 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. I care about maintaining Wikimedia projects, not mediating disputes between communities and disgruntled users who rehash the same polemic over and over again. I've had to do far too much of the latter recently. Moving on is probably the best solution for you in this case, if you don't want to work with the local community. Have a good one, Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't let "if you don't want to work with the local community" go unchallenged. I DO want to work with the local community, THEY don't want to work with me. If you can't see that, then I'd get your eyes checked if I were you. Ciao, Stho002 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And they say the same about you. Exactly why I dislike dealing with these cases. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but that is where EVIDENCE is necessary to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying/trying to mislead. I respectfully suggest that if you could actually be bothered to do your job as steward with some sense of responsibility and integrity (instead of just [quote]I don't care[unquote]), then it wouldn't be too hard to see from the history of diffs what exactly has been going on. I note that I am the only side in this dispute who has admitted any wrongdoing whatsoever (i.e. I did abuse my admin tools a bit when I was an admin). The other side has admitted to nothing. This is always a good sign that a side really is delusional/corrupt. Nobody is perfect, but they are in their eyes. Anyway, pls just try to ensure that they are never granted local CU policy, or else you might as well give nukes to the N Koreans while you are at it. Stho002 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we up to the 6th time of me saying "there is nothing stewards can do about this" yet? I think so. I'll say it again though, just to be clear - the role of stewards isn't to do anything here, it is to implement community consensus. As such, my "not caring" is related to me being a user on Wikimedia like anyone else, because stewards do not have any official role in community disputes! And you are the one who is blocked there and suggesting that my eyes need checking, that I am acting abusively, and that I am not doing my volunteer job properly. They have not indicated any of that, even in the areas on which I have sided with you (my comment about use of CU there, recommending that they unlock your talk page, etc). Anyway, no point in continuing to argue the semantics of the case. Have a good one, and hopefully you are able to find better uses of your time. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you may be mistaking "mob rule" for "community consensus". Actually, not so much you personally, but the whole Wikimedia setup. You may well be acting in good faith, but you are volunteering your time for a deeply flawed system, a system which seems to be based on the premise that a lone voice is by definition wrong, despite clear evidence to the contrary. I followed you yesterday on enWP, and noticed that you made a minor edit to an article about Wikimedia bans and blocks. I read there that "community bans", which can be enforced by incremental blocks, don't even seem to require a reason to substantiate the ban other than just that it is the consensus of a local community! Of course most members of a local community will be too scared to speak out against an angry mob, preventing them from voting! Again I see parallels with the likes of N Korea! Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz,
you banned de:Benutzer:LorenzCh20 via global ban as sockpuppet of the banned user de:Benutzer:Messina. This is definitely not the case since LorenzCh20 writes on totally different topics and in a totally different way than Messina did - LorenzCh20 is skilled chemist since Messina wrote on cultural topics aroung Kalinigrad and jewish culture. Therefore please remove the global ban from de:Benutzer:LorenzCh20. One reason for this collateral banning could be that Messina partly writes from the library of the University of Heilbronn which makes it difficult. All the best, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the history of de:Methohexital, whis is a narcotic drug, still in use in Germany and other countries. This user helped me with chemical informations and scientific sources. Like Achim writes, a totally different topic, which has nothing to do with jewish culture or language etc. This user should be unblocked immediately. Thanks, --Stefan Bellini (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Messina wrote about Jewish language, history, culture and so on. To assist in an article about an anesthetic ( is totally untypical for him, so far as I know. Please ask other users, especially admins in german Wikipedia, i am not so familiar with the case. Thanks very much, --Stefan Bellini (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The account(s) in question had the same style of username as the banned user, as well as the same IP and useragent. This would usually indicate a strong confirmed case to me, though of course there is always the potential for false positives. I'll discuss it with one of the dewiki CUs. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for unlocking -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too. --Stefan Bellini (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the inconvenient truth[edit]

@Stemoc: Your reversion of this edit was unjustified IMHO. Hiding the inconvenient truth isn't going to help. Big reversions in page histories are always worth a look, anyway! I personally was glad to read it, as it demonstrates that I am not alone in battling abusive admins. Stho002 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol believe me when i say, I'm the ONLY one left defending Kumioko..he is not wrong but i had to revert that and ban his IP because even though he has been 'wronged' (soo many times), this is not the way to do it...Its obvious the hierarchy won't listen, find another way...heck take it to the media if you are that determined but the longer one persists in something like this, the more likely his case will feel less important and the more likelihood of him/her being banned for good..I did it to stop him from making a mistake he will regret, same for you Stho002, I know you have been wronged too, but there is nothing we lower-levels can do anything about.. Find a good solution (both of you) and then come back and my support will be the first one you will get........sorry for hijacking your page ajr :P ...--Stemoc 07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: Fair enough, but the reality is that the lower-levels cannot do anything, and WMF aren't in the least bit interested either. All they care about is to keep their paid jobs. The whole Wikimedia thing is basically just a social experiment which, as I have already said, is creating a sham political structure not unlike that of N Korea, where everything can look fine on the surface and there are many strict rules, but under the surface it is all very, very wrong! Anyway, bearing in mind what WS sysops are currently plotting, I strongly urge stewards to deny outright any requests from WS for a local CU policy. You can think of WS as N Korea and local CU policy as nukes! Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you continue to discuss here, but please stop with the polemic. WikiSpecies isn't North Korea. You can make your argument without the ridiculous exaggeration. And the fallout from WMF intervening with the community banning process would be quite severe, so it really isn't an option for them either. I agree that the status quo is bad; I am trying to change it, but with little success. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to make use of analogy quite a lot. An analogy isn't an exaggeration. The analogy is with a bunch of bad people holding power and using rules to suppress others, while claiming to be right and beyond reproach. That's as far as the similarity goes, but it does go that far. What you are seeing at WS is not "a community", but a mob who are making it very difficult/impossible for anyone else in the community to diasgree with them. They have contravened policy on numerous occasions, but they have got away with it. Why is that? Stho002 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I am trusting you less and less! On WS VP you just said: [quote]and get a better idea of some of these other IP ranges that he has threatened to use[unquote]. WHAT OTHER IP RANGES???? I have explicitly promised you NOT to use other IPs, and I have NOT EVER threatened to use any other IP ranges. I have only left open the possibility of continuing to use my IP to create new socks for nondisruptive editing after autoblocks expire. Please try to get your facts right! Stho002 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop using my talk page. I have no interest in continuing to discuss this case with you. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]