User talk:Ajraddatz/Archive 5

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Hi bro, I'm koussayou003 at arabic wikipedia, I'm blocked for three mouth because i ask to reconfirm an admistrator password account with his E-mail , it's a joke and exuse but the blocked me, can you unblock me ??

Sorry, you'll need to appeal the block locally. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global unlock for Прушечок[edit]

Help me global unlock. 05:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how this IP is able to edit when it says it's been globally blocked until 2021, since last year? Sro23 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: where?. 06:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Global blocks don't apply to Meta, so that people can appeal the block. I've blocked it locally as well now. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP BLOCK[edit]

Hi Ajraddatz,

How are you doing? I tried to edit my home Wikipedia today, the yo:Wikipedia but I discovered my IP was blocked by you. I don't know if I was caught in a range block. Thus, I am contacting you to unblock my IP. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've exempted you from the global block until it expires on 21 November. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, friend. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About my lock[edit]

Hello Ajraddatz,

I know that you relocked me because of my behavior, sorry, I just wanted to contact NotASpy, but unfortunately, the commons unblock, got into my head, please unlock my account, because all I want is to start and all I wanted is to make more big contributions such as here and wikidata, also, a day after my lock, I got a discussion and I now can't access my email to change the password also, because I don't remember it, so it would be pointless to be lock, since I don't have access to the account anymore.

So, please, I recognized what I did, and that's why I did promise on the day you unlocked me to carry Wikipedia on my shoulders and protect as best as I can under the rules, you didn't made a mistake on unlocking me, you did well, and also, I didn't mean to disrupt but yes to contribute like in here and I plan to contribute more, if you give me the chance to do so.

So please, consider me an unlock and let me make the things right, if you do so, you won't regret it, I will make you all proud but I need that chance. I promise if I fail then you can relock me again and I leave Wikipedia once and for all.

Sorry, I hope you can understand

00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You were unlocked for a couple of days, and managed to cement your existing blocks in the process and be indefinitely banned from IRC. The only way that you could possibly be unlocked now is by not repeating any of your disruptive behaviour for at least six months and request unlock again. But after the events that followed your unlocking this time, I would be very hesitant to grant it then. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's your opinion and I understand, perhaps, if it was me I'll do the same thing, we have to be impartial right, Huon told me also the same thing, but if you want six months, got it, I'll wait, but after the six months pass, how can I request my unlock?

Also, everything I wanted was to edit but if you need six months to prove you wrong, you got it, I'll wait and after that about the English Wikipedia and all and how can I request my unlock without evading it?

And how can I also be unbanned from the IRC, also listen why do you have to keep me locked, I can't access into my account, I've lost the password and email, please give me three months instead because for me obsessive as I am 3 it's like 6, so please give me it and I will try after three months, not to repeat my obsessive behavior and if I repeat you can relock, ban me, do whatever you from me, so please think on that and also that I can't access my account because I can't access the email and pass, I frogot it.

So please, think on all that

Thanks for your time

2001:8A0:6A0C:3B00:FCEC:2CAC:B865:CB38 09:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your obsessive behaviour is entirely the issue here. If that doesn't change, then you'll get relocked again right away. If you can't wait 6 months, then that fully shows that you are not ready to be here. In six months, you can edit SRG using an IP to request unlock. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it, I'll wait it and then inform you and until then I'll focus on my project here, and on May, I'll ask it there, but isn't a lock evasion? Also, can request my unblock on wp or I have to fully wait? If it is to wait, I'll do, tell me what to do, and I'll do it. And I am more than ready and also, unfortunately I am an obcessive person, but I agree with Nick's point as well as yours to be less obcessive, right?

But now also, what is the point no, since I lost every access from my old account, the access to the email, the password of the account?

Thanks for your time

2001:8A0:6A0C:3B00:447:187E:B03F:C62 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The account will remain locked regardless. It is not lock evasion to appeal a lock with an IP, since there is no way to appeal with your account. See you in 6 months. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your kind words about the work that Bonč has done for the Wikipedia in Croatian language and the Wikimedia movement. Bonč is one of the most respected editors of our community and will be sorely missed. Nevertheless I thank you for the personal and humane approach to these delicate matters. Truly yours, -- Nesmir Kudilovič (razgovor) 15:48, ponedjeljak, 27. studenoga 2017. (SEV)

And thank you for giving me some background on him. Maybe someday he will even return :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete global[edit]

Hi Ajraddatz. I can see that you've removed the rights of delete-global group here because the only member that had the global group lost his rights (yes, is temporal, I know) and presumably there is no consensus for a general group to exist. But, Pathoschild is recently requesting it again for his work in Synchbot service. So, the global group's rights could be restored or is necessary to talk him about this? He can't run synchbot again without this global group. Regards. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 12:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I'm aware of the request. Once it has passed, the group can be re-created by adding the four rights back to it. All of the localisation and required mediawiki pages remain in place. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sock TobyWood[edit]

I saw you recently blocked locked LyleSWang, who was ranting on the executive director's usertalk.[1]

Today a new single-edit account, TobyWood, made an extremely similar post on the same page also complaining about WMF inaction.[2] Also possibly related is blocked user Reguyla who made many similar posts on the previous executive director's usertalk, [3] and who also used the identical phrase 'toxic atmosphere'[4] which was used in the newest post. TobyWood is almost certainly the same person as one or both of the other blocked accounts. Alsee (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on Meta. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.

Other ways that you can help[edit]

  1. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  2. Help with translation.
  3. If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.
  4. Help summarize the discussion to share back to your wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize for posting in English.
  • Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.


Hi there, so -by joking- i ask to reconfirm an admistrator account password by his email, so I apollozige for him but no, he blocked me for a mounth, i put some requests to unblock me so he block me for 3 mounth, i calm and waite for some time and i put again some unblock requests and i'm know blocked for 6 mounth. The admistrator is alaa and i'm koussayou003 from arabic wikipedia, can you please unblock me ?? Koussayou003 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Koussayou003 (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll need to ask Alaa or another arwiki admin to do that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: but you can unblock me ? Ask alaa and let's see your suggestions please ?

Koussayou003 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't. This is a local wiki issue, and I am unable to get involved in it. Sorry, but you'll need to ask arwiki admins instead. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
another thing :

So when i was blocking, a friend create an account and i teached him how editing, so alaa ask my friend if he has an blocked account and he said no, so alaa chek him, well my friend is my neighbour so the same ip zone /24 is used from me and him but there is no using the same ip between us, another chekuser who named bassem said that we use the same ip but another chekuser who is Meno25 said that we dosen't use the same ip, ar finish one of the chekuser didn't said the reallty and he must be blocked, can you rechek me with my friend kalvenn and punish the chekuser who didn't said the reallty ??

Koussayou003 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: what you think ??

Koussayou003 (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Koussayou003 (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I cannot interfere with how arwiki's local community is running their project. Please contact local admins instead. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: please try to understand me, the admistrators of arwiki didn't let me talk, when i try to speak with him they block my ip, they protect their talk page and more things .. You are a steward ! You can do somethings and unblock me ?? Koussayou003 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Steward policy. We don't have the authority to act when there are local admins. As I've said many times now, please contact them instead. Sorry I can't help. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: i'll put an unblock request and see what's going to happend, they never let me talk, you can see the unblock request in ar:وب:إخطار الإداريين/إزالة منع/الحالية Koussayou003 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajraddatz, wish you in good health. Thanks for your replay. See 1 + 2 + 3, also you can see Koussayou003 report on CU wiki, also we give this user many chances but he still deal in the same way until now. He must wait until the end of block duration. Thanks again (@DerHexer, Defender, and Masti:) --Alaa :)..! 12:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@علاء and Ajraddatz: well ala'a is here, you ask him, i hope ala'a explain how you give me many chances and how i still deal ?

Koussayou003 (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not say anything, as Ajraddatz told you it's thing related to the local policies so I'm sorry your situation discussed many times there. I repeated you must wait until the end of block duration. I'll not comment again here about this situation and all stewards can see your report on CU wiki. Sorry Ajraddatz for bothering you. --Alaa :)..! 12:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@علاء: like this i need to see the CU report, like every body see, you don't try to find solution, why we don't just find solutions ? Why you still négative ? We can find solutions here and forget those problems ? Why not ?

Koussayou003 (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military history user group title[edit]

Greetings, firstly thanks for your support and feedback to the proposal to form a user group for military historians of Wikipedia. As there is enough support for the proposal, it is time to choose a title, and go ahead. Please vote at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians#Group name. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 11:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about Blocking consultation[edit]

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on other wikis. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on another wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for blocking the user who vandalized my talkpage, can you also revdel and oversight their edits? Thank you! Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted both revisions. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should write a report, meanwhile you may find more info on the cu-l of 06/02/2018. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Look like there was some certain issue, LightandDark2000 is really not indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the page. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider[edit]

Your close of this checkuser request. This is a request that could confirm the real sock master for impersonation socking that has been tagged to the target of impersonation, not the actual sock master. It was a simple request, but became complicated because of a weird discussion with Vituzzu (entirely inappropriate), others adding more information (Marshallsumter), and then massive irrelevancies from obvious socks of the sock master, a previously identified LTA. Your very understandable reaction was exactly what he wanted. It was not necessary to follow all that complex argument to simply run checkuser on named accounts. Wikipedia checkusers cannot do that cross-wiki, and you are effectively denying a Wikiversity sysop access to checkuser, where the findings in this case could make a difference.

I am not going to be filing any more requests, because I no longer have any WMF interests, and it's becoming dangerous to speak up. I'm writing a comment on the history of this affair, on the talk page for that checkuser request, but it's time for me to retire totally, even if I'm attacked. I'm an old-timer, DefendEachOther. Thanks for all your help in the past. --Abd (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment, Abd is banned by the WMF. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 12:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


What have I done? HueMan1 (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: sorry for missing your message. Are you still blocked? – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: Not anymore, thanks. HueMan1 (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Could you check this page? It looks like spam to me.

Cheers! KockaAdmiralac (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KockaAdmiralac, please post this on SRM. Thanks. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, done, thanks! KockaAdmiralac (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello brother my name is virajmishra and i have requested to global unlock here but someone is not help me. Please check my status and unlock my account soon.ThankYou 2405:204:E305:F94A:FF28:F3BA:81C2:2738 07:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppet of User:Josh.172, blocked on English Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me unlock the 91st National Spelling Bee Page[edit]

Someone locked and removed almost 4000 characters of relevant information that I had added. Could you please review it and unlock. Thank you. Erfson (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll need to ask on the specific Wikipedia that this affects. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, proceed. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Zerabat (discusión) 03:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


When I see a first edit [5] I smell fish.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing done, though one wonders about species recognition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: looks like a sock of Jay Jay Marcus Keize13. He has good edits on enwv so I'll hold off locking for now, especially since the enwiki SPI page is a mess. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with whatever you desire. If I wanted to get to lock, I would have gone straight elsewhere. Sometimes they need to be shepherded to a corner where they are doing no damage and left to keep themselves occupied. Often frustrated editors turn to vandals due to not finding the right home. So recovering the recoverable is better than chasing them xwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, completely agreed. Though looking at the current thread on SRG I may be in the minority opinion with the steward group on that... – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


:). Matiia (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your one-week block is pointless because the troll hops between IPs several times a hour. Search (talk contribs WHOIS block user block log guc checkip) to obtain a better map of his IPs and make one or more anon-only range blocks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, which is why I blocked the IP for 31 hours not 1 week. The range had far too much collateral to block. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You shortened the Meta-wiki block only. The global is effective till June 5. Let’s watch whether will the troll resume attacks from the same ISP. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's odd. What I get for late-night wikiing I guess. Shortened the other one as well, thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

auto patrolled right[edit]

Dear Adrian,
Thank you very much for your previous helps and advises. I am an experienced editor with over 2500 edits on article content in meta, and have created many articles, none of which have been met with objections. Although I mainly work to improve existing articles, I plan to create more articles in the future, I have also become aware of the burden placed on reviewers. I would therefore like be granted auto patrolled right so as not to create unnecessary workload for reviewers. Yours faithfully - DejaVu
• Ps: I have eliminator, autopatrolled, rollbacker, uploader, patroller, page viewer and remover access in Persian wikis.--Déjà vu 04:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ok. Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate for your consideration.--Déjà vu 06:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Count in the Simple English discussion[edit]

I'm the clerk of LangCom, and I wanted to know where things stood. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought I sent you a message about that. It seems to be entirely counter to the notion of having a discussion on an issue to reduce it to a numbers count, and at that one that's plopped randomly in the middle of the conversation. Might I suggest keeping a running tally at the top instead if you really want one? – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I think at this point I'll just let it ride. Mostly I wanted to see if there was a clear consensus developing yet. And I'd venture that where we are is that there is not a clear consensus to close, there may be a consensus to remain open, but there is definitely an interest in trying to make SEW more accessible from enwp. Do you agree with that interpretation (as of now)?
In reality:
  • Per policy there will be no justification to close
  • Not that we're anywhere near closing, but to some extent SEW is one of my "home wikis", so I'll be reluctant to close. If, though, there is a discussion on LangCom's mailing list, then I can close using a link to that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your interpretation. If SEW is one of your home wikis, it might be best for you to recuse from closing the discussion, though of course if you were just implementing LangCom's will then that's acceptable. And for what it's worth, I could have just messaged you about the count (or ignored it), so apologies for the blunt action of reverting it out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NP. Happens. You're busy, I'm busy, we don't always think it through. Don't worry.
I intend to let this discussion run unfettered until it's been open at least a month—my usual minimum on project closure discussions unless they're inherently invalid. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Will give everyone a chance to comment, even if the outcome is (somewhat) clear at this point. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”[edit]

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ajraddatz, What happened? --Jalu (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just did an accidental pocket rollback (phone was apparently on as I was walking). I self-reverted. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure and archiving[edit]

Dear Ajraddatz, thank you for finally closing the case "‎Φαλτσέτα@el.wikipedia", which was open since early June, so it can be properly archived. A similar case is "Μαυρο Μαργαριταρι@el.wikipedia", pending since mid-March! May be you missed it, because a user had it removed a few minutes before. I have just put it back to its place [6], because it must be closed by a steward, and then archived the right way. Please, plaese take a look if you don't mind, because this case has been "haunting" the CU-requests page for over 3 months! Thanks in advance. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And answered. No need to CU at this point. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring GIPBE for Zuzanna Janin[edit]

You granted this request nine months ago based on an OTRS request, but I don't actually see any record this user ever made an edit. In any event, this expires on Wednesday (22 August). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That can happen. I'll see if I remember to remove it on Wednesday. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


...are the best. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I proactively protected your userpage as well, given it's a likely target if they can't hit your talk. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ajraddatz, have you idea to launch global abuse filter against LTA/vandalism attempts? 20:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they wouldn't be effective in this case. And apologies for the IP block - an LTA left me a similar message not long ago in a similar situation. Undone now. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ajraddatz! But can you to take action to defeat the LTA presence on global Wikis? 20:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of import tool on Simple English Wiktionary[edit]

Hi. My transwiki import tool expires on 5th September 2018. Can you please extend it for a further three months as I didn't have much time to be able to complete the imports as I have only completed 4 imports. I will have more time to be able to complete the imports over the coming three months. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Without trying to muddy the waters of the rename request: I think it is fair to point out issues with a proposal, and I also think it's fair to remind stewards that they shouldn't be trying to tell other projects how to handle their own processes. If an en admin tried to do that for another project there would be an uproar. I've always been very supportive of not imposing en standards elsewhere, but I think there is many times a lack of respect going the other way. Renaming is global, but turning an individual's request into a discussion on the intersections of global and local is non-ideal, and isn't fair to the candidate. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting the situation a bit. Matiia was making a suggestion, not dictating anything. He wasn't opposing the candidate because he didn't like enwiki's policy, or forcing enwiki to change through some other means. That's a pretty important difference. And even if he was trying to dictate what enwiki should do, there's no need for you to respond in such an adversarial way. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was fair in my response, even if it was a bit strong. I do think it is a fair critique of Matiia that he tends to be pretty dismissive of anything involving, and I probably read his comment in that way given my past interactions with him, even if that wasn't his intent this time. If I made a mistake in reading it that way, it's likely my fault (most things tend to be), but I also do think it is fine to push back on some of the ideas a bit. Anyway, you've probably had enough of me tonight. If I bother you again it will be to remind you that you have an overdue RfB... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered. But I'm also never going to make that RfB :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always look on the bright side: it means I’ll always have something to harass you about :p TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is often how enwiki gets a bad name (see my 2013 essay w:en:User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!, though it is a bit dated). When I was a steward, I sometimes did make suggestions on other projects when they were doing something that appeared nonsensical (though there was quite a bit that I kept to myself). Sometimes they take it, sometimes they don't, but as long as they're not violating privacy or something like that there's not a lot stewards really have the power to do anyway (community consensus and all). --Rschen7754 06:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754, great essay I think I normally try to be very respectful of other projects, though I'm sure I have room to grow. As I hinted at above, I likely read too much into them, which isn't entirely fair on my part. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency in KaWiki[edit]

Dear steward,
Please read my explanation thoroughly. It is about an inexorable situation in the Georgian Wikipedia, the long-established. Every attempt to solve the problem locally fails again and again. So, please, do not be indifferent.
The requests are extraordinary, so I do not write on a general page, but personally.
Best regards, Deu. 17:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i am just learning wikipedia editing so I am appalled that someone deleted the fun practicing article i had in my sandbox.[edit]

I have a gallery and art studio in Vancouver, it is big business and my boyfriend is Brian Scott. he is very famous and needs his own wikipdedia entry as a highly talented and prolific artist of west coast British Columbia architecture and landscapes. So I want to see how I can build the editing skills to write an article about him. Can you help?

I can't help with that, sorry. You'll need to ask on the Wikipedia where you want to write the article. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship issues[edit]

Hei sir I have requested here , but didn't got any response, could you please check that? :-) The Amjad (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GSfERpSA(Copyangry7fcvc 1)@zh.wikipedia[edit]

Hello. I am a zhwiki admin. For the request of GSfERpSA(Copyangry7fcvc 1), please contact me. Thank you.--AT (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AT. I already reached out to another admin who has blocked the IP range. It is all handled now :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you.--AT (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glapz LTZA Page Soon‎ showing as bot edits[edit]

For me on my watchlist, I am seeing the edits of this user marked as bot edits, and your reversions were marked similarly. I don't see any change in rights, so all a tad weird.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use markbotedits when reverting LTAs typically, to keep their nonsense out of the recent changes. That's what is causing the edits to appear that way. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Also unusual that such a new account is able to circumvent the protection settings on Zzuuzz's talk page, as the account didn't look that old for its creation here. Do we have things that need checking behind the scenes?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that is weird. Special:UserRights/Glapz_LTZA_Page_Soon shows them being autoconfirmed which seems wrong... do you know what the autoconfirmed standard is on Meta, or how we could check it? – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] we apparently are on the default of 4 days, and 0 edits. Account was created on 12 Nov. I think that we should be moving edit count to 10, though you could argue and I would settle for 5. If you agree, then I will put a proposal to Meta:Babel.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Five might be a better starting point, since we get a lot of experienced people from other projects stopping by occasionally here. But I agree we should have some edit requirement, since it would prevent this create-and-wait strategy that the guy is using. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


M0therN8ture, whom you globally blocked, is back as PinkSamurai ([7]). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy, locked too. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User page history deletion[edit]

Hello! Can you delete a history of my userpage here, and leave the most recent revision intact? Thanks! -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Can you globally lock [8] as well, LTA. Home Lander (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you've just blocked my human account while I was contributing on Wikibooks. And I can't see any discussion about that, or bad contribution from my account. Could you please explain? JackBot (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see here. You mistakenly blocked three users with advanced permissions (including one steward) so I wanted to confirm that your account was not compromised. Please undo those blocks as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was miss-clicks, I'm going to clean up... JackBot (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. Ever since the two rounds of compromising admin accounts we've been quite careful in these situations. Apologies for the confusing lock. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


[9] The local policy is now in the process of creating. Anyway, if the stewards do not want to implement the valid community consensus (even if it's over 90%) - and stewards are obliged to implement the local community's will, then please make that explicit in the AAR: "stewards will not implement any valid local community will if that community does not have local inactivity policy". Kubura (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kubura: We almost always will implement the community will, and indeed had the request come from a different community it likely would have been actioned. Some valid concerns have been raised to us that inactivity was being selectively applied in hrwiki to remove some admins but not others. That is somewhat concerning, which is why we request that you make a policy to be applied uniformly rather than on a case-by-case basis. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were quicker than my addition. This was before your message above :)
You wrote " we are worried that variable activity standards are being used against some users." [10]
Who is that "we" that are worried? Stewards? The stewards are obliged to implement the valid community's consensus decision, even if they dislike the outcome and disagree with the outcome. Stewards must follow this rule. >90% is the consensus.
Who are those "some users"? There are four users whose right are now stripped because of the inactivity. Every time by community's decision by over 90%.
Which are "variable activity standards"? Two of those former admins and bureaucrat were not chosen by the community at all. They have been inactive for over a decade! Far ahead by inactivity from the next inactive group. AAR was gamed by "one edit in two years and then disappear until the next reminder/notification".
The second two have been inactive for over five years, the second in a row by inactivity. AAR was gamed by "one edit in two years and then disappear until the next reminder/notification". These two also got remarks on their behavior, somewhat earlier. First one because of incorrect accusations - rude lies, the second one somewhat later made very bad action [11] that is considered as provocative and against the local community and both have shown poor conducting. Instead of "rubbing in" those bad stuff, to avoid poisoned atmosphere, we focused on their long inactivity.
If someone from the active users wants to nominate someone else for stripping of the tools and rights because of the inactivity, all he/she has to do is nominate him/her. The user that complained here [12] has not been writing nothing in the mainspace nor nominated anyone. Kubura (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "we" refers to stewards. We had an internal discussion over the request given the concerns that had been raised on it, and on the past request, and agreed that asking the community to create a standard policy was the best way forward. I know you don't like the result and feel like we are violating our policies, but stewards have discretion to not take action when we feel - either individually or as a group - that there are bigger concerns. To get into the wikilawyery side of this, as volunteers we are not compelled to conduct an action, though actions we do conduct must either be in accordance with policy or appropriate to the situation in an emergency. Once your local policy has been established, we will be happy to implement it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were quicker again :) I understand Your concerns about partiality, but the community confirmed every nomination. Regarding uniformly attitude and selectivity: these votings were not done all at once. First was the group of the three most inactive. In the meantime two more admins gave up their tools: one was inactive and a candidate for desysopping because of inactivity. Second wave (one nomination) came later. This user had chance: but he made no reaction since the previous RfD, neither anyone from the first group! Now there only two inactive admins. I find it not ethical from me to nominate anyone of them for desysopping: the one was very good, hard working, cool-headed admin who activated himself after some inactivity in other to calm the things down, without damaging any side and he did it well. He also nominated me for the admin. The second one was a good admin, somewhat more inactive, with no bad conduct. He blocked me once :) in ancient times (CRT monitors, ISDN, 56 kbps modems :) , he was 2 weeks more on wiki than me, in total few months both) on six hours so I do not want to look vindictive, and his work was OK so there You go. If someone wants to nominate them because of the inactivity, they are free to do that. But noone did - they nominated noone. Do not worry about impartiality: some of the admins were against me, but I have never nominated them, because they were active (I skipped less inactive ones). Even they agreed (or not disagreed) with my nominations. We were focused on the very long inactivity. We gave chance to everyone: that's why those desysopping nominations came after so long time (10 ys, 5 ys) and in two waves. Kubura (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura, you've basically just explicitly confirmed you're using the process to target specific admins and spare the others, which is further confirmed by oblique accusations leveled against Saxum in your nomination.
The "not ethical from me" comment suggests you failed to understand that being inactive is not an infraction, so desysopping due to inactivity is not a punishment, it is (or should be, at any rate) purely procedural in character, and there is nothing "(un)ethical" about it. GregorB (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GregorB, You have a reputation of eternal fault-finder. Kritizer, if You know what I mean. You are so negative. You always complain on something. You always seek the dark, the shadow, besides so beautiful pleasant sunny day. The nominating for desysoping is an unpopular move. So if You want to nominate some inactive sysops, do it yourself. Expose, risk Your "popularity". I was honest regarding those two remaining admins (I told that directly to steward, no hidden agenda, I can say that to my community everything I told to the steward), no hidden agenda and sneaking behind the local community. Were You, GregorB, honest and direct? Why do You opstruct the will of the local community? You had the opportunity on the concerned project to express Your opinion, and You didn't. Instead of directly expressing the opinion on the local wiki on the voting, You go around and tattle to stewards spreading disinformations. I have a right to disagree with (non)actions of a particular sysop; but to avoid any verbal tirades from any side, I focused on inactivity. BTW, GregorB, it is not nice to hound people. Kubura (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this is part of the reason why we want a policy that can be consistently applied. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Range Block[edit]

Just saw a notice that my IP range was blocked on metawiki. Are you able to provide an exemption to my account from the block?

“Your current IP address is 2607:fb90:24a0:2a97:51b9:2776:69d2:73a1, and the blocked range is 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/33”

Thanks. TastyPoutine (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're already exempt. The block will expiry soon at any rate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

applied /32 block[edit]

13:24, 9 January 2019 Billinghurst (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 2607:fb90::/32 (talk) with an expiration time of 31 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)

no one else was acting. so presume that it effective and right. You can view the block log.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Was this anything more than an attempt at some lame trolling? This place has got some weird RFCs and your closing-statement looked quite serious:-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was serious... but either way it did not generate consensus. :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

Hey Ajraddatz, regarding Steward_requests/ - I'm a bit surprised at your course of action - using testwiki as a bypass of standard controls seems a bit off to me - especially for a request that is specific to a local community that has the ability to deal with this in multiple ways - and that this has nothing to do with testing. Would you mind expanding on why you thought this was a good option? — xaosflux Talk 17:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to clarify my rationale. The standard control in this case is a rate limit intended to prevent the abusive or malicious creation of multiple sockpuppet accounts for the purpose of vandalizing the project. I judge that possibility to be very unlikely in this case, since the request is coming from a user who - while seeming to have a moderately problematic history - is acting in good faith. If the standard control in this case is not going to prevent abuse, then I have no problem with overriding it.
Testwiki is indeed a wiki meant for testing, but non-content wikis are occasionally used to work around technical barriers when appropriate. I've already established why it would be appropriate to override this technical barrier, since the barrier is unintentionally preventing legitimate activity. Other specialized wikis, like loginwiki, are used to bypass technical restrictions despite those actions being "out of scope" for that project. In my mind, it is a worthwhile tradeoff to allow legitimate activity using a work-around that breaks the arbitrary scope of a subdomain of this website.
The local bureaucrat on mrwiki has not responded to the user's request, and has not been active since the user placed their request. In a normal situation, I would ask that the user wait or start a local discussion, but since this is a time-sensitive request I am inclined to resolve the issue now rather than wait for the wheels of bureaucracy to spin for an appropriate length of time. The only options for the local community to deal with this are to a) have the local bureaucrat grant the permissions or b) have a local discussion after which a steward would grant the permissions. Since a) is not possible because the bureaucrat is temporarily inactive (as judged by their local edit history) and b) would take longer than the allowable period of time, I think it is reasonable to use a work-around.
Finally, from a more strategic perspective, Wikimedia's reputation in India is not good. The network is often viewed as a western-only club, and there is very limited use even among those with regular access to the internet. Because of this, I am inclined to support engagement activities in that part of the world as best I can. The potential benefit of engaging potential new contributors outweighs the limited potential for abuse and using testwiki for non-testing purposes.
I'm a bit surprised that you have an issue with this, honestly. To refuse this request without using an easily available workaround would be the height of useless wikibureaucracy. That said, if you think this is problematic, I'm happy to reverse the action and submit it for review. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have issue with the concept, just the execution of funneling this through testwiki. I'm working with some of the outreach people on fixing a related problem via the Program and Events Dashboard. To improve the execution on this (in the future) - what do you think of adding +/- account creators to admins here on metawiki, and then these sort of things could be handled at RFH? — xaosflux Talk 18:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
mrwiki is a bit of a difficult wiki to work with, anyway. --Rschen7754 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my five years as a steward, I think this is the only time I've needed to use a workaround for account creator rights. We could start a community discussion, give the permissions to admins, and work out a policy for it... or we could continue to use testwiki as a workaround. Testwiki has no community by its nature; it's literally just a big sandbox with no actual policies or rules that need to be followed (outside of the big ones). Not everything we do needs to be formal and bureaucratic. Using testwiki for things other than testing is a victimless crime, and really not something that I think we should spend time correcting. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin in[edit]

I have a little problem: Since years I'm the only one who do something permanently in the nds.wiktionary, and every year I must get a new period for Adminship. There are two Admins with no time-limit for the nds.witkionary, only, they do since years nothing. So my question: Is it possible, that I get a permanent Adminship, so that I don't have the problem every year, that my Adminship is ending? If yes, what must I do, that I do not get another limited adminship. (sorry, I don't speak English very well). Answers please: --Joachim Mos (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little problem: I think, meanwhile I have my Admin-rights back, (no message!), but I cannot edit Can you help me and look, what's going wrong? Answers please: --Joachim Mos (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joachim Mos: Ability to edit javascript pages has been removed from the general administrator toolkit(see wikt:nds:special:Listgrouprights). There were posts made about this to communities talking about the solution, and it was covered in Tech/News  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, shit, and how to become a "Benutzeroberflächenadministratoren", I must edit it, cause somebody has made something, so that the Edit-tools no longer runs. And we have no "Benutzeroberflächenadministratoren" --Joachim Mos (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joachim Mos: I left you a message on your talk page on January 27th (see here). To be granted interface admin rights you need to do another request, unfortunately. Please start a discussion and leave it open for one week. In the mean time, you can have the fix implemented by request at SRM. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I love it, somebody do something without ask me or any other admin of nds.wiktionary before, do not proof, that we get no trouble, and I can see, what i can do, that shit don't longer happens. Okay, will do so, and after the week, to what page I must go, to get the rights. --Joachim Mos (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The change was mandated by the WMF late last year. After a week go to SRP and we can grant you indefinite access. Sorry for the hoops here - usually we can grant interface admin access with administrator access, but only if the request explicitly mentioned both. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

memo box full[edit]

I was sending a note that I prefer to not add here, got told box full.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you, you should be able to respond to it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per email. Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re some block requests[edit]

FYI the block request that you questioned the other day was most likely gleamed from looking at one or more Special:log/spamblacklists. If I am seeing range activity there and it may or may not have visible activity on GUC (ie. spam only, and since deleted) if it is only the spam showing or otherwise clear apart from spambots then I will make the request. Damn shame that we cannot show range hits on the log, or from deleted contributions. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, gotcha. I'll take a look for that on future requests. Of course, you could save me some work by just becoming a steward again... ;-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to remember to mention it, and FWIW I have popped into phabricator and prodded the ticket about IP range searching in the extended log files. Re your other suggestion "… or I could have my nipples excised with a blunt bread and butter knife."  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And fine... if you don't want to, I can respect that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question[edit]

Hi Ajraddatz! If you have a minute, please check the follow-up question on SRCU#MeritTim@zh.wikipedia. The timing of the events is very suspicious. MeritTim was denied of IPBE because they were unable to produce the autoblock number that is affecting them. After this, CAMCAD repealed. -Mys_721tx (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I had started to look at your request but got distracted. I'll leave a reply there. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reasons[edit]

Just a heads up that G2 still points to G7 (unless that's your custom edit summary). Sorry if I'm bothering you about that here. Tropicalkitty (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is pointing there too (from the top section). Tropicalkitty (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response, but this has/is being addressed. Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Tropicalkitty (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Ajraddatz, are you around? User:Dr Potty Bacon on Wikiquote is begging for a block. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, but I'm here :p. Matiia (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matiia works some nice hours around here :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ajraddatz, I want to talk you abot User:Taamu. He is administrator of Ossetian Wikipedia. Before 2008 Samachablo (South Ossetia) is occupied by Russia, it is territory of Georgia. Two georgian user were talked him about him, but he deleted my edit about maps, and territory of Georgia has Map of ,,South Ossetia. And he said Tskhinvali (city of Georgia) is capital of South Ossetia, help me please! Goodbye! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by ჯეო (talk)

Renaming Schmelzle[edit]

I've just seen on the German wiki that you renamed the user Schmelzle to User TRXX-TRXX. Do you know the Discussion on Steward requests/Username changes/2019-04#Schmelzle? The German Community rejected this strongly. Now OTRS should overrule it? -jkb- 17:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, and I've also read the discussion here showing clear consensus among the dewiki community members polled to allow the rename. At this point the request has been very well publicised and the account remains blocked, so there should not be any hiding of bad conduct occurring. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. User:Grillenwage is a privat talk page where some users from a special small part of dewiki is discussing, without any impact on the community. And the discussion hasn't been declared as a pool or something like that. Official pools are name de:WP:Meinungsbild and are anounced on special pages. This is a fault decision. -jkb- 17:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a discussion on a more official venue then? – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is no renaming, see also Tony Ballionis closing of the old request here: "...with no prejudice against a rename if there is a local consensus at the appropriate place on The consensus here is that this is a local matter for to decide, and until such a time as we have evidence of a community consensus in favour of it, held at an appropriate forum (not a user talk), the rename won’t be done. If that consensus exists, you can provide evidence of it here in a new request", OTRS is not a community discussion; obviously there is nobody who would like to rename him and to strart a communioty discussion or voting process. I don't know what Schmelzle wrote in his OTRS, probably he recommended to read the talk page of Grillenwage, but this no sollution. Sorry to make you troubles, I didn't want to, really, but I know the past of Schmelzles activities against many users. This is the reason. Regards, -jkb- 18:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's no trouble; I am always happy to provide a justification for the actions I take as a steward, and to reverse them if necessary. I am busy in real life at the moment, but I'll take time to respond when I can. I've provided a bit more information at the administrator's request page on dewiki: The requester's counsel sent an appeal to the stewards, we forwarded to WMF Legal, they requested our opinion and the consensus among the steward group (or at least the members that discussed) was that the action should be allowed. The talk page discussion was presented to us by dewiki community members as a "semi-official" location, and we had no reason to contest that.
I understand that this user has a history of poor behaviour and giving him the courtesy of a rename seems wrong in that context. In our internal discussion, the rationale for the rename is essentially that the user is inactive and that the privacy reason is compelling, and with the apparent approval of the dewiki community I decided to proceed over the previous decision made by a global renamer. However, I do not object to further discussion at dewiki, and if there is consensus that the user should not be renamed then I am willing to either reverse the action or hand the decision to WMF Legal, depending on what the requester's rights are under EU law in this case. Does that sound reasonable? – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for respond, we'll see what the time will bring. But nevertheless, the page Grillenwage was and is and never will be something like semiofficiall talk or voting of decision making page in dewiki. However, Friday evening and a bit hot, the german wikipedians seems not to follow every problem, and I do not will be the only one acting here. Let us see. Regards, -jkb- 21:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So noted regarding the talk page. Please feel free to ping me into the discussion as it continues if needed, and of course let me know about the result. Have a good night/weekend! – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have 12 requests wait the stewards to do!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh happy day![edit] :-) —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the day of my fellow maple-syrup drinkers! Have a good day meow. Vermont (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

créations intempestives de compte sur[edit]

bonjour, il semble y avoir des créations automatiques de compte ( environ 200 en 3 jours ) sur la wikipédia picarde ( pcd:Spécial:Modifications_récentes ) dans le but de faire des spams ? que faire dans ce cas ? qui faut-il contacter ?
there seems to be automatic account creations (about 200 in 3 days) on pcd wiki ( pcd:Spécial:Modifications_récentes ). What to do in this case ? Who is it necessary to contact ? best regards Geoleplubo (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Geoleplubo: we have seen an increase in spambot creation recently. It looks like they have stopped for now; I'll run some checks there later to see if any more can be done. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes it's seem to be stop for the moment... if you can have a look to this problem, thanks ; regards, Geoleplubo (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. You've locked Rausch, Milenc, etc. But can you global block his IP? He always creates new accounts and continues vandalize many wikiprojects. Thanks--DiMon2711 18:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the underlying IP is already blocked. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
but his sockpuppet Euandrew can edit wikis--DiMon2711 16:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know where you do work but over academia, this is wrong by a good few miles or so. Esp. if it is not hard sciences.

I have reviewed books over journals and called out folks over conferences in more harsher terms (than MERC). Have definitely written once that the author is so self-contradictory and chooses to go by an utopian vision, he barely makes any sense at the end of the book. Yesterday morning, I came across this piece which will give you an idea about what's standard language and what's not (The air of originality amused is its own echo-chamber.....under the sexy sign of theory, postcolonial scholars make sweeping claims about pre-colonial India, without expertise in the period.....the same tired theory is repackaged and resold by scholars eager to profit from this monopoly.

So, this is a request for you to refrain from providing unsolicited and poor advice to people under the guise of civility/urbanity with a wrongly pre-conceived notion that stuff like that are not acceptable in a workplace. It is creating a chilling effect. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work in academia, and where I work there is absolutely an expectation of respectful interaction. As to the specific page here, the WMF is taking the time to engage with the community on a very preliminary idea which would probably fundamentally break our anti-abuse workflow. We should let them know that, but doing so does not require name-calling or other abusive behaviour. That only would make consultation less likely in the future IMO. And if the result of this is a fundamentally-rethought approach to wiki identities and anti-abuse, then maybe it would be a good thing -- I have no way of knowing until they provide more details. – Ajraddatz (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it might be very true at your workplace but a common-denominator-approach is not the solution. Nothing in my quoted pieces or what MERC/Johnbod says involve name-calling or is too uncivil to be heard. Best, Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I only left a reminder rather than reverting or redacting their comments. And their subsequent comments (or MERC's anyway, Johnbod wasn't being incivil) have been fine, so that's been a success from my view. – Ajraddatz (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any update for this?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attending to it now. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of users+1. is the same user?Should block IP in List of users+1?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocks wouldn't be useful here. I am not sure if the users are the same between the two groups; you'll need to use behavioural evidence to figure that out. Sorry I can't be more helpful. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. Dear Ajraddatz.I have a question. why in the Tajik Wiktionary an administrator Ibrahim who is no longer active for more than a year and a half still has administrator status. and some Abuse Filter is given this status, which is generally not active and even without a vote. I understand that there are few active users. and in the Tajik Wikipedia, too, some administrators are not active at all (i.e. globally). I think you need to remove administrator status from them because there are other active administrators. Please check yourself their contributions. Thanks.. --ToJack (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToJack, if that administrator is inactive then they will be removed as part of the AAR process. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Adrian!

Thanks for reviewing WBG's actions, I hoped you would. Yeah, I was surprised...
The PA / sock puppet allegations we can't discuss, so I only say I honestly feel bad about that he had to post it 3 times in a context, where it does not belong, but successfully denigrates my person, and worse... it generates off-topic discussion, and negatively effect the WGs' work.

The obviously targeted revert was... you know, and the last message was... taunting?
I wonder if you have seen the incivility. I don't understand why you didn't warn him. Maybe that wouldn't help, right.
Anyway, he was funny. I hope this won't repeat.

I you one day happen to see an edit where I abusively used my old account, please inform me. My talk page is a good starting point.

Have a nice one, and enjoy "sitting it out" instead of... what I do. :-) — Aron M (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. I think that your warning should be sufficient. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have sleepers in Steward_requests/Checkuser#Abcde1234512345@zh.wikipedia?What some of these accounts in the request to be related?Also,Steward_requests/Checkuser#Naughtycaique@zh.wikipedia have put here a month ago!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the SRCU page. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the contributions tools are loading[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T192826

You probably tried to load guc from the “2600:1700:8b60:ca00::/64 xwiki-contribsSTIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogbullseye” template, which currently doesn’t produce anything of value. I opted not to make ad hoc fixes to {{Luxotool}} hoping that the wmflabs devels will fix their code soon, which they did not. Nor am I willing to fix PHP code (there are rumours about ignoble support of IPv6 masks by PHP; of course I could encode necessary selection myself, but won’t be happy with such an assignment). Better to use the gucprefix interwiki code, especially for IPv6 mask lengths multiple of 16: gucprefix:2600:1700:8B60:CA00: makes the job in this case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is giving me a gateway error regardless of the IP I enter, whatever that means. I'll try again later. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked on English Wikipedia[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place but my IP got autoblocked for 13 days. It doesn't say I got blocked on the log, but an error message comes up every time I try to edit.

Your IP address is blocked

Start of block: 20:38, 12 October 2019

End of block: 15:32, 25 October 2019

I'm telling you this because First of all I have been editing greatly, and second of all it doesn't say who it was from. And there are two block IDs. Do you have an explanation? 20:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP you were editing from was probably, which is blocked as an open proxy. Please read NOP: if abused, open proxies can be blocked. If you are still impacted by the block, the best way to edit around it is by creating an account and requesting a block exemption -- or not using a proxy to edit. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Adrian, I am extremely grateful for the assistance you have provided these years during my activities in Wikimedia's projects.
I'd bring to your attention that since last months each single time when I want to switch between wikis I can't!! Specially when I try to go to Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia Commons from Persian Wikipedia, It ask me for log-in (again)! Not only it's not going through after re-enter my user name and password also it goes to CAPTCHA and asking for re-submission after periodic time (5 or 10 minutes).
Unfortunately repeat of this producer is not helpful too. So I usually switch my router off and bring it back to solve this problem. Could you kindly help me in this situation. Warm Regards. Déjà vu 16:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you'd be best to ask on phabricator through filing a bug report. I am not sure what would cause that, and lack the tools to effectively diagnose it. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk: SWMT-Members[edit]

Hey Ajraddatz, As you were previously involved in discussions on Template_talk: SWMT-Members, your input will be really helpful on a recent discussion about making single list of users instead experienced and new. Thank you! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of review of adminship (October 2023)[edit]

Hello Ajraddatz,

Pursuant to Meta:Administrators/Removal (inactivity) and because you have made fewer than ten (10) logged administrator actions over the past six (6) months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal (inactivity)/October 2023. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 10, 2023.

Kind regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]