User talk:Ajraddatz/Archive 1

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Ajraddatz. You have new messages at Techman224's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Techman224^Talk 02:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep it away from that page!

However - 20 minutes before I started the thread the page was edited with some material removed and instructions to "take it to the talk page" which I did. However that edit left a simple "endorse" type comment on there - why? The leaving of that comment was 20 mins before my thread. That is what I am trying to get at with no success at all. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense. Still, he might have missed the other comment or wasn't thinking about it... I don't know why he did it, but (IMO) there are better things to focus on than his inconsistencies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

At least you understand :) & I agree - I am only concerned that things are clarified for the future for the benefit of all concerned - inconsistencies piss people off! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GAF

Hello Ajr, I've mentioned your name at de:n:Wikinews:Meldungen_an_Administratoren#Christal3. ;) Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki copyright violations

Hello Ajraddatz, I need a piece of help from you. Does copying from one language Wikipedia (say en.wiki) to some other language Wikipedia without accreditation not amount to copyright violation? If that is the case, please have a look at this revision of the page gu:અમૂલ on gu.wiki by some User:Sushant savla which has been copied (much of it without being translated) from this revision of the en.wiki page without any credits to the authors. Also note that the latest gu.wiki revision of the page is mostly in English and a derivative of this work. I did not write it on gu.wiki because I'm not well-versed in their language and, therefore, find it difficult to explain things to them. Can you please look into the matter and take actions accordingly or else, explain the things to me? Thanks in advance. Rahul Bott (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sitting in the Toronto airport right now with 20 minutes until my flight, so I don't have time to do a good look at the specific case here (now, but I will later). If a user is taking an article from enwiki and translating it section-by-section, there could be an attribution problem if they are not linking back to the original article in some way. There are quite a few acceptable ways of doing this, even just linking to the original article in the edit summary - just to provide some record of where the content was copied from. When it comes to copying articles from enwiki and not providing complete/good translations, that is its own problem, since such articles don't add anything to the project they are copied on to. I'll take a closer look at this case later, but keep in mind that the most I could do is start a request for comment or other discussion on it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Lolz, wiking from the airport and I thought I was too obsessed with Wikimedia :-) I am in complete agreement with what you've suggested and will wait for action from you. An RfC would be quite helpful. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I tell my psychiatrist... I can stop it any time! I've looked through Sushant savla's global contribs, and there doesn't seem to be many cases of them copy/pasting from enwiki without attribution. I've left them a message on their guwiki talk page explaining how/why to give attribution, and why articles in half-English are bad - that should be good for now. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your solution sounds good to me except that you (by mistake I assume) notified the wrong user, User:Sanjay Balotiya, instead of User:Sushant savla who copied the material from en.wiki! Sorry to be bugging you intermittently :-) Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, how did I miss that O_o Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a local sysop there noticed my message and is/was informing users to stop copying the content. Mission accomplished hopefully. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

uz wt

Can you delete this fabricated word: http://uz.wiktionary.org/wiki/buzulku%C5%9Fu

What about the other words that the user made, are they bad as well? Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

88.235.9.59

Hi. Please help us by urgent trwiki. --►Cekli829 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That wiki isn't on the gs list so I can't block it. I'll try to get a steward here... Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am too... Good luck to us! --►Cekli829 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're awesome

[1]: … and I am waiting for the tools to load since this request exists :( Vogone talk 19:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pooor tools :( - they load pretty quickly for me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have a moar awesome internet connection than me? :( Vogone talk 20:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just generally more awesome I guess :D Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tell me moar … how to get as awesome as you? :P Vogone talk 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

First, move to Canada.... then instantly regret it because it's very cold right now :s Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we had Cyclone Bodil here from Thursday to Saturday … that was also not warm :s Vogone talk 20:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address

Hi Ajraddatz, sorry I have to come bother anyone. It's about blocking with a disruptive IP address, fails to engage in explanation or discussion, this is the third revert, pretty annoying and attention consuming. You can find it in this page. It's actually two personas, but suspect they are sockpuppets (BernardaAlba). I wonder if you can act here. (You may find me in en:User:Iñaki LL) Thanks! Iñaki LLM (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a sysop on enwiki so I can't help with that. You could try leaving a message on this noticeboard. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Iñaki LLM (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Luganda Wikipedia

Why isn't your lgwiki account attached to your SUL? PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue why. That account has no email attached to it and a different password than mine. Any suggestions? Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You could ask a steward to rename/usurp it on SRSUL. Sounds like bugzilla:39996 or something similar to me. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'll do that tomorrow, thanks for the tip :-). Must sleep now. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

congrats in advance

Hi there, my name is Ismail and i'm a Somali Wikipedia minor editor. i have just voted "Yes" for you even though i know nothing about you or what you have done for last year. Since you are an expert admin in wikimedia and all its related projects we would like to invite you help us down there in so.wikipedia.org

congratulations in advance and i hope you will win this election.

thank you,

Ismail4all (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For setting +V (or is it +VA? I forget.). Could you ask him to edit CVN/V too, so I can voice him in -simplewikis later? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

+VA, and you're welcome. I'll ask him to do that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Please visit this page if you wish to contribute to a centralized discussion about a Wikimedia genealogy project. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hello Ajraddatz,

On behalf of the stewards' election committee, congratulations on your election as a steward! Your permissions have now been set and you are able to start working.

You have been added to the list of stewards and the stewards' chart. Please take a moment to check that your details are accurate and update them if necessary.

You have been given access to the mailing lists related to your steward duties, which include: checkuser-l, the private mailing list for Wikimedia checkusers, stewards-l, the private list for stewards. In addition, you have been or will be given access to the related private wikis, one for checkusers and the other solely for stewards, details of which will be provided.

If you use IRC, you will be given access to several channels, including #wikimedia-checkuser^connect and #wikimedia-privacy^connect. Please also idle in #wikimedia-stewards^connect when you are available for duty.

Best of luck with your new tools; I am sure you will do a fantastic job. Please remember that your fellow stewards are always available if you need a second opinion, either via the mailing list or on IRC.

Useful links:

• Stewards policy
• Steward handbook
• Steward requests

On behalf of the election committee,

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. Please make the individuals who voted for you proud of their decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Michaeldsuarez. I saw your rational on the other site as well, and I'll do my best to continue to advocate for sanity in global policies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for promising to do your best. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations boy! I bet your navy friends would be proud of you :P --Golden_burg111 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that you are still awesome. The SE didn't change anything in this regard. Vogone talk 20:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! I know you will do a great job as a steward. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

פארוואס בין איך געווארן געבלאקט —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.49.14.153 (talk • contribs) .

Renaming of the participant

Rename please participant Дядя Фред → Фил Вечеровский. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, could you please post this request on SRUC with the appropriate format? As it is there is no confirmation of whether the user wants that change. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for the reply tell him. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Si es posible

Hola Ajraddatz!! Lamentablemente no se español, pero tengo entendido que bloqueaste la IP 65.49.14.145 (bloqueo #395475), quería comunicarte que esa IP pertenece al WIFI gratuito de una universidad, quería saber si la podes desbloquear, o por lo menos para usuarios registrados, ya que yo desde mi cuenta de usuario no puedo editar (soy el usuario Gelpgim22 de la Wikipedia en español). Un saludo y disculpa las molestias!!!. --Gelpgim22 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) PD: respondeme a la página de usuario de la wiki en español. --Gelpgim22 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, since that is a very large range I've made it anon-only. If there are further problems please let me know. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Using steward tools in your homewiki

Hello Ajr,

it appears that earlier to day you gave yourself +checkuser rights on your homewiki, wikidata, a wiki where you were elected as administrators and oversighter and where you are heavily involved. The steward policy and our own best practices make quite clear that a steward is not supposed to act on one's homewiki, especially with a tool as sensitive as checkuser. While I hope you since have learned that this is not acceptable, I'd like to know, as I asked Luckas when he did the same, what the thought process was that led you to believe that it would be appropriate for you to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My own interpretation of the section on conflicts of interest suggested that checking spambots would be a clear-cut case where it was permitted. I did not consider that any use of the steward tools, even uncontroversial, would be considered a conflict of interest under that policy. This was partially based off of seeing other stewards using CheckUser on wikis where they are admins, but I didn't consider that those stewards are not actually involved in the communities there. In that assumption I was wrong, so I apologize for that. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | Türkçe | русский | العربية | Tiếng Việt | edit

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our budget is smaller than Commons)

Ajraddatz, congratulations! You now have the rights of an administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List of administrators and the Template:List of administrators.

-Barras talk 07:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratz, now abuse it.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 08:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Alan ^(talk) 18:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stay as awesome as you are! Vogone talk 20:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, now you can show off this hat! :p --Golden_burg111 21:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll be sure to plaster every userpage I have with the information that I am now an admin on meta :P Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!!. ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 21:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Late congratulations, but I'm a talk page stalker, as you know. :3 --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks are hard

Hello again! Why do the global blocks have to be hard by default? For example the IP range 188.67.128.0/18 has been globally blocked on Meta for two days with the settings "block all users including registered users". As the range belongs to a Finnish ISP, this usually means that all Wikipedians who happen to use this ISP are blocked from editing any project (including Meta) while the block is in place. Usually Stryn disables the blocks locally but not always. Why not block only IP addresses globally and leave the gate open for registered users? I think the global blocks may pose a big problem for the openness of Wikipedia when applied so liberally. --Pxos (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is another range blocked by you that causes damage to registered users. I think that the whole idea of global blocking needs serious rethinking. It seems now that there is no policy on this just some guidelines. Most of the global blocks seem to be hard blocks. While possibly blocking a few vandals efficiently for a couple of days they are liable to block dozens of registered users. Has the problem been so widespread that it really warrants blocking the ISP globally? --Pxos (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Was it you who told the person who complained about the block that nothing can be done about this? --Pxos (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

One LTA in particular uses a bunch of ranges, some from Finnish ISPs which keep some ports open and cannot close them or block individual people because of local laws - we've asked, and examined this as a potential solution. I do my best to investigate for collateral damage before placing any rangeblock, but it is difficult since I do not always have all the information required - I can't check on fi.wp, which is the most relevant place to check.

Rangeblocks targetting one LTA in particular could probably be made locally on enwiki, commons and meta instead of globally if they are causing lots of damage. However, this is the first I'm hearing of this. If there are any users in particular who are repeatedly affected by this, they can request global IP block exemption (or local IP block exemption when that group again removes global blocks).

I'll need to look at this more later since I'm starting an exam soon. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the quick answer. I was asking why not block only unregistered users (IP's), not all registered users. IP block exemption is not the right solution as many people are totally unaware of the intricate mechanisms of the Wikipedia system. They are just blocked and confused and write to "Wikimedia" who apprently tell them that nothing can be done about this. I don't think that you have fully understood the vast potential damage a global hard block may cause to several registered users. --Pxos (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The abuse was happening from accounts, which made a block that also targeted accounts seem like a good plan. I also do have a very good indication of the damage a rangeblock can cause, hence the short block times and the fact that I do check for damage beforehand, and never block if there appears to be a lot. However, anon-only global blocks prevent account creation - if we could lock all of the accounts in question and use an anon-only block, that would prevent the abuse and minimize collateral damage. I'm not a fan of making any blocks, since it prevents anon contributions, but at the same time the abuse done by some of these people is too much to simply ignore. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The block duration used to short on fi-wiki as well: only few hours at a time. But the vandals are so persistent that now we usually block the IP ranges for a whole month but keep them 'anon. only' so as not to block our regular users. I think that the blocks are here to stay because the bastards are just bent on bringing about as large and over-reaching blocks on the system as possible. When the global blocks are measured in weeks, they simply cannot be hard blocks. Are you checking the ranges for registered users by some kind of a global checkuser tool, or how can the collateral damage be minimized beforehand? --Pxos (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I can only check on the login wiki, which shows accounts created within the last 3 months. Unfortunately, that isn't enough time to see if it is affecting long-term contributors.

I think anon only will work for these cases. Obviously I can't speak for other stewards who might have their own ideas on what to do, but for myself with these LTAs a relatively short, anon-only block will work. I just need to make sure I lock all the accounts :)

With few exceptions, we don't globally hardblock any IPs for more than a week at most, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. The exceptions usually have a very good reason behind them.

Thanks for bringing this up; I had no idea that there was collateral damage, and obviously my goal here is not to prevent good contributions! I do few of those as it is, so someone needs to! Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"spambot" vs "spam-only account"

You are correct, Ajraddatz, re the global user page creations of Augusto De Luca. However, many of the promptly-acted-upon page deletion tags alleged "spambot." One look at CA and it was easy to agree. It should, in fact, be irrelevant, but the allegation of "bot" is one that, with the appearance of CA, led to a ready conclusion of "spam," without consideration of the actual content.

(Quite a few of the user page deletion tags have been removed, by local sysops who said "not spam." On Vittuzu user talk, I noted that it is certainly arguable that the mass page creations were correctly stopped, at least until there was some discussion, but the global lock shut off all possibility of discussion. Yet there is no policy prohibiting the creation of user pages like that. Most spam policy is about something very, very different.)

The pages were not spam, by any ordinary definition. There is another definition of "spam" that is casually used by the antispammers, which is the cross-wiki addition of something broadcast, widespread, possibly with a conflict of interest involved. However, conflict of interest does not apply to a user page with disclosure of identity, as these pages did. "Promotional intent" is irrelevant in this case. Users may, within limits, promote themselves or others.

If I find time, this is RfC material. If the policy is wrong or misleading, it should be corrected. If the steward or stewards have left behind the established community consensus about the use of the lock tool, that should be corrected. Personally, I find it offensive that I spent weeks studying this case, carefully, and my conclusions are rejected as if they were just stupid, that the contrary is "obvious." There is no sign that the evidence was actually considered. The user, when he created those accounts, had an article on nearly every wikipedia, standing for a long time. He did not create those articles, SPAs did, for the most part, did. (There was at least one exception). As far as the user would think, people might want to contact him. So he decided to create an account on every wiki. Bad Idea, I'd have said to him, but he probably asked his friends, experienced users, they would think, and they told him, "Why not? It's not against any policy."

I would have said not to do it, like that, because I know the antispam work, well.

Nobody expects the Spamish Inquisition. I've seen this for years, practices that are efficient, that work for fighting genuine spam, get applied outside of that intention, when a situation resembles spam. And the damage can last for years. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have actually read some large portion of your findings, which is partially why I am hesitant to comment on any of the other locked accounts. To me though, the Augusto one in particular was doing nothing constructive cross-wiki. His contributions are in no way congruent with providing access to free information to the world, and with no indication that he will ever attempt to help with that goal. As such, since his only purpose was self-promotion, I agree with the lock on that account. I'm not sure what to think of the other accounts though. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ajraddatz. I understand the argument about Augusto De Luca; however, compiling that data, I sat with this for weeks, and thought about it from many different perspectives. "Self-promotion" is not an offense under policy, if it is done consistently with COI guidelines. It can be the only purpose of an account, and if the account is not disruptive, i.e, revert warring, editing with conflict of interest, it is not a bannable offense, at least not on en.wikipedia, by policy. That is, the "information" that the COI account provides may indeed promote their purpose, that's understood and that is why we want disclosure. So, here, the account discloses identity, revealing conflict of interest, and is sanctioned for doing so. The unusual thing here was the decision of ADL to create all the accounts at once. I suspect he simply thought this was the thing to do, and he thought "why not"? What I do know is that, once this idea occurred to him, and if he asked other users about it, including users with years of experience, they might well have said to him, "why not? A lot of work, but if you want to do it, fine!"

His motive, I speculate, was to make himself available for communication. The idea that he simply wanted to push his photos in people's faces is silly. A user page doesn't do that. The only people who would have seen these photos would have been a few recent changes patrollers, and most of them would look at the diff, see the Commons link, and move on without even looking at the images. Users can put all kinds of images from Commons on their user pages, including some pretty offensive ones. Only if he then followed up with other edits would his user page become more visible. That was blocked before he could do it. Because it is suspected that he has no constructive purpose, we make sure he can't manifest one.

Now, as to the other users, this is so far outside of normal practice for stewards that the issue must be examined. Those users have been alleged to be "paid editors," but that allegation does not appear to be based on any evidence. (The IP I've seen was local Italian ISP.) What they are is "fans," and some of them, at least, likely know each other. They are probably distinct, though I did start to review IP evidence, but, unfortunately, the deletion of the it.wikipedia article hid that, I had planned to look for more specific evidence on identities, cross-wiki. Nevertheless, this is clear: there was no disruption, no conflict erupted over user pages, and these users (with the exception of the daughter) were not warned. If these were sock puppets, nothing was gained by it. They overlapped on articles. Wikipedians may think that they did this to make it appear that there were many separate editors. But these are obviously not Wikipedians, and that would have been a potentially disastrous strategy, and unnecessary. They are fans, creating typical fancruft articles, and they ran into no opposition, no revert warring (there was revert warring with an IP over one image on Wikipedia, but they were not involved, and the IP was removing the image). De Luca has been photographing notable Italians since the 1970s. The list of exhibitions is probably authentic. There would have been coverage of at least some of these in print publications. So the reliable sources probably exist. What has happened is that, effectively, a global topic ban has been issued against any SPA on a topic. Vituzzu didn't quite get them all. But the most outrageous example is Giulia D'Eboli. This was not a cross-wiki editor, period, and PiRSquared17 points out, she had not edited since November 2011. This was steward involvement in content issues, sanctioning users without warning and violation after warning, and completely outside of lock policy.

Editors are not blocked for creating fancruft, unless they insist and revert war or become uncivil or the like. The Italian article was the original, started by IP in 2010. The en.wikipedia article was started by GIUNCO in 2011. These articles would have appeared to any non-Wikipedian as stable. In about 2012, the fans started going cross-wiki to create translations. Why not? Again, no problems. One local administrator created one of the articles. Only when Augusto created his own account, cross-wiki, last month, did all hell break loose. Yes, articles had been created with inadequate sourcing. That happens every day, and has happened for years. The wikis do not go back and sanction editors for having done that. The articles are at risk of deletion, that's all. It is never considered "spam." Only if such articles are repeatedly created, without addressing the notability issue, is there possible sanction. However, the guidelines for deletion suggest that if an article can be improved, it be kept. If an article doesn't establish notability, it can be userfied until sources are found. But the hysteria about "promotion" distracted users entirely from that encyclopedic task, and the users who might know where reliable sources are, were almost all locked. That may or may not be making any difference, since they all had gone inactive before the end of last year. Except for Augusto De Luca. That is why that account should be unlocked as well. It was the only active account, and conflict of interest, as is suggested for "paid editors and other COI editors, was implicitly disclosed. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Blockage of my IP address

Hello! I noticed that you blocked my IP address, due to "Abused open proxy". However, something weird evidently occurred. The IP was supposedly blocked starting "16:30, 26 March 2014", yet I was able to edit for weeks afterward. I have had two accounts on Wikipedia (both of which are retired) and was planning on starting a third when I got this message. I think what might have happened is my IP address got changed to someone else's who happened to abuse the open proxy. This is the second time this has happened to me and I would appreciate it if you took a second look as I'm pretty sure some sort of mix-up has occurred. If not, then could you explain what it was I did wrong? Thanks! 65.49.14.140 17:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Will respond to the post you made on SRG. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sghezza

my account Sghezza is globally locked since this my post user talk:Tnxman307#Unblock. What's happen? I consider globally locked a mistake! May you to unlock Sghezza? Regards 28 May 2014

The lock was not done by me. Please contact the locking steward at User talk:Vituzzu or email stewards[at]wikimedia.org. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

my account-IP has been globally blocked today by the administrator Vito, who wants to fight user Tamburellista, but I got to do? While the administrator Tnxman307 wants to fight user Ragusino, but I got to do?--Sghezza (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You can appeal the block at SRG. I'm not willing to overturn another block by Vituzzu without outside consultation. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

question

Hi! How can I change my username from "mohamedessam010407" to "محمد عصام" at all wikimedia projects? I have "محمد عصام" at arabic wikipedia and English wikipedia, but at the rest projects it's "mohamedessam010407", what should i do? Thanks to you first --Mohamedessam010407 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've renamed you on two wikis, and someone has renamed you on Wikidata. You'll still need to request renames locally on commons and arzwiki. See SRUC for a list of pages to request local renames on for those projects, but don't leave a request there - we can't fill it. Once those accounts have been renamed, go to Special:MergeAccount on arwiki to complete your global account. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplified:

For Commons: request rename here.

For arzwiki: request rename here.

For meta: request rename here.

Once that is done, go to ar:Special:MergeAccount to re-create your global account. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thenk you very much --محمد عصام (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:

Actually it was him almost for sure, but nvm, I no longer care about it, see ya. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you do if you globally block his IP. How do you know it is him? Which of his edits are vandalism or disruptive to warrant a global block or lock? Ajraddatz (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Global checkuser policy

Have you had any further thoughts on this? I'd like to help get a discussion underway, if you still think it is needed. This was an excellent idea, and we should do it before Wikimania. –SJ talk  23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sj. I made a draft for it at CheckUser policy/Global CheckUser draft and left a note on the stewards' mailing list, but nobody responded and I forgot all about it! I do think it would be good to sort out, considering there are currently stewards who keep the +cu at loginwiki permenantly (effectively a global CU) and with SUL finalization coming in the next few months a real global CheckUser tool would be possible. I could leave a note on a few of the public forums here to see what people think about it. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a sane first draft. A proposal for a global CU tool, with its own feature request, would be a good thing to link. The idea doesn't need buy-in from the stewards so much as from the community at large, which includes many people who are concerned about the permanent +cu (including the two of us), and a majority who don't even know that this is possible and may care once they find out. –SJ talk  04:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A page for a global checkuser tool would probably be a good idea, though I really have no idea how that would come to be or what it would involve - probably best for someone more familiar with the technical side of things to write. In the mean time though, I will link to the page from a few places here to get some initial feedback. I am one of the stewards who keeps the permanent +cu on loginwiki and think that the current policy doesn't even cover it, hence the desire to clarify, as well as get expanded feedback from those who are concerned or don't know. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Help me.

Hi.what I edit [this] article.? Rigard.--MohandesWiki (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Account blocked...

Dear Adrian,

I have a problem. My account was blocked after I erased several language links of an article I thought wasn't related. My account is not about vandalism only, you can verify, I am active on several wikipedia websites. I tried to contact Addshore but he never answered. I sent a second message but I still don't think he will answer...

Could you please provide me access again to wikidata so that I can add links to other languages for my newly created articles on the Spanish and English Wikipedia websites?

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards,

Robbru

wikt:csb:User:Ajraddatz

Please do create that page. --Glaisher [talk] 04:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, though worth noting that there is no part of the steward policy which requires steward to make userpages on every wiki that they use their tools on. If in future you find wikis where I have made actions but not a userpage, you are always free to create it for me. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked the same question on IRC but no on responded. IMO, it's a bit weird that stews don't have to make UPs but GS must. --Glaisher [talk] 05:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is, and I do try to make pages regardless. I do have it set up to give me email notifications if I get a talk page message on any project (on most wikis anyway), so I should be contact-able with or without. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation administrators

Hi.please add my name to [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/translationadmin | Translation administrators] list because I am need That Tools rigard. My Contributions on wikimedia:[2] My Contributions on translatewiki :[3]--MohandesWiki (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks!!.You add me to the list--MohandesWiki (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible spambots

[4] Can you help me with possible spambots? I am think on users who created with reason iOS App Account Creation. Is that the spambots. --Kolega2357 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a release of the Wikipedia iOS app yesterday, so there is a lot of new accounts created from the app on many wikis. See here. So I would say it's not spambots in general, but new users. -- Tegel _(Talk) 17:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tegel I am not asked you for spambots already user Ajraddatz. One answer from Stewards is enough. --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Innappropriate user name

Can you block the account here? There are no local admins. INeverCry 19:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The account didn't edit for 6 years already, not sure how a block would make sense here. Vogone (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A block makes no sense here. I appreciate that you think this is the right thing to do, and I too find that word offensive, but I don't think the solution is digging up six year old accounts and publishing the name on multiple different pages. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Plasea help my sisters

This is my sisters. Plese help my sisters.

Hello

I am Uesr iD: It is Ni201512. I received a destructive vicious attack from a person, and it was wasted all previous editing, and this threw away a notice in this blocked iD in regular member ID here, and indefiniteness was to the plural number to give a Japanese manager in my site of the wiki foundation which I used in the same ID at about 14:00 of the Japan time and site that I contributed to this ID. It is send until an email more. The Japanese manager is too terrible. Too terrible. In addition, I am too much conceited in there being few numbers of people and sort a general user by likes and dislikes. Dear Please would you consider this point? Please consider it about a limit of some authority to a Japanese manager and revival of ID:Ni201512.

-- This email was sent by Ni201512 to Benjamin Mako Hill by the "Email user" function at Definition of Free Cultural Works.

--OAーworks 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

SRAT

[5] and the section right below that are pretty meaningless. Would you mind either removing them or clarifying what you mean? Regards, Vogone (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• See User talk:Ben* and the request at Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2014-08#Global_editinterface_for_Bene.2A. The editinterface rights assignment is at [6].
• As for Petrb, see the request at Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2014-08#Global_rollback_for_Petrb. Global rollback granted by Shanmugamp7, who didn't set up the expiration, Ajraddatz fixed that.
• For simplicity down the road, and for clarity now, the expiration notice should state the right that was granted temporarily, most do. Easy to fix, and I'd fix it except, of course, that's a protected page, as it should be. I would also think that a link to the original request would be in order. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That page exists as a list of requests which will expire. The only important information contained in each section is the day of expiry, username and which permission it is that needs to be removed. If you want to add extra context or other information, you are free to start an editprotected request on the talk page, but it quite frankly isn't worth my time to add. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the notices do specify the right, don't know how I missed it. I do think there should be a link to the original discussion, but that is a relatively minor point, it's easy to do at the time the notice is created, and tedious later. Mostly I was responding to Vogone. Thanks, Ajraddatz, and I apologize for my confusion. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[7] Vogone (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah! That explains why I missed it! Thanks, Vogone, and thanks, Ajraddatz, for adding the information. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake for not including the right the first time. I was more responding to the need for diff links or copy-pasting the request, etc, which I don't find necessary. But I will definitely include the username, expiry time and right to be removed :) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

• Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
• Letter on change.org

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

That was the fastest rescue I have ever been the beneficiary of--thanks! Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Help to ban very sophisticated vandaliser

Hello, I just reverted your assistance/revert on [here] which this person with IP starting 103... is doing multiple bad vandalisms in Mongolian WP. And a local [admin is here] did ban this vandalisers multiple 103... starting IP's few days ago as you can easily verify. Can you please ban this sophisticated vandaliser who all the time change his IP almost each time and vandalise our WP?? Orgio89 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

From main Mongolian WP log you can verify that how local editors and admin fighting with this bad sophisticated vandaliser. And thank you for your assistance/monitoring of our WP! Orgio89 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me and sorry for the revert error! If you or one of the local admins blocks 103.229.120.0/22 and 103.26.193.0/27, that should block most of the IPs that he can use. Let me know if he keeps it up too, there is more that I can suggest or do if it persists. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help us to get rid of this toxic vandaliser as few days ago I requested you here this guy is again vandalising our WP. Here are last 2 vandalisms by him [8], [9] - here is the last entry with 103.229... ip he did vandalism. My suspecion is either he is some level of hacker who can freelyy change his ip and do all edit terrors and try to leave less trace something. He might be living in Mongolia or he is entering from Russia. Because he vandalised numerous Mongolian history related WP pages for the benefit of Russia. Orgio89 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

11

Hi I gave you the wrong IP Close I've done nothing wrong Please remove my IP

Thanks Chegeni

OTRS

Hello Adrian,

Thank you for your kind support! I've been granted access to additional queues and will do my best to help with incoming requests.

I hope you're doing well. Best regards — Arkanosis ^✉ 00:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck! Thanks for helping out. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Do this could prevent IP 107.167.99.211 in tr.wikinews. Both puppeteer and abusive. --Uğurkent^talk 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:PiRSquared17/Global_AbuseFilter_RfC

Please feel free to copyedit, reorganize, completely rewrite, or add to this draft RfC. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Account deletion

Hi Adrian, it's Allen! I wonder if you can delete my entire global account from the entire SUL project, which means I'm done with it at editing across the Wikimedia foundation. Thanks, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As Snowolf and I wrote on Ruslik's talk page, that's not what global account deletion does. Deleting a global account only deletes the SUL, not the actual edits or anything else in your accounts. (Not great analogy: Think of SUL like a spider web connecting accounts on various wikis. Global account deletion deletes the "lines" connecting accounts, not the accounts themselves.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Responded on IRC. Thanks Pir2. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Should m:SRUC usurp WP:USURP?

Hello, I made this usurp request a few days ago, however I have since noticed that users making requests there are often directed to m:SRUC.

It's hard to find information on this, but it looks like local usurpations are no longer being done -- say, from just one enwiki name to another enwiki name. If that is true, then what is the purpose of en:WP:USURP? It mostly seems to just be a barrier to the real deal of m:SRUC.

More fundamentally, I don't quite understand why other-wiki usurpations must be performed in the first place. It's invasive and unnecessary to usurp accounts that I'm never going to use.

But supposing that global usurpation is mandatory, how does my case look? Should I file at m:SRUC? The German account has 3 edits, with just one mainspace edit, and the user has declared retirement. The Hungarian user is indef blocked due to block evasion; there are 227 edits but only one article in mainspace has been edited. Best, Vzaak (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It probably should; only stewards can do local account renaming right now, so it would make sense if those requests were directed here. It is being done this way now so that everyone has a single username across all of Wikimedia.

I would be inclined to complete your request, but it would be much easier if you could pick a username that has no local accounts with lots of edits. Are there any other usernames you would be comfortable using? I will need to consult my peers before proceeding with this request otherwise. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it seems childish but I was kinda invested in Manul, having spent a little time assembling a manul gallery.

It's already the case that usernames are not always unified across wikis, so the complication involved in forcing unification still doesn't quite make sense to me. Why not leave the Hungarian and German accounts alone? It does me no harm to not have access to them, and stewards wouldn't have to fiddle with those accounts.

In any case I realize that questioning policy on this forum is not very helpful. I can live with being denied "Manul", though I'd still like to try for it. Vzaak (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Were you going to accept or reject the request here on this page, or do I need to file at m:SRUC as well? Vzaak (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is fine, though you could put it on SRUC if you wanted someone else to evaluate and potentially grant the request :P. I asked the mailing list and am just waiting on a response back from the huwiki community as to whether or not they are OK with the usurp. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Vzaak (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

• Thanks for your emergency action @trwiki. --Mskyrider (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirm RfC closing conclusion

Hello, I was confused about the result of an RfC which I think you closed. Can you please check how I clarified the close? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the template, though I'm not sure where the confusion is. The group was created at Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/OTRS-member. Would that be an appropriate page to link to? Either that or User groups#OTRS members. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE

Hello, I want to update the next link: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anexo:Palmar%C3%A9s_del_Club_Deportivo_Guadalajara&action=edit&section=24 because I need to update one championship of 'Torneo Sub-15', this one is "Invierno 2014" but I am blocked, can you add the information please and update the championships??

Here you found the information that I said you. Thanks http://www.informador.com.mx/deportes/2014/506990/6/chivas-tricampeon-sub-15.htm

Hi

Can you see the checkuser requests? That. --Uğurkent^talk 19:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Global sysop... again!

Hi, Ajraddatz! Thanks! Yes, I would like to have the GR flag again. I believe that will be useful from now. Regards. Érico Wouters _msg 15:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new years 2015

Happy new year to you Dear "Ajraddatz"--Grind24 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek Wikivoyage

Hi, I apologize for missing my temporary sysop rights request past September. I'm still busy trying to find some time to contribute again to the project. Regards --Gobbler (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. You can always re-request the rights when you're active again :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

hi

hi ajraddatz why? thats my question! im here for to be firends

Hello. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

wikidata help needed

I'm trying to add 'official website' to several (Philippine) locations. Each time it won't save, but offers a blank error reason.

For instance I want to add http://www.talisaycitycebu.gov.ph to Q316500

Same thing with several pages. I've done it before, now I can't. I can add other fields to these items. (I forget the terminology, but I'm sure you catch my drift). Roger Camotes (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Odd. You might want to leave a message on d:Wikidata:Contact the development team to let the devs know. In the meantime, I've added that statement to Q316500; if you have any more specific cases I'd be glad to add them for you. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Wikipedia.sr

This was fast reaction, and thanks for help. I have no more admin. rights overthere and can not do much, but if you block the vandal at least for next 24hrs it is going to help, because so far I can not contact any of admins. from Serbia. Probably they sleeping :).--Laslovarga (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. The block will expire tomorrow, so hopefully that will be long enough for local admins to become active again. I'll take a look again in six hours or so; if nobody is on still then I'll extend the block. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporary access of sysop

Thanks Ajraddatz for reminding me about my sysop expiration on hi.wiktionary, hi.wikiquote and hi.wikibooks. I would like to continue it as temporary because we don't have a big community yet and I am also not available for all time. So, for this time again, I would like to get temporary access. I have a question: Shall I first request on meta.wiki or on local village pump?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on the village pump first, then after a week (even if there is no discussion) request on meta. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)