User talk:Ajraddatz/Archive 4

Hi Urgent

Please join at irc steward Murbaut (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was unavailable at the time. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2015

This is your only warning. If you are a member of this wiki during the holiday season again, you may be be given this holiday card without any more warnings:

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Someoneday (talk)

Thanks, and to you as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with Tor anonymity network block exemption

Hi! I am collecting info on Wikidata about military arms companies and I want to protect my privacy by using the TOR anonymity tool. As you may know this is not possible unless my account is exempted from the Open proxies policy ban on Tor exit nodes. Could you please help me to achieve that? We can talk more here nightmare.dolphin@vfemail.net, if you want the full details.

You should be still able to read Wikidata using TOR. If you want an account to edit with, email your preferred username to stewards[at]wikimedia.org and we can create it for you. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I will. I will also make a reference to this discussion. I have already written an email asking for the same kind of help at that address. It was 3 days ago, nobody replied. Do they usually take this time to answer or is it that something went wrong and they declined my request?

Vandalism from IP on my talk page here

Could you kindly take care of a vandal that's been attacking my talk page on [[1]]? Preferably I'd like to have the page protected, I don't use the MediaWiki, and this is an IP range that's been harassing me on the English Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I deleted the thread and blocked the IP. While MediaWiki generally doesn't mind stewards using their rights there, I think it would be best to ask a local admin for talk page protection because I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines for that are there. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ps wikipedia Font

Hi Ajraddatz
Please can help us to install this font in Pashto wikipedia, Thanks.--Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Wishes !!

Best Wishes, Ajraddatz! Hi Ajraddatz, I wish you and your loved ones Happy New Year 2017. Dear, Have a great time !! — TBhagat (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year wish from Allen

Hi Adrian, it's Allen again! I wish you "Happy New Year"! While I'm doing a break from Wikimedia right now until I'm ready to come back. I'm sorry that you didn't rename my account while I'm still currently blocked from enwiki, I'll try that (process) again after I'm unblocked there. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too! – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

user:Gius195@itWikiversity

[2] I think you made a typo ;) happy new year! einsbor _talk 10:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hehe.. thanks :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Inactive"

[3]: If anything, I see a very clear consensus to proceed. That activity decreases after almost a hundred users voiced their opinion is something I would consider rather normal. --Vogone (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, me too. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So why do you want to archive it? --Vogone (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Because it's still a totally inactive discussion. There are 0 benefits to keeping it open. If you think it should be implemented, please do organize it and proceed; I don't think tagging it as inactive will invalidate the consensus there which obviously will never be implemented anyway. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The one benefit is obviously that people do not think this has been rejected and may proceed at any time … --Vogone (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection I quite agree with you. My goal here is to get the random useless inactive proposals out of RfC so they stop distracting from the "good stuff", but that proposal is one of the good things. Closure reverted. Makes more sense to try and move forward with that rather than brush it under the rug. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. And especially in light of future Wiktionary support of Wikidata I do believe there is a chance parts of this proposal can somehow be implemented. The question is rather when than if. --Vogone (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, some fat finger and imcompetent usage of the rollback tool(tm) caused a little mess on your talk page. :-( --Vogone (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start by creating a tracking bug somewhere on Phabricator (or adding the fact that consensus exists to some already existing tracking bug)? The main issue seems to be the need of maintenance and especially the need of support through WMF servers to keep the project alive until it can be re-used/merged by the Wikidata team. As the proposal makes it clear, the OmegaWiki side is clearly willing to follow the steps required. --Vogone (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol 9 new messages. That's probably a good way to move forward. If anything, we could close the RfC saying that there is consensus and then linking to such a bug, and pursue it further from there. Does that sound reasonable? – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Help please Steward requests/Permissions

Hello. Please help me! Page Steward requests/Permissions please help. Thank you 😊 -- Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User Talk:Reguyla

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the user Reguyla is writing insults to Az1568 on his talk page. I have not continued to rollback in order to avoid entering editions war. Regards. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 01:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines and definitions of usurps

Hello,

I tried to change my username from Fisuaq to > Bingo but decided to withdrawn from it since it seemed unlikely to happen.

You said following on this case: “Unfortunately, that account has enough edits that it cannot be usurped without the permission of the owner. Given that they haven't logged in in at least two years, that seems unlikely to get. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC) “

I’ve been trying to find explicit policy regarding about what is definition of “enough edits” and I’ve so far found guide on this issue on English Wikipedia. However those don’t define it in clear-cut manner probably meant to leave it up to individual administrator to decide what is sufficient. And also that guideline is only English wikipedia not all Wikimedia wide guideline. Not related to usurp policy there is mentioning that in case of “Single Unified Login collision” edit count on those cases is put on to following: “more than 25 edits per year of inactivity?””

I’d like to know more how those limits are defined on Wikimedia wide.

Regards,
--Fisuaq (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Fisuaq: the general guidelines are found at Requests for comment/Global usurpation policy 2. They have not yet been approved, though there is arguably consensus for them to be so, and that is what is used de facto by global renamers now. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK good to know. --Fisuaq (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Steward requests/Bot status!

Hello! See to Steward requests/Bot status to RushDBot. By homage -- Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(replied on that page) – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

USURP

Hi, I would like to inform you, I Requested for USURP on January 16, but after Steward's respond and his first advice on January 20, my request has not gone further and the status is shown same as first day.
also yesterday I found that the global renamer rights of that Steward has been revoked [4] those days.
refer to explanation which i wrote for reason of rename , I belive you will agree that , not only I am not in comfort zone, but the above news and circumstance changing made me more worried too. Could you kindly please update me regarding last situation of this request and also I am desperately asking your help in this Changing name procedure. kind Regards --Farid69 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Farid69: that username is unfortunately not eligible for usurpation, because it has non-vandal edits on trwiki. Would you prefer to use a different one? You can check using Special:CentralAuth to see if it is taken. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

his edits are in project pages which archived and moved to other wiki like wikibook !!! also this user DejaVu has only 5 edits one day in 2008 on srwiki ?? Is it any chance ?--Farid69 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, DejaVu would probably would. Please notify the user on their talk page, and wait a couple of weeks to give them a chance to respond. They haven't logged in since at least 2015, so I don't imagine they will, but worth asking anyway. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

[5] Done & will inform you after reasonable waiting time, regards --Farid69 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Adrian, It has been an honor to advise or get help from you , specially in these days that you are busy with Elections.
regarding my usurp , The target user (DejaVu) has been notified on their home wiki talk page ( Serbian)more than 2 weeks ago but no respond.as you guessed before also i found another alternative name (DeJaVu) in Turkish wiki which is registered on 2006 and has no edit ! could you kindly let me know should i userping this username too ? or not? and with your experience when can you rename my user with one of these. kind regards. --Farid69 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@DejaVu: done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Petition

Please, take under the control of this page. Member of the young, not familiar with the rules in Meta-Wiki. Thanks! AryanSogd ^(t) 05:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've filed the request on SRP. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! To this page in Steward requests/Permissions. Munirjohn@tgwiktionary by summary done or not done. By homage, AWAY1 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC).

Why is the candidate blocked on his homewiki? – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reguyla block

Greetings AJ. Sorry to ask this way but I couldn't post on my talk page. I don't want anyone claiming I am socking so I am trying to be as forthcoming as possible that it's me. Is there any chance you would be willing to unblock me at the end of the original week block you implemented or at some point in the relative near future? Apparently Quarry is tied to Meta so I am unable to pull reports and things I use to edit on other projects. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:5188:45F6:3C40:2CC2 18:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I started to type a big, complex reply to this, explaining how WMF staff and stewards can't actually step in to remove your restrictions on enwiki and IRC, but I'm sick of wasting time on this. You know all of this already. After years - literally years - you've shown that you can't interact with people in a positive way on Meta-Wiki (or anywhere else). You aren't standing up for the contributors being abused by admins that don't follow the rules themselves, you're just making insulting and degrading comments towards admins that you dislike. It's time to end the cycle. The block is not going to be lifted. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I didn't ask about EnWP nor IRC. I can evade those unnecessary and ridiculous bans if necessary I as talking about here and didn't think so but I thought it was worthy asking. I would also note that it is not me that doesn't want to work positively. If the admins and stewards don't want to follow their own policy fairly in respect things like you and others telling me they the Help from an admin venue was the closest thing to an appropriate venue to request unblock and then not stepping in to say that when another steward closes the discussion out of procedure, then I can't help to think that it's not what I have done.

It's also puzzling that you and others saw AlexZ trolling me in the last discussion but didn't do anything and then AlexZ blocked my talk page while involved, which is a policy violation, and no one cared. So you see, it's really hard for me to feel too sorry about reverting a steward closing a discussion or calling a troll a troll. So if I am held accountable to those things, then so be it, but if the stewards and functionaries were following policy fairly and evenly, then none of my bans would be in effect and I would be doing tons and tons of edits. As it is, now I have to dodge my ban just to leave you a comment and will probably have to do it to use Quarry just so that I can "build an encyclopedia" that some lie and say I am not here to do and others who don't bother to seek the truth actually believe. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:F4D0:B476:3597:96 03:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There was consensus that RfH was the wrong place to house such a request, regardless of the individual opinions of anyone. Therefor it is not a policy violation to close such a request as out of scope (nor is there a policy about that, I may add). As to Alex, I think he's just tired of dealing with your continued abusive behaviour. It would have been better for someone else to have blocked you according to policy, yes. I've now done that, so there shouldn't be any issue now. You often comment on how nobody follows policy, but I've never seen systemic evidence of that. More so that people bend the rules around you to stop wasting everyone's time, I imagine. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. It's true that you've made good contributions across this network in the past. But you aren't irreplaceable - if you aren't making the edits, someone else will. None of us here are so important that it's worth putting up with years of abuse, insults, and trolling just to get at the good contributions that they make. The reason why you are blocked, on enwiki, on here, beyond any specific policy justification is that you can't get along with people. It's not that you point out when admins abuse policy - I do that myself, whenever I see it, because I think that fair process is important. When enwiki checkusers were mass checking anyone with IPBE, I filed a complaint through the OC to WMF Legal that has now stopped that practice. When people close discussions that they were involved in, I comment on it, and try to persuade them to step back and let someone else do it. Yet I seem to be quite welcome here. If you want to actually do the things that you say you want to do - improve the encyclopedia, hold admins to account - then it's very possible to do that without causing the endless drama that you do. And finally, as I've said before, I leave to you a standing offer. If you ever decide that it's worth treating people on this site like human beings and addressing your bans in a proper way, then my metaphorical door is always open. Have a good night, – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In the past? Really AJ? That is pure hyperbole and you know it. I have done hundreds of thousands of edits on Commons in the last few months alone and the only reason I am not doing a large number of edits on EnWP is because I was bullied out. Heck last week I went over the one million edit milestone. No one cared! Cause improvements are less important than counting blocks, deletions and page protections.

I do agree that everyone is irreplaceable including me, but when admins and the WMF treat the entire editing community like a disposable commodity, you end up with backlogs, burned out admins and other problems like we are seeing across the sites.

It's also BS that I can't get along with people. I get along with people fine when they are not bullying me, trolling me and violating policies to do it. It's even worse when folks like you, who are better than that, let it happen and don't do anything. That is super frustrating.

Where was that consensus about closing that request? IRC where I am blocked? I can't see it and if that is the case then why didn't you just tell me that rather than tell me it was a good enough place and then let another steward close it and not say anything. Had you told me that, I wouldn't have started it and certainly wouldn't have reverted it. I only did it because you told me to go ahead. I also find it pretty ironic you justify and excuse Alex's conduct because he is tired of dealing with "my abuse" when it is him bullying and trolling me, which was clearly visible BTW and you even commented you saw it. Changing the block is great, terrific, but what are you going to do about the admin violating policy? Nothing! and as usual another admins proves me right about the double standards in the WMF projects. Just once I wish admins would extend some freaking courtesy to some of us editors building content instead of supporting abusive admins like AlexZ who don't do anything except create drama for the sake of it. I thought you were better than that AJ! I really did think you were better than that. I hate being proved wrong in such ways.

I also want to clarify I am more than happy to treat people with respect and like human beings but if you and others don't care that I am treated like a dog in front of you, then I don't know what to say man. I wasn't disrespectful or rude when I reverted that steward or when I asked AlvaroMolina to stop. I said please and ask politely.

I'm sincerely sorry I reverted that Steward, but damn Aj I really thought I was following what you told me was ok. So maybe when you tell people things you need to make it clear that anyone else can overrule you and you won't say anything or interfere. It would really help. Cheers and have a good night. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:F4D0:B476:3597:96 04:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, more of the usual nonsense. Nothing is ever your fault. Everyone's out to bully you and be mean to you. Like I said, nothing changes. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Come on man that isn't what I said. If you don't want to unblock me fine. If you don't want to fairly enforce policy then fine. But please do not misinterpret what I said.

I have done things wrong and I have admitted that. But I am not going to claim its my fault for people like AlexZ and a few people on EnWP and IRC bullying me because they can due to the lack of oversight. I did violate 3RR and deserved to be blocked for a week. But had you told me that there was a discussion and a consensus to revoke my ban removal requests as out of scope, then it would have solved that. You told me it was ok and I went with that. So like it or not, some of the fault is yours Aj. Would you like me to provide a link to where you said it was ok? But I do a hell of a lot of work on these projects that no one appreciates because I think Admins should follow the rules. For that, I am an a-hole? Ok fine you and others think so, I don't agree of course but that is your prerogative. I just don't agree that and I don't think I should be blocked indef. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:F4D0:B476:3597:96 04:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It was my opinion that it was a fair venue for you to ask at. Obviously I was overruled on that. It doesn't take much to look at that discussion and see that there was consensus that it was in the wrong place. And I do enforce policy, as fairly as I can. Not ever violation deserves some sort of punishment, since this isn't "real life" and we aren't dealing with the law here. For example, I didn't start a desysop procedure against Alex when he blocked you, because I agreed it was the best action and everyone makes mistakes. I'm not blocking you now, because I (and I may be incredibly naive in thinking this) am assuming that you are actually believing what you say and aren't just trolling. But my patience with that has now fully expired. The block is not being lifted, and you need to step back and re-evaluate your conclusions about how the "abusive admins" here are acting. Oh, and "I do a hell of a lot of work on these projects that no one appreciates because I think Admins should follow the rules" - I think I quite clearly demonstrated how incorrect that is above. People don't appreciate your contributions because you are incapable of working with others in this online format. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I am not trolling and to be honest I'm a little insulted at the insinuation. I really don't know what you want me to say. You say the door is open and yet I have to basically peek through a window here to talk to you. You say I have to admit it was all my fault when it wasn't. You accuse me of trolling and tell me you don't really care if Alex did it and violated policy but keep me blocked because I did a far less thing because I believed I was doing what you indicated was appropriate. I guess I could really use some help in understanding what exactly I need to do to get unblocked here on Meta so that I can continue to contribute here and access Quarry. Because to be honest I really don't know what you want. I have sincerely admitted fault for what I actually did do in my frustration and have admitted a block was justified. What more do you want me to do?

It's also BS that I can't work with people. I work with tons of editors on multiple sites, but when I am banned, blocked, trolled and bullied, often in front of admins and functionaries who stand and watch and don't do anything, it's pretty hard for me to have respect for them. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:F4D0:B476:3597:96 04:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Ajraddatz I am still attempting to resolve this block so could you please clarify where this open door is that you speak of above, because I have been searching all over for it and cannot find it. Maybe I need a secret knock? Or a password? You revert my comments as the "usually nonsense" which is a personal attack directed at me BTW, you block my account and IP and then discount everything I say, so how exactly is the door open? Since AlexZ also blocked me on the WMF's IRC and asked his friends at Wikia to do the same on their IRC and Discord channels I can't ask there so I really don't see any open doors anywhere. Certainly if I request on another wiki like commons you'll argue, and rightly so, that it's the wrong venue. So if the door isn't really open then just tell me that so I can quit assuming good faith and taking that comment seriously. Because I am just not seeing any open doors anywhere around here and in fact all evidence points to the door being very tightly shut and locked.

Really what I want to know is what do you require to unblock me on Meta or do you intend to refuse any attempt to resolve this? Are you serious about indefinite or can I ask again in a month or two? If you don't want to resolve this, then fine, I can take it to another venue for resolution, but please clarify that here so when I do I can state you have refused to participate in resolution of the block and no longer wish to be involved. That way someone else can discuss it without the usual he did the block so you have to talk to them and then follow the usual BS Revert, block, ignore catch 22 scenario. Reguyla 138.162.0.43 17:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"Usual nonsense" isn't a personal attack, though it is harsh. I'm trying to impress upon you that your typical pattern of presenting demonstrably false claims, and then repeating them over and over is part of the problem here. Let's quickly deconstruct even just this paragraph above:

• [AlexZ] asked his friends at Wikia to do the same on their IRC and Discord channels - Wrong. You were blocked there independently of any pressure from Alex because of how you were using those channels.
• [usual nonsense] personal attack directed at me BTW - Wrong. A personal attack is something that focuses on you, not the argument you are making. I am saying that the arguments that you repeatedly make are demonstrably wrong.

You get a hold on these myths and then you keep repeating them despite evidence to the contrary. You repeatedly say that admins don't follow the rules, but you don't have any systematic proof of that, nor does it happen. There are obviously cases where the rules are not strictly applied, because this is a website on the internet and the policies are not laws (also see IAR of course), but this applies pretty evenly to admins and non-admins in my experience.

Now, as to the question of where the door is, and my apologies for not being clear on this before. If you are willing to take a different approach to appealing your various bans and blocks, then I am glad to help, and not just for Meta-Wiki either. I'd be glad to help you make a plan. All that's required from you is a willingness to change your approach, and leaving a message for me somewhere. Until something changes, I don't see any use to anyone in lifting your Meta block. You're free to ask someone else of course - I never have an issue with another admin overturning one of my actions. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response Aj. Although I disagree, I'm not even going to comment on the 2 bullets you left other than to say I have my perception of those incidents and you have yours and although they might differ, there is just as much proof in support of my view as yours.

Now to the matter at hand which is my block(s). If you didn't know already by my million + global edit count, the several hundred articles I created, the hundreds of files I have imported into Commons, etc., etc. I am fully devoted to these projects regardless of the hyperbole to the contrary and regardless of blocks being in place. I intend to continue improving them so being blocked here, on IRC or EnWP isn't going to prevent me from doing that. All it's going to do is cause the project to have less edits being done that improve it by making it extremely difficult. It hinders my ability to edit efficiently by not allowing me to participate in discussions including helping others, access certain tools (like Quarry being blocked from Meta), etc. Frankly, all my blocks do is provide an excuse for unnecessary drama when there should be none.

Now I have already admitted fault in the situation that led to this block but the block shouldn't be indefinite, especially because I felt I was doing what I was told by you and inferred by others was ok in that discussion. I was annoyed no one including you spoke up to the steward and told him it had previously been discussed and cleared, not even after the fact and in fact you still haven't admitted it and I am annoyed that they didn't bother to ask, but I shouldn't have violated 3RR to do it. I have become so accustomed to being told to STFU, dismissed out of hand or being bullied away on these projects I get pretty defensive these days. It's going to take a while to not get that way and it's going to require certain people (not you) to stop bullying me and others (including you) to put a stop to them doing it in front of everyone with no consequences.

So, although I am not going to be gaslighted into thinking I am crazy, because that simply isn't true and if people on the WMF projects are willing to have editors participating in the projects that care about the projects success then I am here and willing to help. It's of course your choice whether you want to unblock me or not and I would certainly welcome any help in getting unblocked here, in IRC, in Discord or on ENWP but really all it requires is for someone to perform the action.

So if you are really interested in helping me get unblocked anywhere then please unblock me here and provide me with an appropriate venue to request those other unblocks, because the last one you gave me, apparently, is not as appropriate as you led me to believe. 138.162.0.41 22:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And we're already back to the conspiracy theories, blaming everyone else, etc etc. Sorry, we're done here. You're free to ask someone else, and I will not object to them overturning my action. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Petition2

Hello! Help you necessary! In Requests for new languages/Wikiversity Tajik and Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Tajik summary you necessary, done or not done. Thank you, Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't handle those pages. You'll need to contact someone involved with the new language project process. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

CN

I've adjusted the start date on the centralnotice campaign to start at 00:14 as per the privy council.. I mean electcom decree :-) —MarcoAurelio 20:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Right Honourable Adrian Raddatz, E.C. 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ack. I have the honour to remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant. —MarcoAurelio 20:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

00:14? Seriously? Also, SE states 14:00 and not 00:14. Kind regards, --Vogone (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, I didn't recognize the error. Can that be changed? I'm in class at the moment. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Done and also changed end time to 13:59, which has not been done before. Regards, --Vogone (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry. Trout for me. Didn't even realize I had done that. <chagrined grin> StevenJ81 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I figured it was just a misclick :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why 20 days instead of 3 weeks now?

Hello Ajraddatz, why did you shorten the steward elections? Yesterday, they should be one day longer than today, see here for example. From 8 February 2017, 00:00 (UTC) until 28 February 2017, 23:59 (UTC) should have been 21 days, now it's just from 8 February 2017, 14:00 (UTC) until 28 February 2017, 13:59 (UTC), that's only 20 days. Is there any reason for that shortening of the duration? Or should it be until 1 March 2017, 13:59 (UTC) now instead, so that the duration is 3 weeks again like before? I noticed that, because there have been two different durations of the elections before my edit here, not only two different begin and end times. Greetings --Bjarlin (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Bjarlin: is was intentional, to bring it in line with the timings given for SE2016. Apologies for the (very late) announcement of the times; we had intended to sort that out long in advance. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that they also have been 20 days long. So, the duration shall also be 20 days in the future? Why 20 days? Is there a reason for that unusual duration? Or has it been just by accident? Could also be 28 days, from 1 February to 28 February, or any other duration. Just wondering about it now. Don't know what could be best. I thought, it should be 3 weeks and it would be just a mistake. --Bjarlin (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I mean it's around three weeks... the one day isn't going to be a huge change :-). If you are very concerned, I could raise the issue with the rest of electcom. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Stewards says "roughly 3 weeks". ElectCom can decide this case-by-case. --Vogone (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not concerned about that, I'm just wondering. If it would be from 1 Feb (0 UTC) to 21 Feb (23:59 UTC) or from 8 Feb (0 UTC) to 28 Feb (23:59 UTC), or let it be from 7 Feb (14 UTC) to 28 Feb (13:59 UTC) (also 3 weeks) that doesn't matter. For the future, I think that 21 days would be better than 20. It's better to remember durations in full weeks. They begin on the same weekday as they end (or at the end with 0 and 23:59, that doesn't change much). Could be from 1 to 28 (a full month or 4 weeks) instead, but that would be longer than usual, and Februaries haven't always the same duration. ;-) So 3 weeks are ok and good. It's a bit irritating with 20 days, that's all, it looks like a miscount. Maybe next year, 3 full weeks instead. A duration which is "roughly" is quite funny, isn't it? :-) --Bjarlin (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

luri lrc renew adminship

Hello
please help me to renew my adminship in luri lrc. best wishes.lrc lori (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am not comfortable actioning that request. Sorry, – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fake account!

Hello! User:Шухрат Саъдиев at you complaint make. My IP address other. Ҳусайнов IP address another. I am a Jaloliddin my surname is a Madaminov. Please my IP address no check user yes. Respect for you. Jaloliddin Madaminov (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh, sure. – Ajraddatz (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ajraddatz! Jaloliddin Madaminov my friend! Jaloliddin Madaminov vandalism no. Thanks. Mardon A (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

VSTF

Hey, I had noticed you resigned VSTF. Thank you for your service. Btw, when did you leave? MechQuester (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I left this past December. I'd been doing that for 3 years, and it was time to move on. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi need Help with IP address / email id

Hi ,

There is a person who is spreading wrong information about my friend and we need assistance to track his mail id / username. Can you help find details about this user?

The link is : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalia_Kapchuk&diff=next&oldid=766080333

The user name is Shamshul007.

Appreciate a prompt response.

Regards

You know as much as I do. You can see his contributions at w:Special:Contributions/Shamshul007. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexf and Royer2356

Perhaps this guy needs a lock. MechQuester (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to just be on enwiki for now. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello Ajraddatz, could you please make me an OTRS member because I like to check OTRS tickets. I know I am new but I am reading Wikipedia & Meta from many years. I know everything about it.--Advance Technology (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't do this, sorry. See OTRS/Volunteering. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comfortable managing my own talk page

There is no requirement to revert anything but obvious spam or vandalism from my talk page, especially as this is meta where I am an admin and do take actions. I am comfortable with people leaving complaints and comment for me to which I can respond, ignore or revert as I see fit. I am not in need of protecting. I put out comment and opinions, so I am willing to take them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't specifically revert it, but am rather reverting all block evading edits by the individual in question. He is here for a platform, and in the interest of denying recognition I don't think it's a good idea to give him one. It's been years of his abuse. Maybe it's time to stop it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, and that is not what I said to you above. At this stage it can be seen to be you versus that person. Let the community of admins do the work, it sends a more important message, and especially it cannot be said that you are cleaning up as you don't like the comment. You are always welcome to ignore my opinion as it is one person's words, though listening to opinion is also an admin's role, whether you agree with it or not. Simply dismissing another's opinion? Well, that is not a good indicator.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no community of admins. There are 57 individuals who occasionally check this site. So, if I get a ping because my edit was reverted, then I'll usually be the first person to respond to it. It would certainly be nice if other admins were active and concerned with keeping Meta a troll-free environment. – Ajraddatz (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Have it your way. You know that I am not your enemy, and to note that my original view point stands. To me it looks as though you are acting with face pressed against the glass. It is all becoming subjective, not objective. Please take some reflective time and step away from the idiots and the biffo.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I never thought that you were. Point taken, at any rate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

When will confirmations end?

I know it is supposed to end on the 28th. Will the confirmations be finally closed? MechQuester (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They are closed to public comment now. We are in the process of organizing the internal discussion, which will begin.. soon! – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"nihil obstat"

Hello Ajraddatz, thank you very much for your engagement in the steward elections and for closing the confirmations. I've one comment on this. Please take a look at the 2 opposes of 2 users with other opinions. Other users and stewards may say, those opposes are not founded and "no relevant concerns", but I don't think that "nihil obstat" (= noone opposes) is right there, and no steward did comment this way in this case. Shouldn't it be "clear consensus to confirm" instead? Otherwise, this might make more problems crosswiki and on Meta in the future, if users think, their opinions are completely ignored and they are summarized as "nihil". But "clear consensus" would be right and that would make no problems. Have you seen that?
The opposes because of inactivity on any Wikiversity of another user are another case, because there seem to be no relation with steward rights/actions. Kind regards, --Bjarlin (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bjarlin. We typically completely discount opposition that is unrelated to steward work. For example, the two removes on my confirmation page were for lack of confidence, which could be related to steward work. On other pages, the only concerns were due to inactivity on Wikiversity or concerns given with no proof or justification. Either way, the specific reason given on the confirmation summary is rather worthless - what is important is the result. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for bad English. I didn't mean that the Wikiversity edits reason is similar, but that's a different case, there's a difference between this unrelated reason and the reasons on the other named page. You say, the 2 opposes on your page were because of no confidence, but the opposes on Vituzzus page were the same, they were because of no confidence (one strong oppose and one normal oppose), that's not nihil obstat, and the opposes were not "unrelated to steward work". Maybe, those are unfounded reasons, but they are not unrelated to steward work. I fear that this may cause more problems crosswiki, these problems are more than enough by now. I think, those are just different opinions about what had happened. The given "proofs" could be ignored, if they seem to be unfounded, but the opposes are not "unrelated". It's clear that the result is the important thing, but for the opposing users the comment "nihil obstat" might be worse, because it says that stewards ignore them completely. I don't think that helps for the Meta and crosswiki work.

The Wikiversity reason is not understandable, it's different from the other case, that's what I meant. If that user is not able to say, what Wikiversity edits shall have to do with steward work, then it's their problem that this completely unrelated reason might be ignored. --Bjarlin (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In Vituzzu's case, the opposing comments are essentially revenge comments. But I suppose you are correct that they represent actual opposition to his work as a steward, so I'll change it in the summary. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the different opinions about the closing and so on might also be seen as revenge comments, that's right. If they didn't know the steward until then, it's clear that they have no confidence now. I didn't know him either (as far as I'm aware), so I have no opinion about him. Ok, thanks. --Bjarlin (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

Dear Adrian,
Tomorrow will be first day of spring and in my homeland is New Year’s Day. Also it is exact one month after you finished all hassle that I was involved with. So I get these good causes as an opportunity to say not only I do not forget your favour but it was my honour to know you.
All the best
Farid --DejaVu (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have been able to help, and happy new year! – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign survey on outreach to outside knowledge networks

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on outreach to outside knowledge networks from February 2017. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating. I want to improve how campaigns are run, so let me know if there's something that could be done better for next time.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Survey link error fixed

Hi there, there was a error with the Inspire survey link that caused the survey to be shown as expired, but has now been fixed. The link in the above message should now bring you to the survey. Apologies, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Main Page on Wikipedia (English).

Hey, you're an Steward, right? Well, I figured I'd alert you about a situation on the Did you Know section on the main page of the english wikipedia. I'd estimate that about ~2 million people know that thrust into a difficult situation, Horney Dicks failed to satisfy. I suspect this as vandalism, though it's not listed on the edit history. It's location is the last did you know on the did you know section. Greasemann (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Greasemann

Whoops, it isn't. Although, I suggest it be edited to say Londonderry Borough Police.

Greasemann, Ajraddatz is a steward. However, he is NOT an admin on enwiki. Stewards have no control over the main page and did you know on enwiki. He cannot help you but you can go here. MechQuester (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

YGM

— regards, Revi 14:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

SOS

Bonjour et permettez-moi de me présenter : je suis Claude Piard, jadis contributeur sous le pseudo de Claude PIARD aujourd’hui quasi-banni dans des conditions pour le moins contestables. Et vous êtes mon ultime recours pour dénoncer des dérives nuisibles in fine à la réputation de Wikepdia. J'ai en effet déjà tenté d'alerter le CAR qui s'est déclaré incompétent puis fais appel récemment aux bureaucrates où mes messages sur leur PdD, revertés dans les délais les plus brefs par Habertrix, n'entrent même plus suite à une prise de contrôle que n'approuverait probablement pas la CNIL. Mais ce genre de manœuvre risquée est bien révélateur en soi de l'urgence qu'il y a pour certain(e)s de "cacher les poussières sous le tapis". Excusez-moi donc de vous ramener loin en arrière. En novembre 2013 Litlok est intervenu sur la PaS pour TI d’un article consacré à l’ « Attitude des juifs sous le régime nazi » pour suggérer son transfert dans la catégorie Recherche en histoire de Wikiversité, ce que j’ai fait le 6 janvier 2014 non sans provoquer de réactions de Lgd/Alginatus, longtemps sous simple IP. Deux ans plus tard, en octobre 2016 la fausse manoeuvre d’un collègue et ami qui a rapatrié par erreur les travaux résultant de l'évolution de cet article sur Wikiversité a été prétexte au procès le plus rapide de l’histoire wikipédienne. Un RA pour « désorganisation de l’encyclopédie » initié par Heddryin à mon encontre déposé le 22 octobre à 12 heures 46 a abouti à mon blocage indéfini le 24 octobre à 18 heures 41, sanction prononcée par Lomita – après une large consultation certes – aux motifs allégués de « WP-POINT, meatpuppetry et contournement de décision communautaire », la décision étant appliquée par Starus. Le RA initial a été clos dès le 23 par la même Lomita à 9 heures 33 – soit 15 heures après son ouverture – pour « conflit d’édition » trois minutes exactement après le dépôt de mon argumentaire, la discussion se poursuivant ensuite uniquement sur le BA entre administrateurs où celui-ci est ignoré. Mes tentatives d’appel au RA puis au CaR sont rapidement éludés avec pour seul effet le blocage de mon IP (2A01:E35:2E8F:19D0:E574:9CCA:1C5C:7825) et l’effacement de ma page présentation ainsi que sa PdD probablement trop compromettantes pour mes détracteurs. Depuis d’épisodiques tentatives de modestes interventions lors d’éphémères déblocages de mon IP se traduisent par son reblocage immédiat par Lomita au seul prétexte du test du canard, empêchant ainsi toute remise en cause de sa décision. Et actuellement ma détermination à faire rétablir l’exactitude des faits me vaut en RA une proposition de bannissement de la part d’Heggesipe. L’IP flottante de mon téléphone me permet néanmoins de porter à votre connaissance cette situation sur laquelle je reste prêt à fournir tous les renseignements complémentaires utiles. A cette fin, et faute d'autres moyens, mon adresse e-mail était accessible via mon ancienne page Claude PIARD. Celle-ci est certes effacée et je suppose que vous avez les outils nécessaires pour la ré-ouvrir. Néanmoins je me permets de vous la confirmer : crjpiard@free.fr Merci d’avoir pris le temps de me lire et bonne semaine. Envoyé depuis une adresse flottante, faute de pouvoir le faire plus régulièrement.--37.166.90.99 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Je découvre que ma connexion n'est pas bloquée sur Meta-Wiki et vous confirme donc totalement ce qui précède.--Claude PIARD (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cette version archivée avant effacement de ma page de discussion confirme et explicite ce qui précède. Elle démontre également que j’ai épuisé tous les recours avant de vous solliciter. Sans résultats autre que provoquer une demande de bannissement. Indifférence générale ? Complot ? Quoiqu’il en soit le remplacement du respect des principes fondateurs et des recommandations écrites par le concept de « décision communautaire » ( i.e. « au soviet ») a de quoi inquiéter pour l’avenir de Wikipédia francophone--Claude PIARD (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

Hi, 37.166.90.99 it looks like you are not blocked. Lotje (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:5CC:101:2EF2:830:3AEA:36E7:19DB

Fyi, This might be a Reguyla ip. MechQuester (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's blocked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

...expires on 4 May 2017 at 15:06, anonymous only Lotje (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, How to request local admin rights

How to gain local admin rights if it doesn't have a active bureaucrat and admin didn't respond to request made locally.

Link= https://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Reqest link: https://kn.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=758071

Anoop^(Talk)> 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick Question

How is this an LTA? (2nd edit to add on) --> I've noticed this person has been obsessed with locking accounts on srg.

MechQuester (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That person is a blocked user editing logged out, and most of their edits and reports are not good. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sysop on ln

Dear Ajraddatz, you granted Apipo1907 a temporarly sysop for three month last year. Later, the (small) community voted for sysop status for Apipo1907 (https://ln.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moy%C3%A1ngeli). It seems, that this staus was never given to Apipo1907 again. Can you check this, please? Thank you! --Bombo (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bombo: I don't see a second request there. For his access to be renewed, there should be another section opened for the community to comment. Once it's been open for a week, I can re-grant sysop access. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I found ln:Wikipedia:Administrateur/Apipo1907 (2), opened in September 2016. Stryn (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what's going on... they didn't vote on that request, but they went and re-voted on the first one after it was closed. Either way, that user has made one edit so far in all of 2017. I think a new vote is required. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Change user name

Hi my bro . please change my user name moeinmohammadi666 > Afshin_k2 Moeinmohammadi666 (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a vandalism (partially)

Ajraddatz, I'm affraid that you are wrong here. Kolega2357 is what IP asserts. Here is his acknowledgment that he is Velimir Ivanovic (unblock request at the bottom: Više ne želim da se vraćam na stari nalog Velimir Ivanovic translated-> I don't want to use my old user account Velimir Ivanovic).

See also this, please (Vandalism-only account: cross-wiki vandal with a sockpuppet farm).--95.156.150.227 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's an issue that the WMF and the community can sort out without edit wars and such accusations going back and forth. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but this IP is problem, and he is probably Kolega2357/Velimir Ivanovic. He is trying to hide relevant information.--95.156.150.227 07:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Abuse

Hello, in Azerbaijani wikipedia, one user constantly insults me but admins are not taking any action. I can prove that user uses constant sarcasm and insults towards me, by stating quotes like "you're education is poor", "each of your contribution should be checked bit by bit". Is there anything can be done to tackle this user?--Azerifactory (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Local action is really necessary here; we can't do much from Meta-Wiki. Can you link to places where you have previously tried to have some sort of intervention against such behaviour? – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The user commented at Requests for comment/On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia#‎Aydinsalis about ‎Aydinsalis, one of the signatories. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Email to Stewards

I sent emails to Stewards OTRS queue. Who and how and when can they be answered? --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Those emails are answered by stewards, on a volunteer basis when we get to them. We currently have a large backlog, and I'm not sure when yours specifically will be addressed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

Hi Ajraddatz,

Hope you recall our meeting in Esino last year.

I will also be attending Wikimania this year. It will be great to meet you in your own country. Best, --Muzammil (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I do recall! Unfortunately, I will not be attending Wikimania this year. Enjoy it! – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Very sad!--Muzammil (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sigma Wikipedia

Hi Ajraddatz, You blocked my account due to suffix -Wikipedia consist in my account i wish to remove this from my account. Thanks 119.160.66.141 09:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, apologies for the late reply. You can create a new username using Special:CreateAccount. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

admin for Wikipedia Ligure

Hi, I hope I got you right (there are still many things on Wikipedia that are not too clear to me and I need to learn). I replied on the Stewards Page by saying: We already did it by posting on the "Pòrtego da comûnitæ" last August 24. The first item on our Ligurian community discussion page is titled "Eleççioin à amministratô". The first paragraph was posted by our leading admin called Giromin Cangiaxo, the second by me (Luensu1959) at a later date, and the third was posted by Feipìn(discuscioin) 06:21, 24 Ago 2017 (UTC). Correspondingly, users/members voted on the page indicated above. So, more than two weeks have elapsed since Feipìn posted his candidacy. Awaiting approval for him, all the best Luensu1959 (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Vito responded on SRP. :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Hello Ajraddatz, I have forgotten my nickserv password to my account, Goldenburg111, on IRC. Is there any way I can get back my old password/make a new password? Or should I create a new IRC account? Thanks and I hope for your reply. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea about IRC stuff :P – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Atcovi, check your email and follow the instructions, you should have got an email with a key to change your password. Matiia (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Matiia: it keeps saying "Verification Key invalid". --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atcovi: IIRC, it expires after 24 hours. When you have some time, go to IRC and put /msg NickServ SENDPASS Goldenburg111, then check your email. Matiia (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Adjusted text

There has been a request to inform all who voted in the RfC about interlinking accounts involved with paid editing about the following adjustment in the "statement of issue" on Sept 18th, 2017.

It was clarified that this effort will help deal not only with impersonation of specific Wikipedians but also claims of being in good standing made by those who are not.[6] Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you have experience dealing with abusive sockpuppeting accounts and you work across many wikis. We think that your insights will help us build a better feature.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion and let us know how it would work best for you.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.