Welcome to my talk page. To leave a message, press the "New section" button at the top of the page. I will usually respond on this page, rather than on your talk page. You can also contact me via my Meta-Wiki talk page or through email. Archive

No worries. I wasn't offended by anything you posted. In fact, I should've posted there from the beginning and just pinged you. All is good and thanks for moving the post. -- 06:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally, our practice for Canadian by-elections has been to write a single merged article about all of the by-elections that take place during a term of the relevant legislature, such as By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament.

That consensus, however, was established because Canadian by-election articles have tended to not be written or sourced anywhere near as substantively as UK by-elections or US specials — historically, the Canadian contingent had a really bad habit of just writing "A federal by-election happened in the riding of Moncton North on February 11, 1995. Results table. The end.", without ever actually adding any context or substance to explain what would make the by-election notable as a standalone topic in its own right, rather than just being noted as a subsection of a larger topic. The US and UK contingents always wrote real, substantive, detailed articles about each special/by election, but with the debatable exception of Outremont 2007 we had a habit of just writing misplaced subsections that rarely if ever got beyond the level of "this is a thing that happened".

So we established the consensus that instead of giving each one a standalone article in its own right, we would merge them all into subsections of a single article covering the entire parliamentary or legislative term. That consensus always allowed that separate articles could be spun back off again if somebody was prepared to put a lot more time and energy into making them look a lot more like the equivalent UK or US articles than they ever did in their original form, but that never really happened either — even when additional content was added beyond "this happened, the end", even that content rarely if ever went further than naming the candidates in the parties' respective nomination contests, which still isn't really enough in and of itself.

So personally, my suggestion would be to cover them both in an omnibus By-elections to the 29th Alberta Legislature article for now. The potential may exist to spin them off later if they're genuinely substantive and detailed, but starting with a merged article would be more consistent with the current practice for Canadian by-elections and thus less likely to be challenged or questioned. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Martin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Bot :) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Moe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shellbrook. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the rule for disambiguating people is always that they go at the simplest possible title. If there are other politicians that they have to be dabbed from, then they go at "Canadian politician" — but if they're the only politician in the mix, then they just go at "politician". It's not a rule that all of them have to be dabbed the same way for consistency — the overriding principle is "simplest possible title". Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I was wondering that. Makes sense. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what to do with Cathy Cox (politician), since Cathy Cox is an American politician. Maybe a disambig page, with links to both? Or just a "see also" thing at the top, since most people would look for the American one. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she's a bit trickier than most. The American one is definitely of higher notability due to a higher-ranking role than a state/provincial legislator — so in her case I think it would be best to go with "Canadian politician" even though "politician" is technically vacant. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, I've moved the page to the Canadian politician name and will put a "see also" on the American one. And I guess I didn't ping you in that last message, so good on you finding this too! Ajraddatz (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for a global lock to be temporary, rather than permanent? Not asking about stewards unlocking a locked account: blocks can be set to be indefinite or to expire at a certain point in time, and I wondered if locks were always indefinite or if they too could be set to expire at a certain point in time. There's a note at Commons:COM:AN mentioning that you'd locked Reguyla's account; this led me to his userpage, at which I noticed that the template at the top says This account has been locked indefinitely on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis; it seems odd to say "locked indefinitely" if there's another option, but I was distinctly under the impression that locks were always indefinite. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nyttend: it is not possible for global locks to be temporary, so the "indefinite" part of the template on Commons doesn't make much sense. Usually accounts are only locked if they are used only for vandalism or spam, so I guess there isn't enough potential use for a non-indefinite lock for it to be designed. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "indefinitely". Thanks for the response! Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Read-only, as requested by TParis. Ajraddatz (talk)

I've activated your account. We may consider a read-only user right in the future, but for now we're all (Devs and WMF) in agreement that a Steward having access is helpful and within expectations of privacy and trust.--v/r - TP 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know @TParis:. I won't regularly check the interface (I don't think that was the intention), but will be available via IRC or email to help with those cases that require some kind of global action, such as renaming or global (b)locks. If there is anything else, please let me know. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited By-elections to the 28th Alberta Legislature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Ellis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿?✍ 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly about the info I added is not neutral? Zapatero promised withdrawal from Iraq 1 and did so when he became President, which was received with criticism by the Bush administration and provoked a more tense relationship between Spain and the U.S. 2 3 until Obama took office. 4 (in Spanish)

Zapatero also pushed for what is known as the "peace process" 5 which led to a ceasefire (which later failed), and pushed for an anti-tobacco bill (compendium of news about the law in Spanish). The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia was also a big part of Spanish politics in the mid-2000s.

Which of all that stuff seems like biased to you? I've only stated facts and not opinions. It seems to me that you brushed off my contribution entirely without really looking into it. I'll add the sources needed-there's massive amounts of them and many are already referenced throughout other articles regarding Spanish politics. Yeremer (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you globally lock the above account as you've done with the other socks? See, e.g., User:Guntur Irawan. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: now locked, thanks. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Easier than going the normal route.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in the process of working on that actually. I want to use the same JS on Steward requests/Global as we do on the steward elections, so you just need to press a button, type in a username and rationale and hit submit without filling out the template and the other stuff. I'll let you know when it's ready :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ajraddatz,

Pleas read carefuly the following (sorry it is in a png file).

It basically describes AN ERROR in the procedure used by a person that is in an IP Range Block, which makes it impossible for that person to follow the directions (an error in the procedure) to talk with the person (You!) who has the IP ragne block put in effect. (I often edit form a place that has many users in the IP range.)

SEE ESPECIALLY THE ERROR: IN SUBMITTING YOUR UNBLOCK APPEAL. YOUR IP IS NOT BLOCKED ... but it was in a range that was blocked, that makes this an erroneous error! Or there was an error in the error reporting!

Thank you for looking into this and fixing this (or directing the fix to someone).

Kind Regards,

Fair Weather and Following Seas,

GeorgeV73GT — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeV73GT (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I responded on your talk page a while back. Removing the big image now :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still chasing this down. One question though: if there is an agreement for the image int he article not to be changed then why isn't it noted here? It would seem a rather glaring omission, wouldn't you agree? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been specifically involved with this content dispute, but yes, if there was such an agreement then advertizing it would make sense. I heard about it on IRC and decided to take a look, and it seems like something that could have been handled with talking rather than blocking. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I finished my followup investigation, turns out there was an rfc for the image to be used, meaning I am in the wrong here. I've unblocked and apologized the account, I'm waiting on word as to whether this will be reported at ANI (in fairness, I expect it should be, admins are entrusted to make smart decisions, and this was...me being too quick on the trigger). At any rate, thank you for the message, and have a good morning (or evening as the case may be). TomStar81 (Talk) 09:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for it to go to ANI myself. You made a borderline call, sometimes those don't go the way you expect them to. Thanks for taking another look at it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you mr. bot :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barn Stars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5. Check Users Checking 4 Over Sighters Hiding 3 GAs 2. Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Hi, this is X~Calibur95 from the Age of Empires Series Wiki. We have experienced major renovations since you left many years ago & thought you might want to check it out if you have time. I have become more active here on wikipedia, & just wanted to say hello! A quick question, what is the max number of times a user can be renamed? Thanks in advance. Piano410 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Piano410: nice to see you here! I'll take a look at the wiki - it was one of the first that I ever worked on. As for your renaming question, there is no hard limit, but renamers generally decline after a user has been renamed recently or after a few times. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ajraddatz! Please allow me to follow up on a project that was discussed at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin a couple of weeks ago:

I am writing you to ask for your support for the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 250 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has recently passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Now, we are working with the Wikimedia Foundation staff to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

In order to demonstrate that this is an issue that the community really cares about, I would like to ask you to sign the project page as well. Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added the plot template on that page. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 15:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and again! — fortunavelut luna 16:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz! There is a new case of inter-wiki sock puppetry concerning user Amfithea & Co. and Angelique Rockas. It seems it will never stop! ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It never does... thanks for letting me know. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present)#Split proposal. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ajraddatz,

I have seen the comment that you have left in the page I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localizing_the_SDGs) and I was wondering if you could please support me.

I have already revised the page, added references and excluded things that may have caused your comments.

I really want to ensure that my page is not deleted, so if you please can let me know if you have any other advice for me, it would be great appreciated.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Kind regards, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaEstrada (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna. Unfortunately, even after your changes, the article lacked sufficient secondary sources independent of the subject of the article. It also did not follow the format of our articles here. You could write a short section on localization on the main SDG page instead. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz! It seems that the new Angelique Rockas' SPA/puppet is already around! [1] ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chalk19: I'm only on intermittently these days; if there are more such socks, please report them to m:SRG. Thanks, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

The white snow and the cool breeze beckon a festive mood, And the sweet aroma wafting from eateries wreathes the mind. Lights, stars, colour and jollity abound 'round each bend, I wish you a happy holiday season, dear friend. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Editing can get tough and frustrating at times, but we've come a long way in this project and that is a grand achievement. Hope you have a good time this festive season! :) Jiten talk contribs 23:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Special:Diff/817371194; the clerk did in fact ping them on their talk page, which is preferable to using the {{ping}} template. Same goes with Superchimp55. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aah perfect, no issue then! Thanks for letting me know :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz. There's no SPI on this one, but please look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Azerti83 to see if global locks should be imposed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajraddatz, I'm contacting you because you're a checkuser on meta. I'd like to ask for your help with a pair of requests, if it's okay for you. The first is this: I read in Wikipedia:CheckUser that "an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation". This is exaclty my problem, I had an account on meta, creatd just to ask for a CU request, which was blocked by an Italian admin because he substains I am the same user who made a vandalism by IP in it.wikipedia. I'm not, I don't know on which bases he concluded we're the same user. This is the vandalism: [2]. My account on meta was "Jatharinan". We have nothing in common but the IP range, a common Italian IP range. Either when I logged in on 2/2 my IP address had turned exactly into the IP the troll used on 31/1 (1 chance over 65536), or the admin has linked us just by the IP range, because my CU request on meta and the users involved had absolutely nothing to do with that vandalism in it.wikipedia. Can I do anything to prove my innocence? May you give me your help for this? If I clarify this point, probably there's no need for you to help me with my other request. Turbetuvb (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turbetuvb, you should ask Vituzzu about this. He was the one that locked your account, and I am unsure of the details here. Regards, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you because I know his reputation in it.wikipedia, he isn't one who "goes back" or "uses half-measures". Okay, apart from my specific case, is a situation like the one I've described contemplated in this project? Is it possible to ask for a CU to prove one's innocence after being blocked and markes as troll? Turbetuvb (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can do a confirmation check, and doing so reveals multiple accounts that obviously belong to you. Why are you making so many accounts? It seems unlikely to me that someone who happened to be blocked with an IP would be engaging in this behaviour, and in requesting CUs on Meta for unrelated accounts. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the first one on meta because they told me they wouldn't accept CU requeste for IP, but after 2 weeks without using it I didn't remember the password and I made a second account which was blocked while I was logged in and writing a reply to 2 checkusers, so I created the third account just to give that answer. I was afraid it would be blocked immediately and my reply reverted, so I created another one to reply in the 2 users' home-wikis. As you saw I chose 4 similar names to be resognised, I didn't pretend to be someone else. Also with this account I'm using now I've always declared my identity, the one who was blocked on meta and accused to be the troll who made that vandalism in it.wikipedia. I'd like to know whether I can ask or not to check my "unrelation" with that vandalism, I really can't understand what link there should be with me in terms of argument or behaviour or users involved or anything else but the Italian IP range. Turbetuvb (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC) P.S. the accounts and IPs I've reported on meta are all but unrelated, their edits are identical, a French admin blocked an account for sockpuppetry, a Spanish admin found a related account I didn't even know, in different wikis some IPs were blocked because they were discovered to be proxies as I'd said, and I'm sure the sockmaster is an old registered user from Northern Italy, who made the same edits a long time ago, and coincidentally the IP ranges this user has been using lately to interfere in the CU requests are all from Northern Italy..."If it walks like a duck"[reply]

Excuse me, Ajraddatz, I really need a checkuser to prove my uninvolvement with that trolling episode, it's only for this accusation and the consequent block that my CU request was closed despite all the evidences... Turbetuvb (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Vituzzu for his thoughts. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this account will be blocked soon then... I asked a third person because I wanted a third opinion, if you told him he'll just reconfirm his thoughts and act consequently. Obviously I'll be glad if he doesn't but it's difficult that an admin retraces his steps... Turbetuvb (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As info, this user has been socking as Asluoer. I've also issued a range block against them. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to participate the discussions about the issue, regards. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reminded me that Mz7 suggested you should go for an en.wiki mop (or rather asked if you had interest in it). I of course mentioned my thought that you should just go straight to RfB, but, since you don't have interest in that... TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

↑ Mz7 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought, but I'm fine with the access I currently have :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/ajr TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant other people! I'm barely even active these days... :P -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone is keeping track of the last time a steward commented on a bureaucrat being dragged before arbcom. Andrevan@ 05:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Jimbo will show up too in some capacity, make it one for the wiki-history books. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Nah, he’s too afraid of getting desysoped for misusing tools... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is not completely true Special:Contributions/TonyBallioni is deeply in love with oversite exists on en.wiki but Special:CentralAuth/TonyBallioni is deeply in love with oversite does not exist globally (revi hid it when locking but didn't suppress.) Not that it matters in this case because I find the name more entertaining than anything else and just wanted it locked, but thought I should let you know since this came up in -admins today. Lego said that it would need to be hideuser blocked on en as well even though it was globally hidden. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Depends on which level of suppression is used. There is a "locked + hide" option that just hides the centralauth profile (and is completely useless, and I have no idea why any stewards actually use it - that was used on the account you linked to). The locked + suppressed option suppresses the account in CentralAuth, and suppresses all local accounts. Lego is wrong (or maybe was speaking specifically to the hide option) :P -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just re-read your comment after I posted here and realized the technical difference (re: hiding), which is what I figured Lego was talking about. I didn't strike this because I thought you would enjoy the opportunity of correcting me :P TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HAhahahaha you are w r o n g. More that I'm just used to explaining the more ridiculous parts of the CentralAuth extension, because it certainly isn't intuitive. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to my pestering you above, can you take a look at this. Matiia and I are talking about it in -stewards. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Haven't seen any of those for about a year now; that must be one of the few left that we can actually resolve. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IZoid recently made what looked like a test edit here on en.WP which I reverted. I took a look at the user's contributions across the three wikis he has contributed to and only one looked remotely productive (on RU).

Is there a process to deal with this? --Izno (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I don't think any action is required. They certainly hasn't been contributing positively overall, but there hasn't been enough disruption to warrant local blocks or global action yet. If it continues, and the account isn't productively editing anywhere, then it could be locked or just blocked on the specific wikis where they have edits. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your assessment might change, but apparently he was blocked on Phabricator after similar disruptive behavior. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The account was still actively being disruptive after you reported it on the 1st, so I've locked it. Thanks. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please globally lock Jurijusc177 (talk · contribs · count) as a confirmed sock of Jurijus Pacalovas (talk · contribs · count). The new account has already been indeffed at Simple. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, both at WP:BN and earlier are inappropriate. You had never taken the opportunity to review the full circumstances. If you were not a steward I would template you for WP:PA. Please remove your comment. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is shocking. And it's too bad that I handed in my steward hat, because now I will be templated for legitimate criticism. --Rschen7754 06:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as a personal attack (and I'm not sure what earlier comments you are referring to), but I'm happy to expand on it to explain the specific actions I had a problem with. Also, there is some irony in me being concerned about your temperament when people criticize you, and you considering that comment a personal attack. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, please globally lock Clovistournai (talk · contribs · count) as a confirmed sock of Richelieu94 (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careful - I can easily get used to instant gratification. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I just happened to be on this time. I promise to return to my usual ~half day response time :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your stewardship comes up for review in a few days. However, as you are a steward that deals with Trust & Safety, I suppose you are ironclad. I will be taking advice from somewhere as best I can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

First all the nonsense on the Signpost page, now vague threats on my talk page? I really think you're losing perspective here. But yes, confirmations open in a few days and you are welcome to express your opinion there. The fact that I have worked with Trust & Safety won't factor into the result. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we're making thinly veiled threats about reconfirmation, shall we activate your recall Kudpung ? Nick (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(+1). This's going from worse to worser. Though, the provisions of that recall is pretty much a ....... ∯WBG^converse 20:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wut. GMG^talk 23:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some context

Since this seems likely to continue on Meta in a couple of days, I'll take the time to provide a "cliff notes" summary of what happened for those interested. And for GMG, in case his comment is a request for more information.

This started in September, when I expressed concern on Kudpung's resysop request regarding his behaviour before resigning the sysop bit a month earlier. Specifically, I was concerned that he was responding to valid criticism by accusing others of personal attacks. He responded by accusing me of making a personal attack. This continued in January and more recently when I made an edit to a Signpost draft that he had contributed to, and questioned him for later reverting the edit and removing the article-in-progress from public view. He responded, through the ensuing conversation, by accusing me of taking his comments out of context, stalking him, making personal attacks against him, and harassing him by criticizing his behaviour.

This is exactly why I was concerned at his resysop request in the first place. In many situations where he is being criticized, Kudpung makes accusations of personal attacks or harassment, and doubles down on whatever he is being criticized for doing. His accusations towards me are not true - criticizing someone's actions does not automatically constitute a personal attack, nor does criticizing two separate actions (one directed at others, one directed at myself) constitute harassment or hounding. Accusations of serious behavioural infractions have an obvious chilling effect on any attempt at discussion or criticism of his actions or behaviour. And this isn't just directed at me - there are multiple examples just relating to the recently-published Signpost article alone.

My intention, at least in my initial post to BN, was to point out what was happening so that it would stop. Instead, that behaviour been directed at me with increasing severity over time. Now at this point I am happy to disengage, because it is clear any continued interaction is not welcomed by Kudpung. And, for what it's worth, I am sorry that my actions have seemed like attacks and harassment to him. That wasn't the intention at all, and I will repeat my earlier statement that I have no problems with Kudpung personally. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the template Template:Wikipedia:Cleanup/Header, before reverting my last edit, please consider whether the problem can be resolved from your side.Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Adithyak1997: I didn't revert your edit, just the IP edit that blanked the page. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why I said so is because of the reason that the alignment of the template has somewhat broken now. So I thought you might revert my edit due to which I said so. Sorry.Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I see. I'm not sure how to move it to the centre again unfortunately. I tried changing the div style from text to align and that didn't work. I'll keep looking... -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it. The way in the future to get blocks centered (as opposed to text) is with the margin property. --Izno (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just CU-blocked Shamsun N Tushar (talk · contribs · count). I tagged him as a sock of Bishal Khan (talk · contribs · count), although there is some confusing history between BK and জঙ্গলবাসী (talk · contribs · count). Regardless, SNT is  Confirmed to AkramD (talk · contribs · count) and some other globally locked accounts. Can you please lock SNT? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and will make some appropriate global IP blocks as well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was going to ask Alaa to do this because they globally locked the master, but Alaa is unavailable for a while, so here I am. Can you please globally lock मन-मन्दिर (talk · contribs · count) and जरव (talk · contribs · count)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such speed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you please globally lock Enterlousy (talk · contribs · count) as a confirmed sock of Angela Criss (talk · contribs · count)? Other socks have been globally locked, particularly, as with this one, because of cross-wiki abuse at Commons. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and approved your request.

You may now access the interface here pending a tool root marking your account as identified in the tool database. Before you begin handling any requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarize yourself with the process.

Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list by clicking here and following the instructions on the page. I also highly recommend that you join us on IRC. We'll be able to grant you access to our private channel (#wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect), where a bot informs us when new account requests arrive, and where you can chat with the other members of the team and get real-time input, advice, and assistance with requests and how to handle certain cases that are giving you confusion or trouble.

IMPORTANT: Please note that repeatedly failing to correctly assess and process account requests and take the correct resulting actions will result in suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Processing account creation requests is not a race, and each request should be handled with your upmost diligence, care, and attention. Closing each account request correctly, accurately, and within full compliance of the ACC tool guide is your goal and your priority; never sacrifice accuracy and compliance of policy in exchange for quantity, or to close a high number of requests that are in the queue.

ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL: Releasing any kind of personally identifiable information or any kind of non-public data listed in the access to nonpublic personal data policy (such as the IP addresses or email addresses of account creation requests), whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated as an extremely serious violation of policy and breach of confidential information, and will generally result in immediate suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Depending on the severity of the offense, the intent, and the level of misconduct that occurred, the violation and the breach of the confidential information will be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, which can result in further sanctions and actions being taken against you (such as being blocked, banned, or having your access to nonpublic personal data status revoked). If you have questions about this, or aren't sure about anything in regards to this policy, please ask a tool administrator.

Your current user rights allow you to create up to six accounts in a 24 hour period. After this limit has been reached, you won't be able to create any more accounts. However, you can still process ACC tool requests without any issues; just place any approved requests back into the queue so that another tool user can perform the account creation step and finish the process for you. You also won't be able to create an account with a similar username to that of another account that exists; these requests are listed in a separate queue on the interface, titled "flagged user needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator after you've demonstrated a few months of experience and proficiency with processing and handling new account requests.

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for participating in the account creation process, and we're glad to have you as part of the group! Welcome to the ACC tool user team! stwalkerster (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per message on my talk, see above template which contains useful links etc :) stwalkerster (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My account that I let my father assistance borrow was blocked by you . Please let me know what to do? 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:1DF4:46B7:5C79:FFCA (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask here if you'd like. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! stwalkerster (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ㅇ.< — regards, Revi 09:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		Awarded for excellent avoidance of yet another non-policy WMFOffice action. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adaptable if nothing else! ;-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the bottom of User talk:Exert yourself. To me, the cross-wiki abuse is sufficient to globally lock the two accounts. There is no way this is a valid cleanstart. What are your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look when I get home. Most of the abuse is on zhwiki and enwiki, so I will likely leave it to the two communities to handle for now. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another place where there is abuse by both accounts (although no blocks) is at Commons. Of course, the master has far more edits than the puppet, but all the puppet has done at Commons is upload two images, both of which were deleted, and the master's Commons Talk page lists a slew of deleted images. Playing devil's advocate, though, my vision may be colored by the blatant duplicity of what the puppet is saying on their Talk page, so I have more confidence in your judgment than my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I completely agree that the account should remain blocked locally; what they did is not a clean start. Just not sure if global action would be beneficial in this case. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz

Have you got any news about my local unblock request for the ip range 151.48.0.0/17 ?

Semplicemente Agghiacciante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is too much abuse to unblock at the global level. However, I could explore selective project-specific unblocks: do you think that an.wp is the primary project impacted? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok

I did not think that this ip range would be globally unblocked easily and that is why i was asking to unblock it locally

Is it possible to unblock it in en.wikipedia.org ?

By the way 'wp:an' was the abbreviation for the name of the page where i asked for the unblock and it has nothing to do with an.wikipedia.org

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

Aah gotcha. Yes, you'll need to ask a local admin to whitelist the IP range. Preferably a CheckUser, who can check the range to see the extent of the abuse here. I'd recommend posting again at AN (maybe in the same section if it is open), and I'd be happy to back you up. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice

The section i had opened was archived so i will have to open anther section

Have you got any suggestions about what i should write more specifically ?

Meanwhile if you have time to have a look at some other projects where the ip range could be locally unblocked because there has been not significantly more abuse from it than from any normal ip range it would be a good thing

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

I have posted my request at wp:an as you suggested

Semplicemente Agghiacciante — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please globally lock Atometa (talk · contribs · count)? You globally locked the master. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible to globally block 216.25.187.4? If you look at their global contributions, you'll see why. I am receiving password reset e-mail from multiple projects. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please globally lock Rolan009 (talk · contribs · count)? They are confirmed to ພຣະຍອດຄໍາພັດທະຣະເກສີ (talk · contribs · count) (the oldest I know about), as well as several other accounts, all globally locked by Wim b. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BN. Doesn’t look like we’ll have one, but always worth mentioning on that off-chance we get a crat chat on the decision to hold a crat chat. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the old "I don't agree with the opposers/supporters/whatever so we should host a second vote to determine the outcome" argument. Even though I think the paid editing concerns are really overblown, this one clearly fell below the range where the user would have credibility to use the sysop bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(also) This idea is interesting, holding a crat chat to determine if there should be a crat chat. The only thing missing is a crat chat to determine the outcome of crat chat number 2 if it happens! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t we already volunteer Marco for the role of closing en-meta-Crat chats? Not to be confused with meta crat chats. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We did, but I doubt he would want that responsibility :'( -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please globally locked Wahyudi nainggolan (talk · contribs · count)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz, I hope you don't mind me posting a note here. I'm not looking to get you to change your vote - as you said, the request looks certain to pass and it will make no difference at this point. Rather, I wanted to offer you my perspective on this, because I feel that you've treated me quite dismissively in some of the comments you've made. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, and I appreciate that in your position you are probably exceedingly busy, but still - I'm actually rather hurt by some of the things you've said, and I thought you might want to know that. I've come here rather than replying at the RfA because I'm not looking to add any drama, or to encourage people to direct any more invective towards you. If you aren't interested, then by all means delete this and ignore.

You describe changing my username as a 'very low cost' option, which I should have taken immediately upon being made aware of people's concerns. You've been invited to my talk page, and given links to diffs, where I set out several reasons why I don't see it as a low cost option. You haven't responded to these arguments in any way in your comments - I don't know whether that's because you haven't read them, or whether you thought they were so weak as to be not worth mentioning - but either way, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I've said I would be unsettled by a change, and I know from what they've told me that some other people would be too.

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that I have not flat-out refused to make a change. What I've done is to engage with the people who've pointed out their concerns, and ask them whether one or other of some alternatives, such as a change of signature or an explanatory note on my user page, would be sufficient to allay their concerns. I've had some positive responses from other people; you've made no comment at all about this, I don't even know whether you've even read any of it.

With regard to the 'locker room culture' stuff, I thank you for rolling back on that somewhat, but you didn't actually address the questions I asked you. Seriously, how do you think I should have responded? Most of the people in that thread were folk I had never communicated with before - they seemed to me to be reaching out in a friendly way, with a bit of saucy humour, probably in hopes of relieving any stress I might be under. There wasn't any profanity, it was just a few double-entendres (coming from people of different genders) - do you really think I should have rebuffed them, and told them that their lewd humour wasn't welcome on my page? Yes, I joined in, it seemed like the friendly thing to do - but it was hardly offensive, and none of it was directed towards any of the opposers. For you to have equated that to a 'locker room culture', with all the connotations that brings up of the last US presidential election, and of a sleazy contempt for women, seems rather unfair.

I'm sorry if I come across as badgering you here - I don't mean to - but as a WikiMedia Steward, you are in a position of trust and respect, and your views carry great weight. I have been called all sorts of unpleasant things by vandals, trolls and aggressive users before, but that's all water off a duck's back, since insults from someone you hold in little esteem are easily ignored. Comments from someone of your standing, however, are a different matter - I take them seriously. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've been saying, but I can't help feeling that you've been dismissive of the efforts I've been making to come to resolution that would suit everyone with regard to how I present myself on the site, and unfortunately that has rather taken the shine off what has otherwise been a very positive experience. I do appreciate that you came in for some unpleasantness on the page as well, and I'm truly sorry for that - but I'm not responsible for it.

I don't know if there's anything I want you to say or do at this point - I just wanted to let you know what I felt. I'm probably just blowing off steam - the RfA has obviously gone very well overall, and I've probably taken the username stuff to heart more than I should have. But stuff like this is quite personal, and when you're under scrutiny, little things can feel much bigger than they should. I guess I'd ask you to make sure you remember that when you comment on people - read what they have to say, please don't dismiss their views out of hand (that's probably good advice for me too, I'm sure I've failed to do that many times as well). Anyway, no hard feelings on my side - I just wanted to let you know how I felt. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't mind you posting here and I am sorry if my comments were dismissive or hurtful. Responding in-line below:

• My concern is related to the public perception of having an administrator whose username could be easily interpreted as innuendo. I appreciate that you are willing to consider options, but what you have offered to do has not assuaged my concern. If something you did as an administrator were reported in the news, would they check your userpage for the explanatory note? Would every one of the readers do so? I doubt it.
• I want to clarify that I do not think you are misogynistic or a promoter of "locker room culture", and I am not trying to make any comment on your character. I am commenting on the context in which this debate is happening. Whenever anyone has raised a concern with your username, they have been met with attacks on their personal life and various dismissive comments. Is this the sort of environment that would make anyone comfortable with admitting that they actually found your name offputting or offensive? This isn't a concern about you, or anything that you could control.
• You have responded in an acceptable manner, and I don't think that you should do anything differently. Public opinion is with you keeping your current username, and if I were in your shoes I would rightly feel very justified in doing so. It is nice to see that you are open to other options, and take the concern seriously, and I appreciate that. But I would like to see Wikipedia move from a culture of "anyone offended should get over it" (similar to something that I have personally said in the past) to "hmm, maybe we can do something to be a bit more professional/inclusive here". Again, this is not a problem with you, nor do I see you actively promoting the former.
• Obligatory note that my comments here are made in my personal capacity as a user. The steward title might look spooky but I'm just a random dude sitting behind a computer like everyone else. To the extent that you find my arguments compelling you should respect them; if not, you should ignore them like any other. And please always feel welcome to tell me if you think I have missed the mark.

Reflecting on this overall, I will strike my oppose but leave the comment. My concern is more broad than you or your candidacy, and as I have said before, I am sure that you will be a fine admin. I was originally planning to sit out the RfA, but when I noticed the behaviour directed towards the two other people who had expressed a concern with the username I wanted to add my name to the list of people who do have a problem with it. Hopefully this clarifies things a bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thinking over this a bit more, maybe a disclaimer would be sufficient. I don't find your name offensive so I don't want to speak for any unidentified people who might, but that seems to me like a potentially good compromise. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajraddatz, thank you for responding to this so quickly, and so positively. I have to confess I was somewhat daunted about approaching you with my thoughts - I much prefer thinking of you as a random dude behind a computer than a Steward. Your words above, which are expansive and thoughtful, mean much more to me than your striking your oppose vote (although I confess that I am grateful about that too, even though it was not my intent!). I'm making dinner just now, and I don't imagine you want to read another wall of text from me, but briefly please let me add that I hadn't properly considered the argument about media coverage, it's quite a persuasive one and I'll dwell on that. Also, thank you for the final point about the disclaimer being sufficient - that is my preferred option, and so far other people think it would fit the bill, so I'm leaning that way, subject to any further comments coming in. I'm intending to draft something in the next few days - my intention was to ping everyone who had expressed a concern and see whether it worked for them, would you be interested in being involved in that?

Thanks again for your response, it's really put my mind at ease. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Other than trying to nudge the culture, my other broad goal here is to empower and support volunteers, and from your message it became clear that I was falling short in that area. I would be happy to get a ping when you draft something. Have a good weekend! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Ajraddatz! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969 TT me 23:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ajraddatz,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians and contributors, the open source Wikipedia review tool, previously "WikiLoop Battlefield" has completed its name vote and is announcing its new name: WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Read the full story on the program page on Meta-wiki, learn about ways to support this tool, and find out what future developments are coming for this tool.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the vote!

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajraddatz,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

HI Ajraddatz,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...that I have no earthly idea how pings in an edit summary are meant to work. Anyways, there's a discussion on WP:BN which may be interesting to you. –xeno^talk 20:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks, the ping reached me! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did?! So it just doesn't count as a successful ping in my notification preferences! –xeno^talk 03:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I voted for you in the steward election. From my perspective, you deserve it the most. Good luck! Alon Alush (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, thanks. Lots of other good candidates this year too! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]