User talk:Ajraddatz

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

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

Dear Ajraddatz,

As you probably know, the confirmation discussions for Stewards have been closed. In order to determine the outcome of these discussions, you are invited to comment on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2016 before scheduled closure of the confirmation section "one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards" (Sunday 6th of March, 17:22 UTC), though the closing time might be extended at the ElectCom's discretion for an extra week if it is believed "further input is required before concluding". All stewards are welcome to comment, including those newly elected.

For those who ran for confirmation, consider revising comments regarding you, and replying to those where appropriate. Sa vh ^ñ 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

I noticed you just globally blocked 62.235.180.250, but the problem is this same vandal popping up with many other IP addresses, such as 81.11.230.20, which was blocked by Tegel. Is there anything that can be done to automatically detect this guy? --Wikitiki89 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

Hey Yellowcard (talk · contribs). Given the current "limbo" in which approval for these tasks exist, I don't want to do too much with them, but I could approve yours per your rationale there. The one concern I have is with the rollback grant. How is that going to be used within the context of this script? Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Hi Ajraddatz, thanks for your quick reply. Regarding the rollback permission, I thought about rollbacking oneself to undo changes when the entered data turned out to be wrong. However, after thinking about it, it does not seem very reasonable, so I don't need that permission. Unfortunately, I cannot edit the permissions (or I don't know how to, respectively). Can you do so or should I withdraw the request and file a new one? Thanks again, Yellowcard (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Ok. I don't think I can edit it either, so please withdraw that one and I'll approve the updated version. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

I filed a new one (itemFinder [2.0]). It seems I even cannot withdraw my old request, so I'd kindly ask you to reject the old one and accept the new one. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks a lot for your help. :-) Cheers, Yellowcard (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

@Yellowcard: This is a silly system, with no potential to modify existing proposals. Sorry to make you repeat the process, but the updated request didn't specify wikidata-only. Please create yet another one with wikidata specified, and I'll approve it. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Ah, sorry. I hope I got everything correct now. Yellowcard (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Not a problem. I've approved try #3, and can now back away from OAuth stuff until the current discussions are resolved... :) Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Thanks a lot, Ajraddatz! Yellowcard (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

Already done, actually. I posted a quick question on WP:AN on whether checking 250+ users with the CheckUser tool was justified by policy, and had my concerns completely dismissed as being "explained elsewhere", even though they weren't. I'm in the process of discussing changes to the local IPBE policy (particulary with the audit), and hopefully that'll create a positive solution that involves users in the process, along with an OC decision on whether such mass-checks are actually allowed.

What I have found somewhat distressing about the incident is Mike's unwillingness to re-grant IPBE, even when users have a) previously held it, and b) demonstrated some continuing need for it. We've had a bunch of people come to Meta or the stewards' email queue to request re-exemption, but when I try to bounce them back to enwiki admins they seem to just be ignored. At some point, I don't think it's worth my time to keep pushing on the issue - I don't want to lord over the local admins/checkusers. Ultimately, it's on them if they want to be difficult, and all I can do is try and foster discussion so that we improve the way this is done in the future :) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Thank you very much. I completely agree his unwillingness to regrant the permission was problematic. I also appreciate that it's not in your scope to waste your time battling the local projects but it might be worth kicking upstairs to the WMF if various communities are being difficult or not doing what they should be. Just my opinion. Thanks again. Reguyla (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for looking after the "collateral damage" here, and please do keep pushing the issue!

I hope there will be a long-term solution at some point (but after more than nine years of this, I’m not optimistic).

Where’s the debate about the local IPBE policy? --Babelfisch (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

w:WT:IPBE in the last section. Also, if you're using TOR, the global flag *should* be enough unless the ranges are locally hard-blocked as well. If that's the case, you can message me here or email me, and I'll advocate for you. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

I got that global flag, but you told me that it probably wouldn't help, and in fact it didn't. --Babelfisch (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)--Babelfisch (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Aah. Shame it didn't work out nicely, but at least it seems to be resolved now :) Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

There are active admins there. You could tag it with {{delete|author request}} and local admins will delete it. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

I in conflict with admins in Armenian Wikipedia. --Vadgt (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

That doesn't mean that they won't delete your userpage on request... I could add the template myself, but I assume they will decline it because I am not you. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

I think admins not will decline your addition, because previous I also requested to other Meta user, and I not want to speak this theme to Armenian Wikipedia admins. Regards --Vadgt (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants

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

[18:48] <CVNBot5> New user [[m:User:Ajraddatz]] created. Block: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockip/Ajraddatz - Welcome? :-) Regards, —Marco Aurelio 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

Hello there, I'm new here! Glad to be around this "meta" place! (looks like the cvn bots don't know the difference between account creation by the user or by someone else :P) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

Heh: (User creation log); 16:48 . . User account Homeontherange (talk | contribs | block) was created by Ajraddatz (talk | contribs | block) and password was sent by email ‎(request) <-- I see. But when I saw that on the channel you had to see my wtf-face... Thanks. —Marco Aurelio 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

A couple of things I would add if I could.

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

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

Well, I'm glad they make sense to someone. There's a big push to unbundle the admin tools, but I don't see that as a solution. I like the idea of people passing requests in order to access advanced permissions. The problem is that people focus on RfA, not the broader context, when looking for solutions. I think there are reasons why RfA is "broken", and it has little/nothing to do with the general idea of a request being posted and people discussing over a week. I don't have the time or the patience to actually propose concrete reform, especially with a global RfC going on now and another one to start in the near future, but maybe learning what systems work elsewhere will be inspiring to some local people who are interested in the process? Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

I actually agree with both sides. Not everyone wants nor needs to be an admin but having the tools broken up into sets makes a lot of sense to me. Most people have areas of specialty they prefer to work on and that's true of the admin ranks also. There isn't a lot of need to have a bunch of access you don't need, so IMO it's good to have the tools broken up into sets based on the scope and permissions needed for the task. On the other hand, I also know without question the RFA process is broken and has been really since the beginning. It was a process doomed to fail when it was created. One thing that will greatly improve the project in general is if

• a) admins are held accountable when they do abusive stuff and that is something I believe strongly in...as you and others know;
• b) if there is a process to remove admins similar to RFA because it's so hard to remove a problematic admin, much of the community won't support most nominees and;
• c) The RFA process has to become far less of a gun fight than it is. No one wants to work in a hostile work environment and that is especially true of volunteer work. No one even wants to run it's so bad. The ones who would do a good job won't even try because they don't want the hassle nor to be associated with the miscreants that are discrediting the good admins.

I understand about not having time or patience. Honestly, the process has to get much worse before the community will be willing to change. I see that now myself. Until the system has completely collapsed, someone will argue the process works even though it clearly doesn't and hasn't in a long time. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

Generally, it means that you are the same person with two accounts. There is of course the potential for that being a false positive; a family member could have made the account. However, the editing patterns are very similar, so I think it is you. It is generally a good idea to stick to one account, especially if you are going to participate in discussions such as the ones on SRGP, or use multiple accounts to evade blocks. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

I'm can't make a account except myaccount real AYST201 before. If this, how are myaccount What you can block me.? I already call Arifys about it, I can wait he respons.

AYST201 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Krisplumutan (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

AYST201 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

Krisplumutan (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

You should explain at SN

AYST201 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

Welcome! :-) —Marco Aurelio 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

Thanks! Now time to start updating and enabling the scripts... Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

You'll find User:Glaisher/cuCAMultiLock.js very useful. Hopefully we will have it enabled on login too soon. Best regards, —Marco Aurelio 19:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

Congrats! Syum90 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

Congrats! Reguyla (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

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

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

Hello,

Can you please consider unblocking currency bot which has been operating for many years already. Please let me know if there are any issues with whatever the bot is doing!  « Saper  // talk  »  15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) the operatorReply

@Saper: that block is already pretty narrow, so I'm honestly surprised that your bot was caught up in it! I think it is unfortunately still needed, so I've exempted your bot from IP blocks for the time being. Let me know if you need a global exemption for it as well. Apologies for the inconvenience, Ajraddatz (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Reply

/29 as a whole network - 34359738368 /64 subnets and this provider normally assigns a single /64 or maybe /56 to customer...  « Saper  // talk  »  16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Reply