Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP/Archive 3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 8 months ago by MCC214 in topic Request
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

You've got a mail

Jonathan5566 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please do file any relevant concerns at SRCU. I don't take these types of cases by email. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please lock this user:

BigDickDaddy69420Neiga appears to only be here for vandalism, and the username could be offensive to some users. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hi AmandaNP. Can you, please, let me know what was the meaning of including my name in the results of this CU I had requested. Thanks in advance. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your name had come up on the same very large range that the socks were on with some similar technical information. Upon further review, I doubt you have a connection to the socks, but the reason your name came up was basically because of colleterial damage. Hope this clarifies things. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the Afrikaans Wikipedia.

Welcome and enjoy your stay! Oesjaar (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

And my friend appeared again: User:Oeiuaueioaeiuoa Oesjaar (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Non application of non consensus

Hi Amanda. I am Nanahuatl from the Turkish Wikipedia. A few weeks ago, I was blocked indefinetely. I made an objection to the blocking, an objection process has been carried and the result between the admins were 7 in favour and 6 against the block. That basically means that there is no consensus on the blocking attempt, admins can't say it's true or not. On the other hands, non-admin users had a total consensus, 29 against and 4 in favour. I am not asking for your comment on the blocking nor I make any comment/defence on that. The thing is, as you know, Wikipedia is not a democracy, we can't vote, it's a part of our first pillar etc. Despite those facts, none one of the admins are willing to take the action back. In that point, I need to ask what I should do. Regards and have a nice day.--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't really have the ability to advise on trwiki matters. There is no global Arbitration Committee that reviews blocks, and stewards are only meant to help maintain communities, not make decisions for them. So it's all up the users on that wiki with how to proceed at this point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi again. No, I don't ask you to advice or make a comment, I think I couldn't express myself well. So I am going to ask some questions directly (questions in general):
  1. Since "Wikipedia is not democracy" and that's among our pillars, is it correct to say "6 users against, 7 users in favor, so that's the final decision"?
  2. If there's no consensus on any matter, should we just count the votes?
  3. If no, shouldn't we just take a decision/action back?

As I said, they are just questions in general.--Nanahuatl (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

(random user here who spotted this in recent changes) For question 1, the answer depends. Since WMF projects (not just Wikipedia) work on consensus, not democracy, the whole community needs to be okay with it, or at least around 80% of the community. For question 2, then yes, you do count the votes, however, it still works based on consensus. So for example if there's 5 supports with no reason and just a "Support [username] [time]", but 3 opposes with really good explanation to why, the minority 3 may as well overturn the consensus. For your third question, that depends by wiki, and I'm not sure how it works on trwiki. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 05:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @SHB2000:. Thanks for your response and answers. I personally agree with all, and I support all. Trwiki also says the same things. The thing is, none of the admins are willing to say "we are agreed on there's no consensus between admins" (non-admin users have already, as I mentioned in my first paragraph) and are willing to take the action. That's the issue here :D The decision is being made "only" by counting votes (the number only, not the rationales) and I keep saying the same things over and over again. And there's no way to make an objection becase most of them (except one opposing admin) just ignored my explainations, no responses at all, no answers, nothing... Anyway, the result is "no consensus" basically but no one is taking an action. And me, with half million edits and 90+ good/featured content (I don't know if it's a Wikipedia record but it is for the Trwiki for sure) just waiting an admin to show up hopelessly. I believe in this project and that's why I keep trying and trying.--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
trwiki admins have been in the controversy this week. You might want to have a look at Requests for comment/Why is automatic indefinite blocks allowed on Turkish Wikipedia? (which is a similar controversy with trwiki's block system). SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 07:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@SHB2000:, it's a bot-admin that makes such indefinite blocks for some filters. I have witnessed many mistakes, although, I have no idea how it works or what's the algorithm. I knew that our blocking policy was out of date (never had a big change since its application in 2006-2007) and I personally translated it from the English Wikipedia (well, most of it) with the support of some users and proposed it to our community. Not just that, also created the "banning policy" (we didn't have) and the "disruptive editing" policy (we didn't have either) to be proposed (I have to admit of the personal efforts of two other users in those pages, maybe even more than me, I just made the "groundbreaking" and together we had those texts). A funny note, most of the admins that are involved to my blocking "voting" didn't even make any comment on that policy proposal (I even mentioned on them so we can have their opinions which are important, only 5 of 25 admins shared their opinions).
To solve all of those issues and "make the Turkish Wikipedia again", at this point, I only kindly ask to a steward or some stewards to answer three questions I have asked. Becase it's obvious that there is no consensus between the admins (not the mention that the last 4 comments came in the last 24 hours, or, 4 of them were just inactive for months and became inactive again after they "voted", but that's an inside issue) and none of them is willing to take the responsibility and act. All I need is that someone to encourage them to apply "no consensus" decision, that's all. Not making any pressure, just to say that's normal, and it should be like that, and that's among the pillars of Wikipedia :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Also, it's not a bot admin, but I believe it's the Abuse filter. The filter also thinks me renaming files are considered vandalism.
You could start an RfC if you want about the issues with trwiki, where non stewards and tr admins themselves will have to say something. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 09:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Can be @SHB2000:, I am not really familiar with the bots so I stay away usually make comments on how they or should work :D For the RfC, I have thoght about it, but the thing is, those activities can be (and actualy do!) considered as "trolling" for some Trwiki users (yes, including some admins). And I really don't want to give that image, I just want Trwiki admins to do their responsibility under the policies of Wikipedia, and I don't really take times of the users who are willing to contribute to the encyclopedia during their limited time in here. Already 6 or 7 of our active (really active ones) members declared that they don't want to contribute under these circumstances, and I feel responsible of that. Also feeling reponsible of the time that I made wasted for the Trwiki. Only 1 of the supporting users were actually responded to the community, and another one after the "voting" (i keep saying voting because it is, even though it shouldn't be). Most of the Trwiki admins already ignored me, us (except one message of the blocking admin, only 2 of 25 admins responded what I said, and 1 more after the process, and minus 6 admins who were saying that the action was wrong of course), and there's no reason for not to continue that ignorance. Even right now, I am taking your time and Amanda's time here and I don't really want that.--Nanahuatl (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry about taking our time. We're all volunteers here. We all do this because we're passionate about improving free knowledge around the world, whether it comes to a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a cookbook or a travel guide, whatever it is. I once took a big block of Amanda's time when it came to a bunch of sock accounts last month, but it's for the better of promoting free knowledge. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 09:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the support @SHB2000: (the idea, not me personally). I also believe in this project, I wouldn't spend 12 years for more than half million edits if I weren't. Even as we speak, 4 of the 8 active feature article nominations were started by me (I don't claim the ownership of them obviously :). All I want to contribute to this wonderful project and that's why I try harder and harder. It only makes me upset that my intentions can not be seen and understood.--Nanahuatl (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if there's anything for tr, but from what I know, the Simple English Wikipedia is full of editors who are banned on the English Wikipedia (such as for sockpuppetry, vandalism or some unusual reasons like w:WP:CIR or w:WP:NOTHERE). It's quite clear that there's many who want to positively contribute, but end up getting blocked for really unusual reasons or even just simple mistakes. As an admin on voy, I've been summoned to the English Wikipedia for good faith unblocks (with one unusual reason being blocked for trouting another user) SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 10:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@SHB2000:, the thing is, admins there are not encouraged enough, I believe. The blocking is being used as a punishment rather than to win the user, according to my observations. That's why I fully renovated the blocking policy, so we can all understand the "soul" of blocking and banning. Me myself too, I learnt a lot while I was creating that policy, I literally learnt more about the soul and real purposes of blocking :) And I can't imagine the things that admins can learn and expand their visions, as it happened to me. The biggest problem is when an admin makes a mistake (not telling this one specifically), it's too difficult to take back that action or if they are so much, to warn or have any kind of sanctions against the admin. They can make mistakes, non-admin users can make mistakes, we have to look for good faith and the sake of Wikipedia, that's all.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


AmandaNP I want to delete my account. Please delete my account cause I've blocked on Wikicommons and already I've requested unblock but there are no response please delete my Wikicommons account and I don't want to be on Wikicommons.and I'm also frustrated for this. STATZET (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is not possible for us to delete any account on one project or even globally. Sorry. -- Amanda (she/her) 18:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

AmandaNP As per no response about my Wikicommons block, for an example If I create an another account on Wikicommons can you merge that account to my current Wikicommons account ? STATZET (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is not possible to merge accounts either, but also creating another account to edit commons would be considered sockpuppetry and would get you blocked again, making it harder for your main account to be unblocked. I wouldn't recommend it. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks Amanda for let me know. STATZET (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lock evasion?

Hi AmandaNP, you recently locked User:MastersCard and User:車禍保險下的受害者. I noticed a new account with similar edit behaviour [1], could you take a look at this? --Johannnes89 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ya i'm not sure they are related. I'm going to just leave it for now. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The user has been reported as LTA now [2] – and I wonder if these newly created accounts [3][4] with similar edit behaviour are sockpuppets of the same LTA as well... Johannnes89 (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Locked 5 accounts. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! This might be the next one [5]. Quite an unusual way of trolling. Johannnes89 (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Request for Semi Protection on Usertalkpage on hiwiki

Dear AmandaNP , I hope you're happy in our life , but I am sad because again someone started vandalizing my member talks of my Hindi Wikipedia, I reverted you compiled talks, although I have not been active on Hindi for a long time and my Usertalkpage Permanent semi-protection is needed as I spend most of my time studying. and our Administrator is currently not active, i request you to block that राजवीर ठध from editing on hindi wikipedia or lock globally.Thanks 🙏❣️ Aviram NoSurprisesPlease 08:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear AmandaNP, thank you so much for permanently Semi-Protected my User talkpage and locking Adam Chacko globally. Thanks 🙏.

Aviram NoSurprisesPlease 05:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

From EnWiki

Hello! Wish you good edits! I have a problem with editing on EnWiki. I can't edit any kind of pages except my usertalk. I assume you are able to help me for being unblocked on EnWiki. Because ST47ProxyBot‬ blocked and its also my IP, could you help me at the situation? Thanks anyway! Salazarov 13:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't normally handle these, but given how easy it is to handle, I just gone ahead and looked into it. IPBE has been granted for 1 year. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lock evasion?

Hi AmandaNP, I noticed this edit [6], Special:Contributions/Lss12345 is probably a lock evasion of Special:Contributions/Mz2009 which you locked as a sockpuppet. Johannnes89 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Hi AmandaNP. Sorry for bothering you, but I was just wondering why my request regarding the IP sock of Aydın memmedov2000 was declined? [7]. This user is a notorious LTA, having been globally blocked numerous times. That range just got blocked in the Italian Wikipedia as well [8]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@HistoryofIran: You asked for the entire /16 to be blocked. There is no way the range is that wide. That is a ton of users and would have affected many innocent people, which is why it was declined. itwiki only blocked the single IP. And global blocks affect ALL language Wikipedias. So I would also be blocking a fair chunk of Azerbaijan from editing azwiki. It may be an appropriate block on enwiki, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate global block at the same time. I have blocked at this time globally. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ops, I guess it's getting a bit late here, they did indeed block the IP and not its range, my bad. And thanks for blocking the /21 range globally. Bests. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

Steward requests/Global/2023-w29#Global block for Hopefully this will help. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Help Me 🥺

Dear AmandaNP, Greetings, I'm here to need your help Seriously. For some time I am suffering from extreme stress and mental health, although I have been active on Wikipedia for some time, I want to protect my talk page in Hindi Wikipedia, I want you to semi-protect my talk page on English Wikipedia, so that I don't have to answer excessive IP questions and sometimes they start vandalizing there, and I get sad, I have requested other administrators many times to protect the talk but But they declined it, now I am very upset, what to do, I do not understand? You are also an administrator on English Wikipedia, I hope that you will understand my problem and help me.Kind regards →ÀvîRâm7(talk) 09:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have a few issues with your request. 1) w:WP:FORUMSHOP and coming to meta instead of my enwiki talkpage does not have a good look 2) w:WP:UTPROT is why your requests have been declined 3) If you are experiencing mental health stress due to Wikipedia, you need to take a break. You must always be accountable which means responding to what is put on your talkpage. You don't have to answer every question but you do need to remain responsive. If you are unable to do that, the answer is not to protect your talkpage. Have a good read of this article. -- Amanda (she/her) 09:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

TTS socks

Can you do global blocks for all TTS socks? They literally cross-wiki abuse. Quangkhanhhuynh (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


Couldn't stewards just automatically be pinged for certain requests, or another solution be implemented? Forcing editors to use IRC is not a good solution to this problem. --Ferien (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

(tps) requesters are certainly not being forced to use IRC, they can just hit save again; if they want some fast action against some sort of global disruption happening right now - that is the way to get someone right now. — xaosflux Talk 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
xaosflux, that is definitely not the way the warning is worded. It reads If they are actively editing, please report this on IRC [...] and avoid reporting here. (Bolding mine) It is worded as though I should be using IRC and actively discourages me from reporting onwiki. Yes, the abuse filter is definitely forcing people to use IRC – they can technically hit save again, but that would be ignoring what the abuse filter warning suggests for situations where someone is actively editing. There is a difference between IRC being the quickest venue to reporting an IP – which it unfortunately is right now – and saying you must use it. I don't mind advising users to consider IRC in urgent cases, but saying on-wiki reporting should be avoided for certain types of reports sends a clear message that IRC must be used. --Ferien (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If someone were to take the time to setup an IRC function to ping stewards on an opt-in basis, sure. But then you would also have to have the program automatically check the diff and see if an IP is actually added to be globally blocked. Stewardbot might be able to do it. It would just take time to code, and from the stewards, we are already on high-level backlogs playing damage control, so we simply don't have the man hours, especially in playing the debugging game after it's initially coded.
The reason it is worded the way it is, is simply because after a few hours, anything on the first bullet becomes a waste of time on your side and ours, because I have to decline it for simply being stale. Could I word it a tad differently? Yes, but at the end of the day I'm still going to discourage onwiki reporting for those cases for those reasons, regardless of how I word it.
If the problem is the platform, and something like the discord server would be better, then I'm happy to take it back to the stewards and see if we'd be willing to change the status quo of usually not pinging stewards on discord. -- Amanda (she/her) 07:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Personally I would prefer discord, IRC is many years older than me and I really dislike having to use such outdated technology 😃 Johannnes89 (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Duly noted. I will start that discussion through one of the steward internal communication channels in the morning. -- Amanda (she/her) 07:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Discord server would be an improvement because it is actually fairly easy to setup, but it's still bad that people actually have to go onto off-wiki methods to get a quick response. It's not good for users who cannot or do not want to use these channels, and it's certainly not good for accountability, seeing as no public logging is currently allowed in the stewards IRC channel, and I believe it is a similar case for Discord. I really hope this is a short-term fix rather than a long-term solution. --Ferien (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ferien do you realize that the IRC channel has a web front end, and doesn't require any registration at all? You just click and you are in from a standard browser. this is what it looks like. — xaosflux Talk 17:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Xaosflux, I am aware of the existence of that, but your IP is visible. I did think the stewards channel was one of those channels where unregistered users could not join, but it turns out this is not the case. Either way, it is still way more of a pain for someone who does not actively use IRC, than just adding some text to SRG or clicking some buttons on Twinkle global. --Ferien (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strong agree I haven't used IRC in years because of how insecure it is and you can easily see people's IPs. It took me forever to get my personal cloak. Bobherry (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Considering the clear consensus against this change, it'd be appreciated if the wording was at least changed or even better, the filter disabled, as most users are skipping past it. If anything, it just appears to be discouraging people from making SRG reports. This whole abuse filter creation and essentially the idea of moving SRG IP reporting to IRC (without consulting with the community at all) has just been ridiculous and far from what I expect from a steward. If other stewards happen to have been involved in creating or supporting the creation of this abuse filter, then it'd be good to know so I can also vote for their removal in February, for making the SRG system less open and more difficult to use. --Ferien (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was trying to find the time and energy to write a seasoned reply to this, and I apologize, but the energy it would have taken I haven't had up to yet. Throwing around the weight of dropping me as a steward over this, is low, considering the "consensus" was 2 people on one thread, and 2 people on another. But I don't have the energy to fight this, so you win. But 326 will remain. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
326 I do not have a huge problem with, so that is fine. Thank you. I will note that the reason I so strongly opposed moving to IRC is because no consultation was done with the community (note the 2 people on the other side were stewards already, not people reporting to SRG) for such a major change. If the community actually decided to move to IRC then I wouldn't have had an issue. --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've been hearing a ton over the past year that global RfCs are required to make any sort of change to any sort of process at the stewards level. This is incredibly frustratingly that we can't try and see what works, and we have to file a global RfC each and every time. This has effectively just neutralized my willingness to proceed with the recommendations because of the sheer level of energy that global RfCs use alongside social capital. When the threat of steward removal is included, it just has a chilling effect. Maybe I should just shut down and continue to hammer constantly at SR* pages and let the rest of the wiki figure out how to deal with the crisis that exists for steward tasks. To be 100% clear, this is not directed at you, but at several people who have advised this to me. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I get that, and understand your point. I'm still strongly against the idea of what you were proposing, but honestly forgot the whole process of global RfCs and what a pain they are to make changes to steward systems. On my homewiki, you just start a discussion on a page, wait, it may not even get closed and if it gets enough support or no-one opposes, it goes ahead. It's so much nicer than the RfC system common on both en and meta, where there is too much bureaucracy. I'm going to strike what I said above about steward confirmation, as I forgot that side of things - to clarify, this is not "I'll only vote for you now you've made the decision I wanted", this is I messed up and forgot the bureaucracy of changing things like these with community consultation. --Ferien (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
For clarity, at the end of the day, I would accept your vote as is, either way come February - as feedback. I just took issue with the implication that you would cause a fuss with my steward role when I'm reasonably willing to have a discussion about it like always. Granted a delayed discussion because #mentalhealth, but still a discussion. I am still willing to have that discussion, just need some time to find the energy and make points about what is going on surrounding this. I would appreciate it greatly if you watched this section and I will try and post something in the next couple of days so we can work togeather towards a solution. I'd rather have a mutual discussion on this instead of this adversarial thread. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agree I hate this filter. If anything it makes fighting crosswiki antivandalism harder. I know of several people brute forcing it to bypass it. Bobherry (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bobherry: It's already been disabled as per my comments. If you want to go ahead and vote for my removal in February also, be my guest. And since I'm also a GC, I'll have to put that hat on and say I don't know when you got your cloak done, but the process has significantly improved, as we now have active GCs. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ah I see. I got my cloak like 5-6 years ago so I wasn't sure of the new process fully. Thank you. Bobherry (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
This cause burdens for reporting IPs using twinkle global, they are disallowed, though you can report them manually. I've kindly talked to Xiplus to fix this issue. Lemonaka (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Lemonaka: I already turned off the filter 325 coming up on 5 days ago as written in the discussion above. You have not hit it in that time. I'm unsure what else you are looking to have done? -- Amanda (she/her) 04:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Opps, sorry. Lemonaka (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

FaWiki IRC Channel

Hey Amanda, sorry to bother you here. Apparently, #wikipedia-fa is not registered on Libera, and doesn't have any local ops. I guess only Wikimedia GCs can register channels on the #wikipedia-* namespace. What should I do? Thanks! Arian Talk 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

So the issue is not that you can't register it, it's the fact that someone joined it, got the default ops, but didn't register the channel, and not everyone left. I don't have the ability to register or clear the channel either. @Stwalkerster: for advice as Libera staff. -- Amanda (she/her) 12:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AmandaNP you can register it using your GC powers - no need for staff intervention here. (hint: /cs help claim) stwalkerster (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
And this is why I shouldn't do anything before 10am...I knew how to do that...@Arian: I have given you permissions. -- Amanda (she/her) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Please check Silver Racer Miguel with MET 2012, Karolacced, 777纸模型 香港钟塔 摩天楼建筑模型, Kmart Silver Racer Miguel, Quick7168, 朱薇 sleepers, also, please see [9].--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 01:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply