Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP/Archive 4

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 6 months ago by AmandaNP in topic ticket querey
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Question

Where should I go if I wanted to lock an account? I don't want to lock this account; I'd like to lock some other accounts that I used for other Wikimedia projects. However, I would like to stick to one account now. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

We don't usually lock accounts upon request. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why not? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It prevents logging in if you ever want any of the back, plus, it's not within the spirit of the locking procedure. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Alright, fine. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cross-wiki persecution

Hi.

Please, block globally Special:CentralAuth/Куявіус, and hide his attacks on me in EnWiki. --Mykola7 (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ergoldinka

Hi! I'm russian admin. My question about Special:CentralAuth/Ergoldinka. She did not do anything except wikification (this is our typical assignment for beginners). She is not a bot, and there are not any spam in her contribution. Lesless (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Global userpage

Is there a way I can have a global userpage? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CheatCodes4ever: You have a global user page  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Request

Hello, AmandaNP. Could you please delete this (User:Kadıköylü/global.js)? The code is not correct. Kind regards.--Kadıköylü (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cross-wiki problem with this user

I need a behavioral evidence for Thrakkx (talk · contribs) on multiple cross-wiki issues. Our investigation is ongoing by concerning for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, edit warring, harassment, and repeatedly uploading fair use material. For example, Thrakkx abused Creepershark77 recently on Wikipedia, in addition (which had previously added by ToBeFree) of abusive comment by comparing these multiple diffs as a result for reverting and again from this time.

Our evidence

Disruptive behavioral edits on Wikipedia
Also in abuse log that matches diffs
Recently suspected used IP addresses (while logging out)

guc)

guc)

Some deleted files on Commons (marked intended as copyvio)

--XcaptainStrong (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve by bringing this to me, as each community should look into these individually. That said, I'm also not going to take any action from a brand new account that won't even register on the wiki they are complaining about. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
But if is disruptive, what if this user regarding the abuse of Creepershark77's talk page by reverting two times before ([2][3]) on Wikipedia, should be reported this behavioral evidence via en:COM:ANI? Also included in abuse filter (see above). XcaptainStrong (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adminright

Hallo Amanda, Ich habe Sie nicht verstanden, warum Sie mich blockiert haben. Ich habe kein socken. Ich bin seit Jahren ehrlich mein Beitrag für die mongolische Wikipedia geleistet. Und weiterhin mein Beitrag leisten wollen. Ich habe nicht falsches getan. Wie ich sehe, habe ich ein pro, ein contra für mein Adminwahl. Sie haben dabei mich gesperrt. Ich vesrtehe sie nicht. Da sie mich gesperrt haben, können Sie auch alle meine Beiträge auch löschen. Vielen dank. Munkhzaya.E (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC).Reply

CheckUser proves you were socking, again. That is why I blocked you and 3 other accounts and cancelled your SRP. -- Amanda (she/her) 10:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Admin renewal

Hi sorry to trouble you, I'm just curious my admin rights was supposed to be renewed yesterday as you can see my request here I was waiting the whole day yesterday but nothing happened, I'm messaging you as I think stewards ain't noticing that but I'm not sure why it is not done yet or is it waiting for a steward who kept it on hold ? RebelAgent 🇧🇼 11:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please Help Me Sir!

Dear AmandaNP, adam chacko is now back as आनंदजी संगीतकार , but he abuses other user Mother , who edits on अलका नूपुर and he started edit wars against and against and revert other users edit, specially my and also abuses my mom.😭 i Request to you please fully protect अलका नूपुर due to Persistent edit wars, in hiwiki admin are semi active not fully active, we have no right.Thanks 😔 → αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])13:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

First, stop calling me sir. It's absolutely inappropriate for you to be calling me that. I have locked the user, but please ask your local admin संजीव कुमार about protecting the page. Also, for cases in the future, either Global Sysop Requests or Steward lock requests are the proper places for this to be handled, as I can't always get to these in a timely manner as with this time because I was sick. -- Amanda (she/her) 14:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

HELP

Greetings @AmandaNP How are you? I need help here. Since the candidate does not respond anymore to the discussion there. I would like that request to be marked as "not done" or "done" according to your decision as a steward. It has been almost 3 months now and the candidate is not responding. I was the user who nominated them for admin because I saw good in them on my wiki (and they still are (good/helpful)), but since they don't respond anymore, can you mark it either as done or not. Regards Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why have you globally banned PlanespotterA320?

Good day! Why have you blocked PlanespotterA320 globally? The explanation you've provided for your action reads "Lock evasion: User:RespectCE". However, PlanespotterA320 is her main account, not a sock. Second, in a recent meta discussion, no consensus was reached to globally lock her. In fact, most people voted against blocking her. She has admin rights on uzwiki and has been making constructive edits there. Thus, it's no wonder that no member of our small community supported Lemonaka's frantic calls to get her globally banned desysop her. We really wouldn't like to lose active editors because of their actions on other wikis. Nataev talk 05:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would think that I would need to ask the same thing. There has never been a clear rule that socks are not allowed, that is solely a by-wiki rule. Global locks is fairly clear, and it precisely points to the community action approach of global bans for due process locks. If there is a global ban decision, I think it entirely inappropriate for a steward to act in such a unilateral and authoritarian means. It is not a stewards job to act against the wishes of the community per the ban discussion at Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320; please reverse your global lock and follow due process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Billinghurst, please do not assume bad faith here. Though I believe that a better lock reason should have been used (and perhaps a statement made about this and sent to relevant communities), this lock was necessary to prevent the continuance of cross-wiki abuse and harassment. Stewards make locks of this sort all the time, often in cases that involve non-public information. I do not believe it would be acceptable for stewards to unlock the account, given the extent and nature of abuse.
I will also note that the global ban RfC was opened without following the required procedures and was literally three sentences, providing minimal information about the extent of abuse. All but one oppose is in response to the lack of evidence provided or to the nominator personally. It is not accurate in the slightest to state that it constitutes some sort of community consensus to exempt PlanespotterA320 from enforcement actions.
Though locks for this reasoning are not uncommon, they rarely occur with users who are blocked on multiple projects, have socks locked for xwa, and are somehow still a local admin somewhere. This is a very unique case. Amanda, and other stewards familiar with this case, are aware of the concerns raised here and Amanda said she'll respond when she can. I've also been discussing with other stews the possibility of writing some sort of description for this action that can provide more information as to why a lock was considered necessary. Best, Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 01:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vermont: I am not making any accusation of bad faith, I am showing a lack of due process as viewed from the community, those of us elected you to perform the duties of stewards. I think that you need to reread some of the specific comments that I made about unilateral actions and due process. All that is evident is the lock reason and in my considered opinion, what is there is inadequate explanation for someone who has 300k edits through the system. [I don't need to be informed of stewardry procedures, BTDT, and what they can do, how they do it, and I can also point you to their excesses.] Stewards need to be the epitome of best practice, not lowest practice. So if there has been a discussion among stewards about the actions of a user, then it can say "account locked for problematic sock activity, discussed and agreed by stewards in private forum" or something demonstrates not unilateral, and due process.

It is right that profiled users should question and politely challenge stewards in their actions and decisions where they are seen to be insufficient and that is done their user pages, especially not relying on a unilateral "trust me". I would have preferred that stewards held each other accountable, and AmandaNP could say something in this case that something better can be done. However, that has not occurred and you have sprung to someone's defence, so we are where we are. Stewards should not be hiding behind the power of their rights; they should to answer for their actions where they are seen as unilateral and without due process. Be accountable. Be open. Show best practice. Elevate yourself, show yourselves worthy of the high rights you have been granted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's a few important points here...first, my comment explicitly recognized that the lock reason was lacking. Specific information about the reasoning of the lock should have been provided in the summary, possibly noting that it involves non-public evidence. I understand that this is the only piece of information that is evident publicly, and I understand the expectation of maximum possible transparency from stewards. Communication in this case was not great.
Second, your definition of accountability here is very selective and not useful. I stated that I was aware of the action and relevant evidence, and that I concurred with Amanda that it was necessary, but that the lock summary should be more descriptive. This review is holding other stewards accountable. If you wanted me to come here and call Amanda's actions "authoritarian" as you did (which is where I intuited the bad faith accusations from), despite my endorsement of the lock, that would be lying and I'm not going to do that. Accountability is not opposition for the sake of opposition, it is open review and discussion of others' actions.
Unfortunately, in cases that involve non-public information, by necessity those reviews and discussions occur privately. As you note, you've been a steward, and know how this works. I agree that more could and should have been done to make that clear, especially considering the standing of this user as an admin on a project. I appreciate the concerns you've raised here. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 02:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Billinghurst, forgot ping ^. Also noting that we have a stewards meeting soon, and I'll be bringing this up. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 02:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vermont: Please read the whole paragraph and read words in the context of their expression. When referencing the "if" of a global ban decision of a sysop with 300k edits, using traditional definition 1 of wikt:authoritarian is not saying that an action is bad faith when we are talking the action of a steward where there is no ability to appeal. That is the action of an authority. If I wanted to say bad faith I would have said so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Nataev, I haven't supported banning PlanespotterA320 globally, what are you talking about? I'm supporting an RFDA instead of GB on your community, because sockpuppetry is a kind of losing trust. Could you make it clear? Second, the RFC was closed speedily for not fulfilling the requirements and poorly formatting. Lemonaka (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, sorry, you proposed we desysop her (and went on to bludgeon the discussion). I've revised what I wrote above. P.S. You really should find a better translator. А то «Меня тебя не понимать». Nataev talk 03:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, just so you're aware, AmandaNP is busy with some important real-life issues currently but has asked me to respond on her behalf — AmandaNP would like to note that she wouldn't object to any steward unlocking the account, and will respond to the above comments and concerns at her earliest convenience — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
As this is a really unusual case, I suggest to open another formal global ban request. GZWDer (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
As an update, after discussion among stewards I’ve unlocked User:PlanespotterA320. This situation is best handled in a (properly formatted) global ban request. Best, Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 20:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, sorry for the long delay in replying. It's been a difficult time. So when I made the lock initially, I was completely unaware that a global ban discussion had been attempted, even if it wasn't proper. Also, usually when one account is locked, all other sockpuppets are known to be locked. Also I had access to an email where this user was blocked on a wiki and had sent a harassing (I use that term very broadly here) email to another user. Email abuse + socking + previous lock in my head is what got me to lock the account. I hope this explains things. -- Amanda (she/her) 18:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
RespectCE was locked because it was my sock. This account is my ORIGINAL not a sock. It is not standard to lock original accounts sans discussion just because a sock was blocked for being a sock. There are many editors whose main accounts are not globally blocked who have blocked socks (even a former admin of ruwiki who used their sock to ask that I be punished for tagging copyright problems of Russian photos). I am in a bit of a difficult situation here and have tried to get other users to understand that, but I never intended to harass anyone. (If anyone is harassing, it's the folks who wished air raids on me for tagging copyright issues in Ukraine photos and have been giving me a lot of flak for my mistake of writing on Crimea). I don't know whats going on here but my original account here has never engaged in ban evasion, I was NEVER banned in Uzbek Wikipedia or other projects that I edit. (And you're probably aware of the very questionable nature of my ruwiki ban since the official pretense was my use of the word chauvanist, or more specifically, "chauvanist behaviors" [deemed to be "insulting colleagues"] in the context of highly concerning edits to content about a disliked minority) that people were demanding a ban of me for raising an RfC about it that Vermont closed despite uninvolved users from outside ruwiki agreeing that there was indeed a problem and ruwiki editors clear refusal to acknowledge any problem (instead just making personal attacks on me).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please Help me

Hi! Amanda (she/her) if you look at my contribution first, you won't see anything that would cause any blocking! look here, PirjanovNurlan without any reason, my candidacy for admin was removed. look here Why does the bureaucrat protect the election page? because people will vote for me. (Рахман3 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC))Reply

If you think your opinion is correct, delete the 447 articles I've posted so far! I agree! I'd rather not contribute anything to Wikipedia than see a day like this! (Рахман3 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC))Reply

I await your reply (Рахман3 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
It's about 2am here, I am in bed, and going to sleep. I will reply on SRP in the morning. -- Amanda (she/her) 07:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sorry for bothering you, I’m talking about the Рахман3 participant. I still can’t understand why the conflict came out, I’m also a member of the Karakalpak Wikipedia, I also participate in the administrator’s elections, I recently put myself on the candidacy, if you don’t mind, look. The answer will be positive, How will we solve this issue with unlocking. QRNKS (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. Do you mean that you also tried to become an administrator recently and got removed? Can you provide me links/evidence of what you are talking about? (CC: @BRPever:) -- Amanda (she/her) 19:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ms. Amanda, I will give another proof, Pirzhanov Nurlan blocked another admin with me, but after 1 hour he unblocked saying "you are needed", what does this mean? (Рахман3 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
When you are mentioning evidence, you need to provide a link with it. I assume you are talking about the unblocking of Inosham? They unblocked a user that blocked themselves. I'm not sure I see the problem in that. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I see the problem you need! Do I need it for admin to block it, or is it correct to block it by deciding I don't need it? Don't you have to show the Wikipedia rules first to get blocked? Or is it according to the rules of Wikipedia to say that it is necessary and that it is not necessary? (Рахман3 (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
None of this is my opinion. You are making assumptions about what I think. Unblocking someone who blocked themselves (for whatever reason) is not a problematic thing. When it comes to your block, I still don't know why you were blocked. Now it is late here, my next reply likely won't be for a good while. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Inosham didn't block himself, Nurlan blocked him. (Рахман3 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
As a reason for blocking me, he wrote the following words, which have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. For actions against the development of Karakalpak Wikipedia in social networks... (Рахман3 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
If you don't believe me, you can change the For actions against the development of Karakalpak Wikipedia in social networks words I showed from English to Uzbek, and then you can check it by turning Uzbek to Karakalpak through the site. Рахман3 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Inosham blocked themselves. Nurlan unblock (as in removed the block). -- Amanda (she/her) 05:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is the reason for blocking me justified? (Рахман3 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
I suggest you stop this. Amanda has already made it clear that she doesn't know why you were blocked. You are being impatient and unreasonable here and we won't be able to have a constructive discussion like this. Just wait for people to comment on the RFC. @QRNKS You can also make comments on the RFC page. BRP ever 07:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
BRP Which of my words are unreasonable? (Рахман3 (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC))Reply
Delete all my articles. I am disgusted to be on this unfair site. Delete my account.🙏 Рахман3 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok QRNKS (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Amanda (she/her) Good afternoon. I am about to unblock,after you verify my request I can unblock Рахман3, for now I am a simple member. There is a discussion going on now. QRNKS (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you, you're busy, it may not take long to delete, I'm talking about the administrator's choice of how long it will take to confirm, based on 3 upvotes, 1 upvote. discussion. QRNKS (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

One question

Hello and excuse me,

When you blocked 213.87.128.0/19, did you really mean to block it for 2 years? Vcohen (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Vcohen: Hi, I saw the ping on the Russian wikipedia about this also, if you could please translate a reply for me.
Yes, I did mean to block this range for 2 years. The reason is spambots have taken over a wide amount of IPs on this range. Over the past few days I have locked 578 accounts that have been active in the past 3 months from this range. Beyond that, the checkuser log for loginwiki indicates this range is responsible for over 31 uses of checkuser on that range due to spambots dating back to 2020. So if we extrapolate that thought, we are looking at likely 4000 abusive accounts since the start of last year alone. I expect that is a lowball figure too. -- Amanda (she/her) 06:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Which reply are you asking to translate? Vcohen (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just my reply here onto the Russian technical forum. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Retour de Craqdi

Bonjour, Il y a quelques mois, en avril, je vous avais écrit à propos d'un utilisateur/trice qui adore s'insérer dans les articles : Craqdi [4]. J'ai trouvé qu'elle refesait des siennes. J'ai trouvé ces pseudos :

Serait-il svp possible d'y jeter un œil, svp ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@CoffeeEngineer: J'ai verrouillé beaucoup plus de comptes que prévu. J'espère que les choses vont se calmer pendant un certain temps, mais faites-moi savoir s'il y en a d'autres. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Merci pour votre aide.
Est-ce qu'il serait aussi possible de vérifier pour :
ça me parait suspect qu'il upload une image sur Saudomita.jpg File:Saudomita.jpg juste après que l'image originale soit supprimée. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oui, c'est Craqdi. Verrouillé. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ca m'a l'air risqué, mais pourrait-on aussi vérifier si Malvinero10 ne s'est pas fait hacker, svp ? Sa modification [5] ne m'a pas l'air très catholique. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Excusez-moi? Vous voulez que je vérifie Malvinero10 parce que son édition n'est pas assez catholique?
Je n'aurais aucun problème à vérifier "Wiki stays" de l'édition intermédiaire, mais ils sont obsolètes. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi Craqdi apparait sur une modification mal mise en forme, ce que je trouve suspect de la part d'un utilisateur expérimenté. Si ce n'est pas possible de vérifier, ce n'est pas grave. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think it is because you have the wrong link. See this one instead. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is this one indeed, from the user Wiki stays. Sorry for the confusion. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Bonjour, J'ai encore trouvé des modifications de ce troll par ces comptes :
Et Wiki stays n'est pas bloqué. Serait-il possible de le faire, svp ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, to exhausted to think in French tonight. They are all stale for the purposes of checkuser. Should they come back and I get data, i'd be happy to lock, but otherwise it isn't worth it, especially if I turn out to be wrong in the determination. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reaching you to talk

Hi @AmandaNP, thanks for your interest to participate in Talking: 2024. Maryana Iskander is keen to connect with you and the Stewards as a key priority for the Foundation. Please message me directly so I can have emails for call participants. Thank you. -MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requesting to be unblocked.

Recently you (AmandaNP) manually blocked me supposedly because I tried to edit from a blocked IP range. However I am now unable to edit from any IP. So feel free to block any unapproved IP but I don't want to be blocked from editing Wikepdia. Right now I am partially unable to edit Wikipedia, particularly VisualEdit and WikEd are totally invisible to me. This even though I have stopped using the blocked IPv6 IP range. In fact I even blocked my computer from using ANY IPv6. Yet I am still blocked by Wikipedia from editing. Even using a totally different laptop (that never had the same IP and vpn software that caused the original problem) I am still blocked from editing. Please lift it. Thanks in advance. Loginnigol (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Loginnigol: You haven't given me any information about your block, so my hands are tied to investigate this unless you want me to just checkuser your account. As suggested on your English Wikipedia talkpage, UTRS is usually the method used for this. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do that if that's what is needed to sort this out (UTRS). Tell me what (exactly) I should do if I can help from my end.
Because for me this whole thing is rather very odd. I am not totally blocked from editing Wikipedia by all means, but only from editing in certain ways, using certain methods. I have no idea what to make of it. I came to you because I was notified by Wikipedia (en) that you blocked me. It was a square pop up message that showed at the top right corner of the browser as soon as I hit the Wikipedia edit button, notifying me you have manually blocked me or my account or my whatever. Then it also mentioned a couple of IP ranges (IPV6 type IPs) that I used as the reason for my block. That IPV6 led me to conclude that a VPN type software I use is the source of of the conflict (the software connects me by default to IPV6 IP ranges that are evidently on the blocked list from Wikipedia editing point of view. Normally (before all this problem started at the beginning of this month) what I did is disable that app in order to proceed editing Wikipedia. That worked fine for years. But not any more. Now the problem shows up even in a computer that never had that software installed. So I am blocked in some way from user-account point of view but like I said the blockade is not a total blockade from editing by any means (in that case a different huge page-wide pop up will show up that tells me that I am unable to edit at all. My problem is different from that.
So I don't even know how to reproduce this pop up message that is now gone (I didn't save it). But I already noticed something was up before (all is happening within this month) because I was and still am not able to use WikEd gadget that I have enabled. That was the first problem that I noticed. WikEd's editing panels just didn't show up at all. Then after a short while Wikipedia's default edit mechanism (visualEdit) also began to be restrictive. Like within the last week or 10 days so. None of the pull down menus can be pulled down. It seems step by step my editing abilities are being progressively cut down with no explanation whatsoever other than this one time pop up I noticed involving you. In my talk page (all the way down) I indeed put up an "unblock" request but the Wikipedia admins reacted (and thereby confirmed) that (1) I am indeed blocked, and (2) that it involves you. So here I am. So please do whatever you have to do to get to the bottom of it. I'm not an IT expert so all it seems to me from this end is that my account (or editing gadgets that I have turned on in preferences) are constantly associating me with IP ranges that are blocked for editing and therefore triggering edit-restricted interface to show up in my browsers whenever I am on wikipedia.org. So the solution seems to be to disentangle me from any possible "saved" IPs that Wikipedia thinks are mine. The only IPs that are validly mine are the ones that I am connected to at that moment. For example right now 147.161.149.70 on IPV4. Loginnigol (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Loginnigol: Yes, I need the IPs that you are on when you are blocked on them. The IP you listed is coming back to Zscaler, a colocation provider, which is normally blocked due to hiding the actual IP of users. This I have left alone though because it's usually corporate and normal users can't get access to it. But i'll let you know Zscaler is not a natural IP to be editing from home. -- Amanda (she/her) 13:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well yes sometimes I edit wikipedia from my work computer (which seems to have Zscaler) but I also edit from my personal computer and I just checked and it's IP rightnow is 109.132.247.200. Is that co-location problem too? Loginnigol (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
No that IP is perfect IP to be editing off of, that one should not and is not blocked by default. -- Amanda (she/her) 17:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
But it is blocked. I couldn't edit Wikipedia with that either (neither via the default Wikipedia article editor you access via "Edit" link (visualEdit) nor by the source editing gadget WikEd. And right now I just checked and I still can't edit either (currently via 88.82.32.189). IPs change but the nature of the problem doesn't change at all. That unambiguously means my account is restricted. There is no other interpretation possible. Loginnigol (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
None of the IPs you have listed are blocked (and you can check at w:Special:BlockList, and your account is not blocked globally or on enwiki. The only other possible explanation is XFF. I would have to dive in to checkuser to look at that possibility. Are you ok with that? -- Amanda (she/her) 18:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes I'm ok with that.
Again to reiterate, I am not totally banned from editing by all means available. I could always login and edit Wikipedia via basic bare-bones source editing. Problem is since this month I can no longer use the default editing link "Edit" (visual edit) nor deploy WikEd tool via "Edit source". Maybe Wikipedia is not restricting my account but my devices? Loginnigol (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
We don't have the ability to block individual devices or parts of programs within the wiki. The only thing I can think of is possibly a cookie block. Your recent use of w:AWS may have activated it, though also the use of an Opera mini proxy also would not help. I'll ping @AntiCompositeNumber: who is more aware of the cookie blocks, but I'm a little stumped without seeing a direct block message. -- Amanda (she/her) 18:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please do that. And how does that person interact with me? Loginnigol (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have mentioned them directly. When they have a moment, they will reply here. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Solved! I got to the bottom of the issue. It involves a conflict between editing gadgets and the so-called "skin" of Wikipedia. Apparently WikEd conflicts with the default Vector 2022 skin. So I switched to Vector legacy (2010) and the editor interface appeared. A workaround rather than a solution but it will do. I can't complain about a volunteer software. Thanks for your efforts Amanda. Loginnigol (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ahh ok, I have no experience with it, so no clue. Glad you figured it out :) -- Amanda (she/her) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Craqdi, ter

Hello AmandaNP,

I am quite sure Política Community, Nature Language, Blujman, Azealia Amanda Banks La dominanta, Style Here, Oulalawi, Global-Cats, Rockepedias, JapanBrunette, Belmonde Ruth, Qienoo and L964z are Craqdi. Is it the case ? Also, I found a mention of Craqdi in Beta-Cluster, I am not sure what it is. Is it related to Wikimedia [6] ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I opened https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Puxunito_again
Done -- Amanda (she/her) 05:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Request

Please check this, report long time ago.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Working on figuring out the last done. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
駱馬鬥劇 refer to Yi Yiu, Yi Yiu have been globally locked by LTA, also, this user only seven edits in this project, but refer to Yi Yiu.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add Zoooooomm (talk · contribs), also, you will lock 駱馬鬥劇?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 13:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
All locked. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add Sorcerex on9 (talk · contribs), Sorcerex go to suicide (talk · contribs), Sloanplopion (talk · contribs), Stu Acti (talk · contribs), 梁善知 (talk · contribs), also please check their sleepers and block IP(range)(s) when he or she used to create account too.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Decline

may I have a reason for this decline? Chapter49493 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chapter49493: Sure. When it comes to actual lock evasion, I (and the collective we as stewards I think) don't count impersonation locks towards whether we lock every other single sock of the person because they are just one account locks by default. So that leaves you down to the LTA claim - we only lock LTAs when there are crosswiki issues. Right now Chaseline isn't confirmed to any other account and solely operating on enwiki. As you can see our page is full of requests to begin with and we don't need to go locking down every single sock of every single sockmaster, every single time we see them. It's additional work with little return. I hope that gives you an idea into the thinking behind it. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok. So I assume that means no lock for Empire AS either. --Chapter49493 (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chapter49493: I find it interesting that someone with 30 global edits is here interested in global blocks. That sounds like the wrong type of contribution to the global education scope of Wikimedia. It makes me think that there is some previous experience at Wikimedia around sockpuppetry and that is undeclared. Can I suggest that editing according to the scope of the wikis may be a greater achievement than the pool where you are currently paddling.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

#wikimedia-privacy and #wikimedia-checkuser

Hi,

Can you kindly add me to these two IRC channels as nickname fr33kman?

Thank you,

fr33kman 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done -- Amanda (she/her) 08:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. fr33kman 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

ticket querey

Hi AmandaNP, please see the ticket referenced here for a question. — xaosflux Talk 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Xaosflux: commented, please advise if you need more. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply