This is anarchive of past discussions.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Latest comment:4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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
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
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi sorry to trouble you, I'm just curious my admin rights was supposed to be renewed yesterday as you can see my requesthere 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!
Latest comment:3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear AmandaNP, adam chacko is now back asआनंदजी संगीतकार , but he abuses other user Mother , who edits onअलका 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 protectअलका 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, eitherGlobal Sysop Requests orSteward 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
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings @AmandaNPHow are you?I need helphere.Since the candidate does not respond anymore to the discussion there. I would like that request to bemarked 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. RegardsTumbuka Arch (talk)10:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why have you globally banned PlanespotterA320?
Latest comment:3 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
Good day! Why have you blocked PlanespotterA320 globally? The explanation you've provided for your action reads "Lock evasion:User:RespectCE". However, PlanespotterA320 is hermainaccount, not a sock. Second, in a recent meta discussion,no consensus was reached to globally lock her. In fact, most people votedagainst blocking her. She has admin rights on uzwiki and has been makingconstructive edits there. Thus, it's no wonder that no member of our small communitysupportedLemonaka's frantic calls toget her globally banned desysop her. We really wouldn't like to lose active editors because of their actions on other wikis.Nataevtalk05:10, 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 ofglobal 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 astewards job to act against the wishes of the community per the ban discussion atRequests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320; please reverse your global lock and follow due process. —billinghurstsDrewth10:38, 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 ofstewards. 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 thelock 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. —billinghurstsDrewth11:38, 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 reviewis 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
@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 ofwikt: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. —billinghurstsDrewth10:13, 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».Nataevtalk03:40, 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 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 lockoriginal 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
Latest comment:3 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion
Hi! Amanda (she/her) if youlook 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 447articles 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
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, youneed to provide a link with it. I assume you are talking about the unblocking ofInosham? 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
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 thesite.Рахман3 (talk)04:54, 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 theRFC. @QRNKS You can also make comments on the RFC page.BRP ever07:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@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
Latest comment:2 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
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 :
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
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
Latest comment:2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi @AmandaNP, thanks for your interest to participate inTalking: 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.
Latest comment:2 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion
Recently you (AmandaNP) manually blocked me supposedly because I tried to edit from a blocked IP range. However I am now unable to edit fromanyIP. 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
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 changeat 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 atw: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 ofw: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
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
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.--#07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MCC214: Please use the steward request pages for community requests, likeSRG. It is not that appropriate that they are hidden away on stewards' user talk pages where the community cannot easily see them. Thanks. —billinghurstsDrewth02:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Decline
Latest comment:2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@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
@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. —billinghurstsDrewth00:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
#wikimedia-privacy and #wikimedia-checkuser
Latest comment:2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Can you kindly add me to these two IRC channels as nickname fr33kman?
Latest comment:1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Amanda. I had a question regardingSteward clerks § Role and responsibilities; it states that"Each ticket must be reviewed by a steward prior to being sent to the proxy queue". Do clerks automatically have access to the stewards' VRTS tickets or do they have to be referred to the clerks by a steward as well?Sdrqaz (talk)03:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sdrqaz the steward clerks only have access to one sub-queuestewards::stewards-proxy; when tickets come in (to the main stewards queue) we stewards first triage and sort them, tickets about proxy issues are sorted there where the clerks can work on them. —xaosfluxTalk05:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't unilaterally unblock this, as it faces as a proxy. I'd be happy to consider an appeal/exemption request via UTRS as mentioned in the above thread. This is also iCloud Private relay, so all they have to do is turn the iPhone proxy feature off. --Amanda (she/her)19:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm annoyed by an IP block and want an exemption
Latest comment:1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I am part of an IP address that has been blocked by you because of an "open proxy" which I did not set up. this is annoying to me because I don't know my IP because my block message and other source tell me something different but none of them seem be blocked which means I can't really appeal it or ask for an exemption the normal way, (believe me I've tried) and this sucks because I want to contribute to English Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons but I can't. even before this I struggled to contribute because I had two IP's or something (I really don't know what any of this means) and only one was blocked. so if possible I would like you to give me a block exemption (or even unblock my IP).PharaohCrab (talk)19:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have now tried again after a few day because it thought I was spamming and I specifically chose "Global blocks/locks" but it automatically changed it back to English Wikipedia, I tried to edit the detail but it once agian automatically changed to English Wikipedia.PharaohCrab (talk)16:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The appeal was filed under the wrong IP, so you had a ticket, but it kept expiring because of using the wrong IP. That actually helped me figure out though a bit about what is going on. I suspect that you are using this at a "work" or shared IP location without giving out too much data which is filtering everything through a VPN. Since you seem to hit this heavily, I'll issue you a block exemption. --Amanda (she/her)21:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Amanda, this is not an open proxy, it's a german university in Munich.[7]The block causes problems regarding editing from there. I was thinking about local whitelisting on dewiki, but if it's not an OP, thats not needed. Please unblock the range globally.TenWhile617:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
ACC Tool Account
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I recently created a tool account at the account creation interface. I would appreciate if you could review my tool account. In case you choose to decline it, please give me some feedback on what areas I am lacking, and what can I improve. Thanks for your time and happy holidays!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
ACC Tool Account
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Join us for “Many Tongues, One Movement: Voices Across Languages”!
Latest comment:3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello AmandaNP/Archive 4,
We’re excited to invite you to an inspiring global virtual gathering: the first Capacity ExchangeTranslat-a-thon.
Together withLanguage Diversity Hub, theCapacity Exchange (CapX) team will host its first Translation Marathon dedicated to ensuring linguistic equity in access to this amazing tool aimed to connect Wikimedians. If you enjoy contributing to Wikimedia projects through translating and adapting content into different languages, this event is for you! Join us in the celebration of themultilingual spirit of the Wikimedia Movement at an event where communities that contribute in diverse languages will be able to share local knowledge and collaborate across borders. Many Tongues, One Movement: Voices Across Languages
Date: December 6, 2025
Time: 12 PM (UTC) - Check the event page for your local timezone
If you can’t join the live event, you can still contribute to the translations! Edits will be counted for two weeks, until December 20th. And everyone who participates will receive a special badge to display on their CapX profiles.
Strengthen your collaboration through CapX
We invite you and your community to join theCapacity Exchange (CapX), a Wikimedia community-built platform for connecting, collaborating, and exchanging skills with peers across the movement.
CapX helps Wikimedians and organizations find each other, share expertise, and build stronger, more connected communities.
Whether you’re an individual contributor, a user group, a community initiative or an affiliate, CapX helps you grow through knowledge exchange.
If your community, usergroup or affiliate would like to have a CapX organization profile, please reach out atcapx@wmnobrasil.org, and we’d be delighted to support you.
αѵίɾαʍ7([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])←13:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
