User talk:AmandaNP/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

You've got a mail

NOTE: Email is from account 레비. — regards, Revi 09:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations for stewardship

Hello, AmandaNP. Although I couldn't vote for full support, congratulations because you have been elected a steward by Wikimedia community. :) I hope you will do good job. Regards. --Uncitoyen^talk 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on being elected as a Steward! All the best! JavaHurricane 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Woop woop

This is so welcome on any levels. Best of luck and thanks for sticking up your hand. See you round the traps.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ombuds Commission inactivity

Not sure if you saw this but I thought I'd mention since you were quoted.

Congratulations, by the way! Rschen7754 19:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes I have seen, just haven't been at my best to sit down and think extremely high level. I'll likely stop by next week. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got a mail!

MarioJump83! 01:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have yet to get your email today. I'm exhausted right now and will still need time to process it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

North korea

Hi could you please delete scn:North koreaand scn:non? This is vandalism.--Eru Rōraito (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't translate North Korea well, so you might have a better chance at SRM. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Missmac302

Hi again. Re this edit, User:Missmac302 needs to declare their paid editor status on every project they wish to edit in order to comply with Foundation:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, except those listed at Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 14:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That is the Foundation's Terms of Use, not the community's. It is their job to enforce it. It is not a reason listed on Global locks and I will not take action outside of community policy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably vote-stacking is reshown on szywiki

Fyi, on szy:Wikipitiya:Request for adminship, two  Confirmed group of user accounts are still voting together for their two RFAs, I've heard that after that SRCU request that had past some months, we didn't blocked, nor global locked their sock accounts. I warned one of them but still nothing helps on refrain them from doing so, now what to do? Just file a SRG or start a global RFC on judging their more behaviors? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: ? Is there any matter from your part on not able to make any responds? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I did issue some local blocks just the other day. SRG would not be the place to handle this situation right now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

reason for blocked account

This is regarding the globally blocked account "cure wish tarun".

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Cure_wish_tarun

I have no connection with that account, but I am asking because I want to avoid the mistakes done by the user. I can see only 8 minor edits made by the user on hindi wikipedia. Is that the reason for global block? Shantanuo (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

They were spamming a link to an external site of theirs. That's why they got locked. -- Amanda (she/her) 14:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Re global block for Animal-Jumping-2

Hello. Are you able to provide more information on Animal-Jumping's other locked accounts (number/list of socks)? They were engaging in anti-vandalism work, and I have been approached by members of the yuewiki community concerned about the lock. H78c67c (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@H78c67c: It was a result of many accounts. A sample list is located below and does not include them all:

• 冇看廢鹽
• Pie314159265358979323846pie
• S1769287122221304S
• Enjoyc
• S2212022
• SShShShSShShiShinShinjiman
• 11670 S 07611 S 11670 S 07611
• S21251122
• S1,738,196 121,421 312
• S10235
• 07611S
• S11671
• S11674

and that is just from one IP. The list does go on. There are 30 accounts total on another range. A good portion have been blocked on zh_yuewiki. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Amanda, I am not sure if they are doing some activities for Meat Puppeting or similar. An account like HGSS S11674 had just created and writes back to one of Animal Jumping's user talk page "to congratulate Animal Jumping is being globally locked", those are the activities concerned from the Cantonese Wikipedia community as well. Shinjiman (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shinjiman: That account comes from the same range as Animal Jumping 2, just with a different mobile device. So it could still be them. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: Accordings the findings from Animal-Jumping-2's contributions, most of them are edited by Wikiplus or Twinkle (and only a few edits are done by mobile web edit), however the accounts besides Animal-Jumping-2 were using the mobile web edit for most cases. Although it comes from the same range, it maybe possibly shared by a same service provider from its finding. Is there's any other findings to prove that Animal-Jumping-2 belongs to the group of editors? Shinjiman (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shinjiman: The initial group that I listed are actually all  Confirmed to each other. They use the same device on a single residential IP (where no one else contributes) and mobile IP range. It's very clear they are the same person. The only one that was using a different device was HGSS S11674. So there is absolutely no doubt that everyone but HGSS S1174 is the same person. I also had @Operator873:, another steward, review my findings. -- Amanda (she/her) 09:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

About हेमा राज रन्डी

Hi! AmandaNP , I requested to ban these members globally Steward requests/Global but you did not lock them globally and put the mold of complete why so?. In this, you were putting a Sockpuppet template on the page of some member from the IP, while not login with the User account, So I removed its edits, then started abusing me and my mother, I have been abusing her even after removing the edits, I am a volunteer on Hindi Wikipedia, I complained about this to a manager of the wiki , but alas they didn't answer me and the manager doesn't work on my wiki , Sir what is my fault in this that I am being abused by mother? I was just doing my work sir I am currently very disappointed about this topic and one thing this account is a puppet account of a global level blocked. I am very disappointed and I hope justice from you because you are a Wikimedia steward, you can do anything, will you give me justice, Otherwise I will have to tell this to Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and strict action will be taken against that IP, but if I do, Hindi may face dangers, which I do not want. .Please do something. Thanks. Aviram7 | ✎  08:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

They are locked globally already by another Steward. You are just not able to see that they are locked because the username has been hidden. -- Amanda (she/her) 13:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a good news for me, thank you Sir. Aviram7 | ✎  02:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification de traduction : ContribuLing 2022/Program

Bonjour, AmandaNP,

Vous recevez cette notification parce que vous vous êtes inscrite comme traductrice en français sur Meta. La page ContribuLing 2022/Program est prête à être traduite. Vous pouvez la traduire ici :

• traduire en français

Cette page a une priorité moyenne. La date limite pour traduire cette page est 2022-03-31.

Votre aide est grandement appréciée. Les traducteurs comme vous aident Meta à fonctionner comme une véritable communauté multilingue.

Vous pouvez modifier vos préférences de notification.

Merci !

Les coordinateurs de traduction de Meta‎, 15:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

StaleIP

Hello! Wouldn't want to take too much of your time, but can you help find some documentation about what {{StaleIP}} means in this context, or explain in short? Template:CheckUser Indicators is not very helpful. I suppose it means the IPs of older accounts are inaccessible to you due to their expiration from CU logs? Thanks! Gikü (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You got it. That's correct. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A reply from WMF concerning previous case.

If you need the all the content and you are still interested in this case, please have a look. Otherwise please ignore this. Thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

BS Wikiquote (and other BS projects)

You mentioned the discussion. OK, but where that discussion should be held? And by whom? There are no active local users on BS Wikiquote (except some IP-users with dubious or nonsense changes). Unfortunately, in terms of Bosnian language projects, users are concentrated almost exclusively on Wikipedia (and Wiktionary, occasionally, thanks mostly to contributions by user Barishan /who is Turkish and cannot speak Bosnian - sic!/; my contribution there is small, but I am keeping an eye on it). KWiki (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The candidate must place a notice requesting the permission on the local village pump, administrators' noticeboard or a designated page for requesting permissions.

— Policy on Minimum voting requirements

If you have no votes for or against, that is fine, the discussion just has to be open for 7 days to give anyone the oppertunity to vote. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I have put it to the voting, accordingly. I have asked admins on BS Wikipedia to vote because there are no others to ask. (Sad, I know, but that is the reality.) KWiki (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

SRP

Hi, you have marked a request as done without actually performing it. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ameisenigel:. I have fixed it and re-opened task T327605#8582413. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Something you may want to check back on

Johnny ser vid xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(ser vid alt)} • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • ser vid bullseye

You glocked this user, a sneaky and persistent crosswiki vandal. I noticed though that they had made a comment whilst editing on simplewiki about "Ich habe die Socken" (I have the socks). Given that they had been stuffing about for a long time before anyone realised (so any socks may still be under the radar), it might do to run a checkuser if it hasn't already been done. Just my 50 cents. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mako001: The CU data is long since gone (aka Stale) for me or any other CU to look. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Self-trout

I read it as 2023. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Upload Photo

Can you tell me how to upload photo on this? https://hi.wikivoyage.org Manish Panwar ^{(talk) |Contribs)} 13:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Affected by and then returning admin AAR22

Hi Amanda. I started sent the notifications after checking the admins on several wikis. This admin on dawiktionary has been affected by AAR22, has made contributions and logs as of 1st January. I would appreciate it if you would review as stewards in detail. --Uncitoyen^talk 22:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are several like that. If you can mark any like them on hold, I'll go through it with stewards and see what the consensus is. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Uncitoyen^talk 06:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Amanda, the N's process are already expired and I've added the comments. Also, the user on idwikisource you marked as on hold also wants to retain their rights. Regards. --Uncitoyen^talk 13:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I've handled 2/3 in the Ns. I will get around to opening the discussion on the steward ml today about all the on-hold ones with contributions or objections. I don't know the established procedure and want to get it right. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Global block request for VoidseekerNZ-linked IP

Hello, can 2404:4404:1758:400:0:0:0:0/64 xwiki-contribs • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye please be globally blocked? This is VoidseekerNZ xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye evading their lock. The en:Powelliphanta patrickensis history makes it pretty clear what is going on, as do their contribs on commons. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Normally I'd decline because enwiki and commons can handle their own crap, and they are blocked on both projects locally...but I can't come up with a good way to write "no" and it won't hurt anything. So gblocked. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

They had also previously disrupted MediaWiki and Wikidata too. Basically, they got annoyed with the new Vector 2022 default on en.wiki, and began an elaborate troll campaign. They have indicated that their trolling is directed at all Wikimedia projects, hence why I requested a gblock even through it was blocked on commons and en.wiki. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It is impossible to vote!

Although I am eligible and have voted in other elections, I can't figure out how to vote in this one! Krok6kola (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about steward elections, see Stewards/Elections_2023#Index. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

My permissions at arz wiki

Hello. I want to keep my advanced permissions, I was so busy recently, but I will be more active next months. What should I do exactly to keep it? --M777 ^✉ 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep note of this. I don't fully have an answer at this time, but i'll let you know beforehand so you have a chance to reply. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Open meeting for patrollers

Hello, Amanda and anyone else watching this page: The mw:Editing team is starting a new project, mw:Edit check. They are particularly seeking the views of RecentChanges patrollers and other reviewers. One of the open questions is: When should the visual editor encourage people to add a citation?

The meeting will be this Friday, 3 March 2023. More information is available at mw:Editing team/Community Conversations#3 March 2023. I hope that you will be able to attend, but if you aren't, please consider leaving your advice to the team on the talk page. They would particularly value hearing about the citation standards at different Wikipedias, and also what you think the biggest problem is with the first edits made by new editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

AAR process dates of some wikis

Hi again. The process date of the wikis that you have made your notifications has come. These are half of the A's. Also trwikiqoute is waiting for notification. Thanks. --Uncitoyen^talk 07:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like @Elton: handled in my absence for a few days. -- Amanda (she/her) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Np Amanda. Thanks @Elton: and pawikisource should be done after 03 March because no response from community and user. --Uncitoyen^talk 13:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why or how - but apparently I already did that one a month ago? -- Amanda (she/her) 15:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't look in logs for this user so I didn't see done. I wrote this message because the notification was done on 3 February. I don't have any more details. --Uncitoyen^talk 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete a spam

Hi, please delete this article, and this item; they are created as a spam. Thanks in advance. Karim185.3 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I can not delete the wikidata item. You need a Wikidata Admin for that. In terms of the article, unless it's something I've seen before (which it might be, the name sounds familair), Global sysops can assist you at GSR. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Check user

Dear Amanda, I don't find it wise to indicate user requests for user checks without valid reasons for violating the policy. The fact that someone told you that these accounts were created on the same day and time that I was blocked does not constitute, according to the policy, -Valid reasons include needing a block of the underlying IP or IP range, disruptive sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, and similar disruption where the technical evidence from running a check would prevent or reduce further disruption. - sufficient reason for even one checking.

even more so when he use you to expel user from the Greek wp. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2023-03#ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη@el.wikipedia ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, but I need to clarify a few things:

1. I did not rely on the evidence presented by the person on the SRCU to run the two checks that I did. I had my own evidence, which I don't have to document (and frankly when it comes to user disputes like this, it's better not to document/waste time with it). I could have said more clearly that I had my own evidence - and I'll keep that under advisement. The line you quote is to encourage users filing a request to provide sufficient information so that CUs/Stewards like me don't have to go digging for their own evidence. (Most of the time it comes without the evidence like in this case...but that's another matter)
2. The list you have says "includes" which implies that it's not limited to the list provided. It's not that it can only be those things.
3. The actual governing policies are: The CU policy which states "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects.", The privacy policy § To Protect You, Ourselves & Others (read the entire section), and ANPDP § Use and disclosure of nonpublic information § (a) (just that paragraph). Those are the three legal agreements I have to follow. What I'm getting at is those three policies give me a broad discretion of how I can use checkuser when it comes to protecting Wikipedia. As long as I can articulate why I ran a check to protect Wikipedia to the relevant authorities, I'm good. This includes perceived issues that do not have to be proven before I run a check. That said, I don't go checking every single vandal or anything like that, I limit myself to things that would only be productive to check in an effort to limit the exposure of personal data. Some communities get a little more restrictive with their local policies, but that's not in play here.
4. I never have checked your user account - in this check or any other check - the only two I checked this time were Johnnom11111 and Ggg1112222. Your account was not checked because I never saw enough evidence to run the check.
5. If you disagree with any of this or feel like I might not be telling the truth, you are welcome to contact the Ombuds Commission who reviews abuse of those three policies I outlined above and they can investigate me if they wish for the checks I did in this matter.

-- Amanda (she/her) 22:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

4. Sorry i didn't understand that. I thought that you compare my user account with Johnnom11111 and Ggg1112222 and you find no similarity. The same thinks and Focal. Didn't you? ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm unsure what you are asking. The only checks I did were on Johnnom11111 and Ggg1112222. No one else. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is my bad english...sorry. You check Johnnom11111 and Ggg1112222 each other or with my account? ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη: I did not check your account. Now or ever. I only checked Johnnom11111 and Ggg1112222. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

O.K.! thank you very much :) ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Two stewards - one request

why didn't you continue to check my account? it doesn't seem like good policy to have two stewards involved in one request. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2023-03#ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη@el.wikipedia_2 ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As stated by another person in the other place you took this complaint to, there is nothing against it. In a medical sense (because of a recent incident) I did not have the required energy to think and process through the request last night. I slept overnight, had to go to work this morning, and just finished work 45 minutes ago. I just didn't get the chance. Beyond that, I was obviously tired because I didn't understand last night the point blank evidence that would have made me run the check just as Sotiale did. Nothing is amiss here except for the socking.

@FocalPoint: The Facebook posts are fine to have sent to stewards privately to handle the request, but not to be posted onwiki. That's a breach of privacy any way that you look it. Further, demanding that I proceed with the checkuser is absolutely inappropriate and further hurts your request. I'm not sure if that's a language issue or not, but just for future advice. That said, I do apologize for not completely understanding the graveness of the evidence last night. As I noted above, I didn't have the medical energy to understand what was going on. I'm happy with Sotiale taking it up in my absence and presenting the result they did. Please also see the above section where I'm trying to remain as a neutral party, I'm not trying to take sides in this - in fact, the exact opposite is true - I don't want to be involved except when you need stewards.

@Ιπποκράτης2020: I just wanted you to know about this thread and the thread above and thank you for your patience in this matter while I was unable to process and understand the request. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Amanda for dealing with all of this stuff! :) I would also like ,as a fellow greek, to apologize for my compatriot's annoying and disruptive behavior.Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amanda, many thanks for your comments. No, it is not a language issue, though it would be a nice way out for me - I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt. It was simply an error of judgement (and not allowing myself enough time to look at my reply a couple of times before I posted it). My last sentence was completely unnecessary and as you put it, it hurt my request. Apologies.

On the other issue you mentioned: Please correct me if I am wrong: If users are allowed to publicize their participation, with links, to a facebook group which supports wikipedia, isn't it obvious, that links to the same facebook group are allowed onwiki anyway?

--FocalPoint (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, stuff happens. It's just a note for the future.

So I can't see the contents of the facebook group involved, so I can't comment on the specific group stuff. I'll try and speak in general terms. Linking to a facebook group related to Wikipedia is generically is allowed. Linking to posts on a facebook group related to/organzied for the Wikipedia purpose, I wouldn't have issue with generally, unless it's a post saying so and so lives at whatever address or stuff like that. Linking to private groups and private posts (which is some of what I removed) within groups becomes problematic, because oversighters can't see the content, and if it's reported, we have to air on the side of user safety and may cause those types of links to get oversighted because we can't see what is behind it. Linking to any non-wikipedia related group or personal facebook profiles, especially when it contains personal information in it, is prohibited, unless the user has directly linked to it themselves.

I know that's a complicated answer, but it's kind how it is because it's not completely black and white. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not a complicated answer as far as I am concerned. It is exactly as I thought it should be. In this particular case, the original post was in such a open acess wikipedia-supporting group setup by the user in question, then some of the postings there were suppressed by the second user managing this group due to their aggresive character, and the latest news (I cannot even find where I read this in elwiki), is that the second user managing the group has removed the group altogether, hence the links that you removed, were linking to the personal page of the user under question (who copy-pasted them from the wikipedia supporting group, to their personal page). It all makes sense now (at least to to me _ I understand that what I wrote above must appear complicated to you). FocalPoint (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor admitting himself/herself to be a blocked account

Hi there! I'm just wondering, if an editor admitted himself/herself to be a blocked account, will that be taken into consideration when judging whether he/she is a sockpuppet? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of the local CU that you mentioned. However, the only thing I am concerned is that according to the CU cases that I have seen in viwiki, if an account has been inactive for years, then CU won't be able to detect anything. That's why I'm still hesitating to file the case. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If someone admits to being a previous locked account, for sure it's taken into account. The problem is, you linked to a page with 66KBs worth of text - I don't know where on the page to look for your "evidence". The second link is a diff with 25 different comments left on the page. The only person that mentions "Kill-Vearn" is Nguyentrongphu. So I don't know what you are trying to have me look at that has Khả Vân Đại Hãn saying that they are any account you mentioned in the previous check.

I can see your point about the checkuser being stale, but that just brings up more concerns. 1) Why wasn't the main user identified during Sotiale's check 2 years ago? 2) How have they been able to evade this for 2 years and it's only an issue now? 3) if they are a sock, why is there no local block against the user on viwiki?

All these questions raise concerns that this might just be a dispute between 2 users, and someone using the fact that stewards have tools to permanently get rid of the person they are in dispute with. I'm not saying they aren't harassing you or other people, but that's why you have local administrators, because we don't understand the language well enough to act. Local administrators understand the language. When people come asking us to ban someone, we have to be extremely careful with our tools is because people use us to block their opponent. That's why I'm requiring evidence instead of just your claims. -- Amanda (she/her) 04:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For your 1st concern, I'm not sure how to address it properly so I'm gonna skip it for now. But for 2 and 3, I can definitely explain. The previous accounts harassed other users cross-wiki, that's why as soon as they were identified, they would be reported immediately. More information on Kill-Vearn and this recent account, Khả Vân Đại Hãn:

• The account was created on July 14, 2021 (see here), which was only 4 days after Kill-Vearn was locked globally ([1]).
• This user has identified himself/herself of Kill-Vearn since 2 years ago, but since no serious disruptive behaviors has been observed so the local administrators have chosen to be a little easier on the user. That's why the account wasn't blocked. However, recently the user has abused this ease and continued to harassed other users.

I have filed a local CU as you wished. Hope that helps. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"This user has identified himself/herself of Kill-Vearn since 2 years ago" - where? -- Amanda (she/her) 22:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Shan Wiktionary Adminship

Hello @AmandaNP I saw that you Granted me for 2 years for Shan Wiktionary Adminship. But I can't access that right yet. Could you please check it?. Thanks Saimawnkham (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Saimawnkham: You can check this one yourself. Special:CentralAuth/Saimawnkham => shnWP Saimawnkham Done and shnWikt Saimawnkham Not done. I would suggest to resubmit it to GRP pointing at the original request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

A question

Hi, sorry to bother you, because I just took on the sysop role not long ago. I'm a sysop at Cebuano Wikipedia, how can I add "confirmed", "patroller" and "autopatroller" permissions to Cebuano Wikipedia, do I need to have Interface Administrator permission? Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} 22:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Như Gây Mê currently there are no user group patroller / autopatroller on cebwiki, see ceb:Espesyal:ListGroupRights. And confirmed can only be granted by bureaucrats (usually not needed, because users get autoconfirmed after four days). If you want to add new user groups / change existing ones, you'll need to follow Requesting wiki configuration changes after gaining consensus within your local community (please be aware of limits to configuration changes). Johannnes89 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested

Hello AmandaNP, We are conducting a poll of global renamers and stewards regarding some future toolings related to some rename requests. Your feedback is requested at the poll on VRT WIKI. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Bureaucrat abuse of vote in Belarusian Classical Wikipedia

Hello, dear Amanda! How are you? I would like to draw your attention to the request for comment that I made in July, 2023. As the situation has deteriorated since then towards the open vote fraud by the bureaucrat, a timely consensus on the part of stewards has become even more essential for the implemention of rules in Belarusian Classical Wikipedia. Best wishes,--W (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the entirety of the stewards on their talkpages individually is not an appropriate way to get an RfC closed. Beyond that, no one has come to meta to agree with your position. This is a local matter, and violations of such policies needs consensus from local participants. We can't just action based on your opinion. That goes against the nature of Wikipedia. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Deepfriedokra#UTRS says I'm banned

Can you assist this user? I can no longer see their tickets or their UTRS ban. And I just don't remember. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)