User talk:AmandaNP/IP

Thanks

Hi DQ. Just wanted to thank you for moving my comment to your talk page. Hope everything works out OK. Best regards. 64.40.54.192 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please block a user

User:Cia'sPeeingpussy should be blocked because their username is a violation of the username policy. Thanks! Give the reason "{{UsernameHardBlocked}}". 216.55.112.115 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

TreCoolGuy investigation 2

Mind taking a peek at this? It seems he's at it again. Rusted AutoParts 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sadfatandalone (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stuff at the DQB page!

On the DeltaQuadBot page, there are two unedited messages by IP users. Please respond to them. 86.159.13.142 (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline

@Keilana:Unfortunately, a disgruntled party in a recent arbitration case has decided to protect the arbitrators' personal talk pages. He hasn't reached you yet, so here's the post he doesn't want the community to see and comment on.

Hi. The following was posted at Opabinia's talk. I'm not sure of the title - does it mean "you are 'with it'" or does it mean "you are dependable"? Anyway, she doesn't seem to be very interested as she has reverted, so I'd like to run this past the rest of the Committee. The issue here is selective presentation of evidence to smear an editor. I don't think you need Newyorkbrad to tell you that that taints the judgment. In this case it was done by linking to the ban discussion and ignoring the unban discussion which followed smartly thereafter. Opabinia identifies as bisexual. I'm not saying that would prejudice her in any way against people who are straight, but it would have been better if she had addressed the points raised. Anyway, that's enough from me. Just read the thread and let me know what you think.

You rock

(Drafted before reading arbitrator's response). That is exactly the problem. As Callanecc has pointed out, merely restoring an allegedly banned user's edit is not "proxying for a banned user". The Rambling Man's explanation of policy was spot on. So, the respondent having demonstrated what is arguably incompetence combined with bullying (a toxic combination) why should The Rambling Man accept the claim that what was on the face of it a bona fide post was harassment. I believe that "Assume Good Faith" is one of the pillars. Having just threatened to block over another matter a competent administrator would have passed the second complaint over to another administrator to deal with. That's good man management, but it appears that the respondent does not have a job, so may be ignorant of these matters. I deduce this from the fact that although there are long gaps in his editing whenever criticism is posted he always seems to be there to instantly revert.

Merely alleging the post was "harassment" without providing any supporting evidence, the current position, is no basis for a campaign against either The Rambling Man or Vote X for Change. In his sandbox the respondent comments

TRM had previously participated in several discussions about the socking at WT:RD.

Indeed, and those discussions concerned Wickwack, Bowei Huong2, the anti - semitic troll, the Nazi troll and the black brutality troll. There is no link between that and the post on the Rambling Man's talk page. StuRat got beat up for restoring helpful answers to enquirers, not answering troll questions (and as Baseball Bugs points out some questions are innocuous until the troll "shows his brownshirt colors"). The respondent removes the good - faith questions and answers (he rarely bothers with the trolls) and then protects the desks for three months to ensure that no questions are either asked or answered in good faith. In the past few days he has restored dozens of banned edits, but when other editors do this he blocks them.

The Rambling Man's talk page revert was a removal of a reference to Baseball Bugs. Was there any reference to Bugs on the IP's post to The Rambling Man's talk? No. The other two diffs relate to criticism of The Rambling Man himself, so why should he link them to posts criticising someone else? The final argument is

... the IP ranges ... on 21 December were obviously similar to ... 11 January.

Obvious to whom? Albert Einstein maybe, but not a Wikipedia volunteeer.

In the sandbox two links from the "harasser"'s post are cited. What makes the respondent think The Rambling Man would have clicked on those links before replying? I have clicked on them. The first is claimed to be "a rant from another sock". It's actually a link to words written (yes, typed and saved) by the respondent which are so disgusting they would never be allowed in a family encyclopaedia. The second is a link to a post in which an IP wishes Bishonen a Merry Christmas and is thanked by her for the information supplied. There are references to "Wickwack, Bowei Huong 2, the Nazi troll, the anti - semitic troll and the black brutality troll" but no references to the respondent.

On the theme of disgusting words spoken by the respondent, what is "incivil and inflammatory" about the question "can't you read the page history?" is the wording. "Can't you" implies a WP:CIR issue. Trawling through the respondent's contributions, I see the comment was embedded in an edit summary the remaining part of which read

because it's a banned user;?:butthurt malcontents are having a field day, it seems. Out.

This word "butthurt" features regularly in the respondent's lexicon and ties in with what has been discussed on "Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests" this week. 86.150.12.187 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The miscreant continues to misbehave at the reference desk. He's now taken to removing good faith posts leaving the responses in situ resulting in the discussions becoming unintelligible. I lay the blame for this situation at your door because you referred in the motion to a ban discussion making no reference whatsoever to the subsequent unban discussion and resulting discharge of the ban. This was a surefire way to recharge the troll's batteries, as we are now seeing. How do you propose to retrieve the situation?

Result of further investigation: An IP restores the posts, taking full responsibility for them. Sjo comes along claiming to revert revision 701927582, but he's lying because that was reverted by revision 701936579 and Sjo's edit is revision 702114479. The miscreant jumps in claiming to be reverting revision 702111204 and he's lying as well because the two diffs do not match. He does this under an abusive edit summary. Wikipedia is fast becoming an international laughing stock and it's the ineptitude of the Arbitration Committee which is responsible. 94.193.76.20 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The reference desk is now protected by the troll, resulting in six billion people being unable to access information. 94.193.76.20 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the talk page, there is a long list of editors supporting no protection for the reference desks, nemo contradicente. 94.193.76.20 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)