User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2014/July

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmandaNP. 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 the current talk page.

~400 transclusions does not meet the "high-risk" threshold required for protection at the  Template editor level per WP:PINKLOCK may only be used on high-risk templates and modules, and possibly in rarer cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree, of which this user page is not. As such, I'm requesting that you lower the protection level. — — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you closed an SPI I submitted saying it's dynamic IPs. So to clarify, it's not socking for editor to claim to be multiple IP editors to gain talk page consensus if neither IP is blocked? If it's not socking for editor to claim to be multiple users, what is the appropriate noticeboard? Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is one big difference that isolates whether it's socking or not. If it's just a group of IPs, and they aren't particularly claiming that they are different people, then no it's not socking. Because people's IPs can change easily depending on an ISPs policies. As soon as there is a user account involved though, with IPs OR other users, it's socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The case is two IPs claiming to be two different people to gain consensus and break 3RR when it's clearly one person. How is that not socking? Kirin13 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation was not mentioned in the case. It looks like the 3RR was a few days ago, so i can't block on that basis of WP:PUNITIVE. As for the IPs talking as if they are one, I'll will issue a final warning to them about it (and remind them about 3RR) after dinner, and the next offence will be blockable. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the situation and thanks for your patience with me. I didn't mention the 3RR earlier because it was stale and because I don't formally report 3RR without warning the user (which I felt I could not do because it was on different accounts). Thanks again, Kirin13 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am feeling a bit perplexed about the SPI issue. Another sockpuppet of Sheodred has returned, this time as 109.79.231.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) since the SPI has been closed. The IP, which is based in Ireland (the same location as Sheodred), removed the sock puppetry notices and as far as I can understand, IPs are not allowed to remove sock puppetry notices. But according to this message which I removed from my talk page and find that it is troubling, the IP is actually shared by a billpayer. I also find this message to be very troubling as well. I'm thinking about opening another SPI on this. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Just so your aware, i'm not ignoring this, just haven't got much time to do anything today. I'll try and respond tomorrow morning or afternoon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks. BTW, it seems like the message has already been reverted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all given that it's a Vodafone mobile phone range. It could be the sock, maybe it isn't. Either way, continue to revert the stuff you know is him and deny him the pleasure. If you ever get an account, that is truly the best time to open an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been with the project for over 6 years actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sjones23: My apologizes, my tiredness got to me, I meant if he ever got an account. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Ashbeckjonathan's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a request from an editor: having the "talk" portion of your signature appear upsidedown... Would you consider having it appear right-side-up? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen many ways people have obscured the talk portion of their signature, and I find this more on the mild side. I see how people may find it confusing, but I'm not one who stands in a crowd. I like to be unique (despite my stealing of it from Deskana). I'm open to change, but I would have to find something else which suits me first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the rollback power. You won't be disappointed. I just completed the course at the new admin school. Thanks again! Bobherry talk 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional diffs you requested on 7/21 re [SPI here] from July 17 have been posted. Please reply to us (Ladislav Mecir,Martijn Meijering, and myself). --Wuerzele (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir, Mmeijeri, and Wuerzele: I apologize. We have a huge caseload (as you can see at WP:SPI) and sometimes I lose track of cases. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)