User talk:Amanda Smalls/Archive 13

Checkuser-blocked
Hello - in following up on the recent SPI findings and your continued odd behaviour, it has become clear that you are not who you say you are. Your oldest account is not User:SkaterLife as originally suggested by the SPI, but Kaka1987654, which was editing Spanish Wikipedia in 2009. And more particularly, Tiptoety asked you if you had any other accounts, which you denied. Turns out that only hours before, you had created another account on German Wikipedia, and immediately sought out someone to act as a mentor. This account was not identified in the initial SPI because it had not yet logged into English Wikipedia, but has since done so.

It is time to put an end to this. You are indefinitely blocked, under a Checkuser block, which cannot be undone without consultation with and agreement from the Checkuser team. Risker (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Very disappointing "Amanda".♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't even call this person that, John/Jane Doe sounds better I mean the name used could have been stolen from a real person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, hence the scare quotes, you're not too bright at times are you!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the quotes, but even so still too good for the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In fairness I didn't think Amanda was as obvious as somebody like Patrol forty, I guess unless a person is really aggressive or unpleasant I'm less likely to "investigate" them or really look much into them with suspicion. Some of "Amanda"'s questions to Jimbo seemed to come from somebody looking for a bit of attention from him which isn't uncommon in kids that age, but I can see how some see it as pure trolling. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. I've dealt with a ton of socks at SPI, but still wasn't ready to pull the trigger without a CU looking in because there wasn't obvious disruption in their edits.  It is a frustrating situation to be in, to *KNOW* someone is a sock but to be unable to tangibly prove it.  In reality, it is the subtle and careful trolls that do the most damage.  Same with vandals.  The ones that quietly insert plausible but false information are more destructive than the ones that just insert swear words.  As for Forty....  Dennis - 2&cent; 15:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People claiming things like anorexia and transgender are more likely to get away with it too as people will usually tread on egg shells not to offend them and treat them normally as I was doing. If she was suffering from anorexia calling yourself "Mirror freak" would be extremely unlikely and is incredibly offensive to those who genuinely are suffering from it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the giveaways was the constant treading into known WP hot topic areas with apparently naive innocent questions/comments. This is an example. Provocateur-style. DeCausa (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I feel the lot of you, including poor dear Mr Wales, woudl have benefited, had your parents employed [a good old fashioned British nanny]. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

- w.carter -Talk  18:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a thing to see when I come back. So, first I'm not really sure what I'm being blocked for? I haven't abused any accounts, and I don't even know anything about a German account and the only Spanish account was when I was trying to edit in the Spanish Wikipedia. I didn't even know about Wikipedia let alone a Spanish national anthem when I was 10 years old. As for the meaning of MirrorFreak and relating to my Anorexia, I'm a freak in the mirror. As to using "grown-up" language and grammar, Is it a crime that I'm educated? Was I expecting to be treated differently because I'm an anorexic and transgender, nope not at all. Am I surprised by this kind of behavior? Not really, most people cant wait to get the jump on an reformed puppet master. Of course in this case you were wrong. And yes, they do perform Gender-Reassignments on minors, and yes my real name is now Amanda Smalls. And that deleted picture of me that I took for the Dudes Lodge was me. Not all transgenders dress up you know? Amanda Smalls  17:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You have a "Checkuser block", by Risker. No admin has the authority to review it, only another Checkuser can.  Dennis - 2&cent; 21:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting on Eric's page is what did you in: User talk:Eric Corbett. As for your account it was connected to two others you made on other Wikipedia's. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did the owner of this account ask for their block to be reviewed or question whether they had posted on Eric's page? Are people replying to some comments that are not visible to ordinary editors here? If so, why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amanda asked us to comment here by pinging us. Why are you here? Dennis - 2&cent; 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But your responses have no relevance to the account owner's comments. So, the question stands.


 * And to answer your question (just to be polite), I'm here because the owner of the account has posted on my talkpage (and the talkpage of some people I work with) several times. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Her comment was a prelude to an unblock, as she was pinging us here to hear her side. That is fine, she has a right to review.  My comment was a courtesy to make sure they understand that only CUs can review CU blocks. That isn't intuitively obvious, as (several times) I've seen admin screw up and decline CU block reviews when in fact they lack the authority to do so.  I didn't inject any opinion on the block, just gave the facts. Dennis - 2&cent; 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having now provided me with a justification for the non-sequitur that I found so inappropriate. There was more than one such non-sequitur (the others not from you). Hopefully they will not multiply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amanda was already being led to the gallows by suspicious editors, her posting on Eric's talkpage just fueled the fire of the ones that were suspecting things (You can see the section for yourself). Anyways my point is that if Amanda is who she says she is then this could have been handled a lot differently and would have liked to see her defend her actions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Errr, what do you mean by non-sequiturs ? The explanation and rationale of how the block came about is at AN/I. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and there's another one! I have nowhere described any part of the rationale for the block as a non-sequitur. This page seems a difficult place to make oneself understood, I think I was misguided to comment at all. Later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what are you on about? seriously. what. are. you. on. about. i.e. spell it out rather than drop insinuations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the only connection that I have with Germany is that my mom's cousins live there. Look, all I want is to edit Wikipedia. I looked at the ANI report and saw that it was suggested for me to edit strictly articles. I'm perfectly fine with that as long as I can edit. Amanda Smalls  12:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Block

 * I've reverted the admin decline of this block as only a Checkuser may review a Checkuser block. Dennis - 2&cent; 16:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)  Now reviewed by a CU Dennis - 2&cent; 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand. Have a great time editing! Have a good life. Amanda Smalls  14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could do me a favor and delete all my userspace pages, that'd be appreciated. Amanda Smalls  16:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't delete your user page or talk page due to procedural policies, although you can blank your talk page. Other pages can be deleted, if you have subpages, just ping me with a list. Dennis - 2&cent; 17:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Let me get them all rounded up. Amanda Smalls  17:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lot more though but here's some of them. Amanda Smalls  17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Infernus 780 adoption
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Userboxes/MirrorFreak Trans
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Infernus 780 adoption
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Take a Break warning
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Eat
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Vandal Hunting
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Adoption Notice
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Userboxes
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Wrong
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Correct
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Wikibreak
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Welcome
 * User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Pierce The Veil
 * User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Math
 * User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Uncensored
 * User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Dogs 2
 * User:MirrorFreak/Userboxes/Dog
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Sad
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Mad
 * User:Amanda Smalls/Bored

Okay, That's all of em. Also I still don't know what I've been Blocked for. Is it WP:NOTHERE? Amanda Smalls  17:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Do you think that there is a possibility for me to become unblocked in the future? Amanda Smalls  18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC) I don't know what to do to convince everyone I'm telling the truth. I really am a homosexual. I've offered to give you guys my FLVS username and password to prove that I'm a teen. Please just tell me what I can do to edit again. You tell me to jump, I'll say how high. Just tell me what to do and I'll do it. Lay down some rules. Please. Amanda Smalls  18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Officially, you have Checkuser block that came up just as you were going to be being blocked for WP:NOTHERE, due in part to socking concerns. A Checkuser block is similar to a sockpuppet block, but it can be more or less complicated and the reason is not disclosed.  This is why it took a checkuser to review it.  Dennis - 2&cent; 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough information on the CU portion of your block to give you an intelligent answer. I think Risker is the one you need to talk to.  I had doubts it will happen any time soon.  Honestly, none of us buy the persona you were presenting here, and the idea of pretending you are a transgendered teen when you aren't, that upsets most editors around here, who are very sensitive to the plight of transgendered persons.  Whether or not it is true, it seemed obvious that it wasn't.  Risker is an ex-Arb, and by any definition, very experienced when it comes to dealing with editors.  If she decided to unblock you (likely with conditions), then I'm pretty sure most people would give her the benefit of the doubt in determining it was a worth while risk, even if they disagreed with it, so she has the technical ability and community respect to make that decision, and since she made the block, she is the only person who could do so on their own.  She is also a good judge of when someone is bullshitting her, so if you decide to talk to her, I would strongly suggest you be nothing but 100% honest.  She is also not one to waste her time, so if you aren't forthcoming and honest, she will be quick to dismiss you and move on to more worthwhile projects.  We aren't fools here, and we demand honesty, but we aren't unreasonable. Realistically, you have one opportunity, so don't waste it. Dennis - 2&cent; 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed the block, I ran a checkuser and found a puppet account, that you had used in the last few days. In the context of your extensive use of puppet accounts, I would be surprised if you were unblocked any time soon. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm arguing about how admin shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at WT:BLOCK at this very moment. Dennis - 2&cent; 18:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised to be unblocked too. I'm also surprised that Dennis made a personal attack at me. Amanda Smalls  19:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about, particularly since I've done nothing but be accommodating here and graciously explaining in painstaking detail, but I'm not up to arguing. Dennis - 2&cent; 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound mean or suggest that you're a jerk. Maybe it's because others started doing it. But it started on Eric's talk page. People have started a parody of my name Amanda, calling it "A man, duh". Amanda Smalls  19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents but really... another account you made? Trust is key in relationships and that goes for Wikipedia as well, you used and abused it with editors. Dennis Brown has been giving you helpful advice but at this point I do not feel that it is needed. Your biggest mistake was making the other accounts and trying to deny it. Had you come clean and said "Yeah they are mine" you most likely wouldn't have made things worse. So no there were no personal attacks made by Dennis, just you trying to say that you should be unblocked because you didn't make the accounts which is a lie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to the pings here. I will note that it was appropriate to have another checkuser respond to the unblock request, if for no other reason than to have the results independently verified. PhilKnight did so, and he and I did not have any communication about the unblock request; his decision is completely independent of my own actions. That he found further socking when doing the independent checkuser review of the unblock request is...well, it's just plain sad. I can't say it's unexpected, but it's still sad.  I have no intention of unblocking the user behind these accounts for a good long time, i.e., years. And it has nothing to do with gender identity or sexuality or health issues.  It's just about the socking and the behaviour.  Risker (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)