User talk:AmandaNP/IP

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Log/2020 July 16. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Helena 6666 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi AmandaNP! I'm writing directly to you since I see you protected the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan page. I'm not sure if SPI is the best venue for this, but Keywan faramarzi is evading a block with a new account Keywankomala. The new account created what appears to be an autobiography at Kayvan Faramarzi. @AmandaNP:

On June 25, 2020 Sportstir was suspended^[1] for edit warring with me and especially ISS246 in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Article.

I haven't worked much on that article for the past year, but when I made a few edits on September 29, they immediately reverted them and demanded I discuss on the talk page, although I posted a detailed explanation in the edit summary. This is the same edit warring pattern as in 2020--revert another editor's edit, demand discussion on the talk page, argue on the talk page, and then continue to revert the edits. You can see here their latest string of reverts at the top of the history for the article^[2]

Because this is a continuation of the earlier edit warring case, I was hoping you could look into it.

By the way, I believe Sportstir is a sockpuppet. There have been several sockpuppets by the same person blocked who engaged in exactly the same behavior in this article (Patricia Moorhead)^[3] and the Psychology article (BrokenRecordsAgain)^[4].

Thank you for your assistance. Psyc12 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah nobody is edit warring with you Psyc12. You and Iss246 came in yesterday to the industrial psychology article for some reason and both in tandem and remarkably at the same time again, as if it was organised between you both offline, decided to remove long term and well sourced material from the article page. Then when I reverted your really bold editing and invited discussion on the edits you want to make, you both avoided it and instead come here and accuse me of edit warring! Sportstir (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't encountered the user Sportstir, with whom you have dealt previously, in a year. [S]he has returned to once again undo my edits. [S]he recently reversed several of my edits in a pattern similar to that of users Mrm7171, Lighteningstrikers, and Patriciamoorehead, who have worked assiduously to reverse my edits before they were excluded from WP. Sportstir ignored the justifications I posted when I edited a narrow section of the i/o psychology entry. Her/his defense is that Psyc12 and I edited at about the same time as if we were a tag team. In my case, my re-starting my edits of that narrow section of the i/o psychology entry was a result of learning that Patriciamoorehead, another user who had has been unrelenting in reversing my edits, was excluded from the WP community. It is difficult for me to edit when someone who is single-mindedly reversing my edits to the exclusion of accomplishing more worthwhile goals on WP. I ask you to do something to get Sportstir to stop reversing my edits. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12 and Iss246 only edit on similar articles and in tandem coming online together which I thought was meatpuppetry. They both try and downplay IWO psychology's role in occupational stress and occupational health/wellbeing which is absurd and completely contradicting all of the reliable sources. I have asked them to discuss on the talk page their desire to add such bold edits and remove swathes of well sourced long standing text but they refuse. I remember this occurred at the occupational stress article where admittedly I was blocked as well as Iss246 being blocked too I think. Sportstir (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't speak for Psyc12. This is what I have to say. Sportstir inflates the role of i/o psychology in occupational stress research. I/o psychology has had a role but the role should not be inflated. If Sportstir had his/her way, i/o psychology would supplant epidemiology, occupational medicine, and occupational health psychology as the central discipline in research on job stress. I/o psychology, which already has an enormous wing span with performance and performance appraisal, job analysis, job design, recruitment and testing, compensation, climate and culture, teamwork, leadership, goal setting, and more, cannot be the leader in research in job stress/work-health interface. It has too many other subject areas to research. Of course, i/o makes a contribution to job stress research. But it is a relatively small part of i/o's portfolio. Moreover, Spector has written about the resistance in i/o psychology to accepting publications on job stress, probably because most i/o psychologists in the 20th century were allied with management. It has mainly been in the 21st century that i/o psychology has come around to show an interest in the impact of job stress on worker health. I/o psychologists' brethren in occupational health psychology have had a salutary effect on i/o psychology.

I spell out what I am not saying, lest my remarks be misinterpreted. I am not saying that in the 20th century, i/o was completely uninterested in job stress's impact on worker health. There were figures like Kornhauser who wanted to help workers rather than management. But he was a relatively rare figure.

Sportstir deleted a fact that the models of the stress process, a process that in the 21st century, i/o psychologists study, come, from outside the field of i/o psychology. [S]he deleted my reference to that fact. The ideas about the stress process come from social psychology and sociology, of all places. Not i/o psychology. Sportstir would have the reader think that the idea of the study of job stress comes ex cathedra from the minds of i/o psychology.

I think Sportstir is in cahoots with Patriciamoorehead or Mrm7171 or Brokenrecordsagain or Lighteningstrikers or is one of them, judging from how [s]he hounds me and reverts edits like a computer-savy Inspector Javert. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can I get my membership back? I don't have another account. Please allow me to return to Wikipedia. I hope the decision is not too harsh. I just hope to cancel the ban on my membership, and I promise I will not publish an article again. I swear to you, I don't have another account. Please understand and reconsider. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.131.109 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the ping(s) and thank you for letting me know what I was doing (I didn't realise I was sending notifications). Anyway, I am checking some old talk page protections. In your case this is about the relatively recent Talk:International Court of Justice, Talk:World Bank and Talk:International Monetary Fund, the only thing that looked out of place is that the corresponding articles aren't protected anymore and I wasn't sure yet, if these ones really needed some consideration. I am rechecking the list from time to time, so if you decide to remove some protections (or to add them to the articles) I will consider them already dealt with and there's no need to reply, otherwise it would be nice if you let me know that the matter was already considered, here or on my talk page. Thank you and sorry again for the disturb and the confusion. 176.247.159.174 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amanda. Another in a long string of sockpuppets arose today on Sundayclose's talk page. Questionsandanswer is continuing the personal attacks on me and ISS246, making the same arguments they have been making for years. Can you help? Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=1052798635&oldid=1052798523Psyc12 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Questionsandanswer has been banned for sockpuppetry.^[5] Sorry to have bothered you with this. Psyc12 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mined Youtsc RS Creator and Owner YoutacrsVARs (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

how was your day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.230.213 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Amanda, could you please have a look at this user’s talk page and contributions and decide if their talk page access should be revoked please? This user is here since January, but almost every single edits in Wikipedia:Sandbox have been edited 171 times, according to WP:PGAME (who was blocked). Most of this user's contributions while blocked have been focused around on talk page edits, but they focused on unconstructive edits and a spam account. This editor doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e. it's not a host for stuff they've made up) and they seem to lack the competence to edit here constructively. There's also a load of edits by this user which will need cleaning up. Thanks, BeeSpeed1989 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi BeeSpeed1989, it's unclear why you are using this subpage instead of AmandaNP's main talk page, and why you consider Noesleis's contributions after the block to be so severely problematic that you had to make this request. Looking at your baseless threat of talk page access removal and your user page's content [now fixed] makes me question the constructiveness of your edits. Please find articles to improve instead; the Task Center and the community portal contain ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

These have remained protected for about 4.5 years after some kind of outbreaks in July and September 2018. Do you believe it's still necessary? All three are subjects of legitimate interest, and FAQs/edit notices can be used (maybe) to manage traffic from would-be correspondents with the article subjects. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

ip blocked Ludoke (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

With absolutely zero context, I can't assist. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I was blocked for fixing a typo.. So odd, didn't know anyone took Wikipedia so seriously to block people for free. Esquivelmichelle (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have not been blocked on the account you made this message from. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 14:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that's an incredibly condescending, pompous reply from you. Let's clarify a few things -

1. According to the appeal screen information, "Deltaquadbot" is a bot. So you have a non-human deciding to block me? That might explain the failure to consider or respond to the information I gave in my previous messages in the appeal thread.

2. I already explained that I'm not using a VPN, and that I don't know how 'proxies' function - you have chosen to ignore that and respond to me as though I do have that knowledge. You could have just explained what you meant and how/why it's happened, as I requested, but instead you chose to have 'brick wall' me. Because, quite obviously, you have assumed I'm guilty of something.

3. You insist that I "clear the proxy" despite me telling you I don't know how or why it is in place. I have no idea how one 'clears a proxy'.

4. You say I don't have any right/ability to edit Wikipaedia - yet I was able to contribute an edit to another page 10 months ago - my first and only time - and it was accepted and published without any of this nonsense.

5. Your final response belies an attitude of petty, arrogant bureaucracy and unnecessary superiority.

Congratulations, you've made me decide that I wouldn't use Wikipaedia again now if I was paid to.

You pompous, unpleasant ass. Pegasusphil (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pegasusphil, I saw your question on my talk page about how to create citations, which is relatively straightforward – see Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2. But I also see your comments here. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and it's essential for us to treat each other with respect no matter how frustrated or annoyed we are. If you have some interest in continuing to edit Wikipedia, I'd suggest editing your comment to tone it down and remove the insults, so that you can try to work toward some sort of resolution. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair comment, and I appreciate your help with my citation query. Regarding that other admin, I was responding after receiving a block for absolutely no reasonable reason (I did nothing wrong at all) and despite asking for help and some guidance on the situation all I got was a superior and arrogant attitude and several very unhelpful, condescending and accusatory replies from the admin who blocked me. How do I respond to someone who basically accused me of being a malicious user? And who clearly assumed - wrongly - that I knew all the rules and processes for editing Wikipedia.

With the citation issue, all I want to do is reinstate an entry I added - totally factual and legitimate - describing the existence of a song/video (which wrote and created myself) that's directly relevant to the page in question. But my edit has been removed saying it needs a citation - so as far as I can see I'm being asked to prove my own work? I don't understand how to make this entirely harmless edit without getting blocked or accused of having a malicious IP address. But I'll follow your link and hopefully it'll help me.

Thanks. Pegasusphil (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no justification for insulting people here. You can explain reasons and concerns without being rude.

If you want to add or correct information about something you're involved in, such as a song or video you created, you need to write on the talk page for the article instead of editing directly. See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, though to be fair I was treated badly by the admin first.

I've been replying to you from my phone so far - but I Pegasusphil (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think my reply was curtailed?

I was about to say I tried to reply to you from my desktop PC and got a message saying I was blocked (again) for "block evasion". I'm baffled. The rules are too arcane and I just seem to be blocked at every turn. No idea why. I haven't "evaded" anything. I get the sense that Wiki just wants to exclude me and I have no clue as to why. Pegasusphil (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amanda, when you get a chance can you take a look at this? I think one or two admins on Commons are abusing their power.

The deletion discussion on the killing video was correctly closed by an admin after it came out that the family is requesting for the footage to be removed, and after discussion had been open for over a week. Another admin "Josve05a" violated process to unilaterally undo the deletion close without consent, and now him and his friends are indefinitely blocking users that call it out. A user was blocked indefinitely without any reason given after he made a Commons AN post complaining about the admin who undeleted the file without consulting anyone.

I'm messaging you because I noticed you're a bureaucrat. I think this is local admin abuse. I think the strategy is Josve05a forces it back open and undeletes it, votes, and then an admin friendly to him later re-closes it with the outcome he wants. 85.218.223.164 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Admin abuse on Commons should be reported at Commons, not here. 114.124.132.95 (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi AmandaNP! For some reason, I can edit Wikipedia projects just fine with this account, but my attempts to contribute to Commons fail in the log-in stage due to

• Auto-creation of a local account failed:
• Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis.
• The block was made by ‪AmandaNP‬. The reason given is No open proxies: please read the FAQ should you be affected: softening per SRG request .
• Start of block: 22:51, 26 March 2023
• Expiry of block: 22:51, 26 March 2026
• Your current IP address is 163.116.178.23. The blocked range is 163.116.128.0/17.

Could you give me a hint what I could do about this, or change a parameter or something so that global accounts still work? Cheers, --LAPP CC (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi KyCC2025,

I'm not AmandaNP, but are you using a proxy/VPN? If so, you need to turn it off. These proxies may even go by names such as !Private Relay" or similar.

If that doesn't help, I'm not sure what to do here, but the best thing I can think of is getting an IP block exemption Wikimedia-wide? I can link you to the appropriate page on Wikipedia, but that wouldn't help.

It's possible that you may need to ask someone else? thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 23:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)