Requests for Comment/Amanda ban appeal

IM FAN OF DARKMATTERMAN4500

 * So long as we can reasonably dispel all doubt Amanda is NOT LP, I would find this perfectly acceptable. GethN7 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I’ve offered proof that I’m not LP, but yet it has been rejected by the staff team. Especially considering the fact that it was (a member of the staff team) who originally suggested photo ID as a way of proof, the issue is now in their hands to accept it, not in my hands to provide it. Amanda123 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1
A complete and unconditional unban from the Miraheze community following the closure of this RFC.

Support
Vote struck; see below. Amanda123 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  as proposer. Amanda123 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.
 * 1)  This user is abusive on our wikis, on Wikimedia wikis and everywhere. MacFan4000 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. LP is abusive on multiple wikis. Not me. Just for the record, this account and all of its sockpuppets are operated by LP, not me. As noted below, I am willing to submit a photo ID to staff in order to confirm this. Amanda123 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  Given previous altercations, I have absolutely no reason to believe you and would ask you please go elsewhere, your presence here only seems to lead to trouble. GethN7 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that you do not believe me. Personally I would feel the same way if I was a member of the staff team. However, that’s why I’ve offered to provide photo identification to the staff in order to verify my claims. It is now in their hands to accept it or not — and if they choose not to, you can’t blame me. Amanda123 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  - What number attempt is this? LulzKiller (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The number attempt doesn’t matter. What matters is that there is new evidence concerning this issue and therefore I have the right to appeal again. Amanda123 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the evidence. LulzKiller (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the initial statement, you would see the evidence. The evidence that that LP has been arrested and therefore won’t be causing problems, and that I can provide proof of my identity to the staff team if they request it. Amanda123 (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You stating that something is the case is not evidence. That is a statement, surely Canada has inmate records like America does. LulzKiller (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely Canada has inmate records like America does — indeed they do. However, they are not publicly accessible and transcripts must be requested with a valid reason. “Getting unbanned from Miraheze” unfortunately I don’t think is a valid reason. Amanda123 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a family member is a valid one. LulzKiller (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, although I may still need a reason for family requesting it. I’ll see what I can do, however. Amanda123 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Garden-variety oppose — (See my prior comment below.)  The common thread here is the rebuttal of each negative vote.  The missing element is why Amanda needs to return here, except to act out further before an audience that knows her.  As when one stalks an ex-lover for the sake of having the last word, the wisest course of action is, as GethN7 says above, to start over elsewhere, and be on your best behavior this time.   03:38 3-Nov-2017
 * I don’t need to return here. However, I want to return here as I like Miraheze and I was only banned for collateral reasons that no longer exist. Also, I’m only rebutting the negative votes because the reasoning behind them is based off of incorrect information. Amanda123 (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  I see this user is still trying to dictate terms when asking for a favour: "Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated." Opposed until this user learns how to handle dissenting views expressed in public, which the quoted statement shows is not yet the case. --Robkelk (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See also her command to Admins on User:Amanda123, also her adversarial welcome on User talk:Jaison9.  16:53 3-Nov-2017
 * I am willing to accept opposing views in public. Notice how I didn’t just remove any of the above opposing comments, but rather I replied to them and addressed their concerns. However, nobody has to be able to deal with or accept people making attacks against them or calling them derogatory names. Stating that people calling me derogatory names will not be tolerated is not dictating anything - rather it is requiring politeness, which any user is free to do in any discussion. Also, part of my initial proposal was a self-imposed ban from interacting on Meta, which means that I wouldn’t be interacting with you or anyone else who shares your views. Amanda123 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In a prior role, my job was to get the chimpanzees back to their comedy typewriters. At Miraheze, no one on Meta seems anxious that a lot of content be created at top speed.  Nevertheless, when a permabanned user returned and spent the entire morning re-litigating the past, jousting with all comers, and getting everyone to pay attention to her, I reacted unambiguously to restore order.   16:53 3-Nov-2017
 * Actually it's not dictating since what was said is policy and general human decency. John (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why does it need to be restated, and only in sections that are expected to hold dissenting views? Dissent is not incivility. --Robkelk (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the history of these debates usually end in uncivil comments and the last RfC was actually a factor for establishing said policy. John (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) For the formality. &mdash;  revi  05:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by that? Amanda123 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  This is just an another way to gather attention and I dont like it, it would go against our policies to let LTAs into Miraheze. So lets stick with our current block/ban/lock. Zppix (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This fact would be true if it was LP who was appealing the ban. But it isn’t LP appealing, and therefore the fact is not true. Amanda123 (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "LP implies F. Not LP; therefore, not F."  That is nonsense for the sheer joy of being adversarial.   02:17 5-Nov-2017
 * 1)  —Alvaro Molina  (✉  - ✔ ) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes without a rationale are unhelpful. Amanda123 (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Abstain Am too new to know the details of this case.  Expiration of a photo ID does not mean someone ceases to be the person identified, so a new ID should not be required.  A promise not to use Phabricator should not be a condition, as it is necessary to do several technical things.  But if Amanda is allowed back on, "nonsense wiki requests" should be reacted to harshly no matter how they are made.  Don't know how a user "destroys" a wiki irreparably.  Amanda's claim that the nuisance was not she but a housemate, or whatever, is unknowable to us.   22:04 2-Nov-2017
 * While your initial claim about ID expiration is true, the new ID’s are significantly different than the original ones, and technically I’m not allowed to provide the original ones as a method of official identification. Additionally, I can refrain from using Phabricator as I am familiar with MediaWiki code and therefore can PR all changes to my wiki on GitHub myself. The original wiki was destroyed by the abusive user compromising my account and then using Special:Nuke on the entire wiki. Amanda123 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I have little knowledge about Lawrence Prairies and Amandas involvement with her. I have heard she has terrorized this community but due to the fact I simply do not have enough info on LP and Amandas history I simply cannot vote on this ban appeal. If someone would provide me with a relatively in depth history of this case I may reconsider by abstention. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  19:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically it went down like this:
 * User:Lawrence-Prairies (my sister) came to Miraheze and started a wiki
 * LP was then in a car accident and was hospitalized — and I took over management of her wiki during this time
 * After LP was released from the hospital, we both continued to contribute to the wiki and the Miraheze community
 * Eventually, LP was globally banned due to a series of issues
 * LP was not able to accept the ban, and started spamming and vandalizing the wiki, I think just to make a point.
 * I requested an exception that would allow me to edit despite the ban on LP, which affected me at the time as we lived in the same apartment complex
 * LP then compromised my account and made a disaster, causing me to be globally locked again
 * LP has now been arrested, and my account and Internet connections have been secured. As such, there should be no more disruption from LP in the near future, and therefore I would like to come back to Miraheze as I was banned solely because LP compromised my account and CheckUser couldn’t tell the two of us apart
 * Per request of NDKilla, I provided photo ID to prove that LP and I were actually two people, however NDK didn’t do anything with it. As such, here we are now. Amanda123 (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please tell me what these "series of issues" were. Also do you have any proof that you sent an email to NDKilla containing information that you and LP were not the same person. From my reading of this I am getting the inclination that it is very far fetched and I do believe that your claims are not 100%. You said above there are no public arrest records of LP but I know Canada is a liberal country and I believe that arrest records would be available under some Freedom of Information act. I ask you Amanda, If you really want to get back on Miraheze, you must provide evidence that both you and LP are two different people and secondly you should try your best to provide info of LP's arrest. I believe a FOI request would be possible. My abstention still stands. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  00:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have proof of the email I sent, but I can’t upload the screenshot due to an edit filter preventing me from doing so. Amanda123 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Send me the proof through my business email: cnocbridebusiness@gmail.com &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  16:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course this is ideal, but it appears that the community is not in my favor on this one. Amanda123 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.
 * Can I please get a staff opinion from each of you? Thanks. Amanda123 (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in looking at other people's ID card, in whatever circumstances, unless I'm required to do so by Republic of Korea law. No other comments. &mdash; revi  11:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only comment I will make is that I don't see why an ID necessarily proves that two users are different people. What says that even if you provide two IDs one of two, one of them isn't the sole user of Amanda, ILB, LP, etc. accounts? Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 18:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s not really fair IMHO for you to make a comment discrediting my claims and then say that it is your “only comment”. In response to your exact comment, if you don’t think that photo ID is sufficient enough to prove my identity, what  do you  feel is sufficient? Amanda123 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, proof of your sisters arrest would be necessary. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  00:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2
A complete unban from the Miraheze community following the closure of this RFC, on the condition that I provide some form of identification/confirmation to the Miraheze staff team. Preferably, this would be photo ID as it would be the easiest for me to submit, however another method may be considered if it is possible and reasonable.

Support

 * 1)  This would also be ideal, but given the above I think that the community will also be against me here as well. Amanda123 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.
 * 1)  MacFan4000 (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted to AlvaroMolina above, simple oppose votes without a rationale are unhelpful. Amanda123 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody can verify that those two identity in real life is different identity on the web. &mdash;  revi  20:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So if that’s the case, what method do you recommend for me to prove that I’m not LP? Amanda123 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not mine to decide when there is no consensus to accept 'you'. &mdash; revi  05:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  Simply put, this community owes you nothing, and the consensus has been clear on whether they care to humor your presence, and my only request is for you to honorably accept that and gracefully leave without further incident. GethN7 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not true. The community does owe me something. This community banned me simply over a compromised account, which is not in the least of terms fair or appropriate. Amanda123 (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  LulzKiller (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.

Proposal 3
Just go away. OP is obviously evading a permaban, and has contributed hours of drama for its own sake. If love of Miraheze were the basis, then OP (who is not subject to any of the old IP range blocks) could have created a new identity and resumed editing, though I suspect this inability to participate in normal discourse would eventually out her.

All the blather about photo ID is moot; the issue in question is not, "I can prove who I am" but "None of the past unpleasantness was me but my evil twin," which can not only not be proven but tends to be disproven by the current unpleasantness, the gratuitous adversarialness, the need to structure everyone else's utterances before they are uttered. Now, in what fantasy world does a person losing an 8-1 vote (and evading a permaban) get to give the body three more proposals to vote for? Me, I'd rather spend the time writing funny stuff on my wiki.

Support

 * 1)    21:45 5-Nov-2017
 * OP has deleted my post twice, for being "unhelpful." To the contrary, these reverts exactly prove my point.   22:35 5-Nov-2017
 * 1) . LulzKiller (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Community in the page alone has shown 'Amanda' that they are not welcome here. I have no idea why they need to be allowed here despite everyone says clear no.  &mdash;  revi  05:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  MacFan4000 (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  This drama is getting old and distracts Miraheze from doing it's business. Having the source of said drama leave would benefit the entire farm. GethN7 (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to “just go away”. I am not wiling to “leave the farm”. The only reason why this is a major drama is because of the community, not me. As I’ve said multiple times now, I am not and I never was a troublemaker. The only thing that I did wrong was failing to secure my account and Internet connections enough to keep LP out. However, that is no longer an issue, and I have offered to provide evidence of all of these claims to the Miraheze staff team, yet they have ignored me. Instead of just telling me to go away, how about you answer the question where I pinged you above on proposal 3? Amanda123 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify my vote: I will not vote to give OP best-two-of-three. I will not vote to give OP a consolation prize.  The statement just above, that her behavior patterns are not the issue but rather the problem is everyone else in the community, is revealing.  OP promises to conduct herself invisibly in her own wiki; again, if this were her real goal, she would have done it by now.  The promise is unbelievable given her simultaneous criticism of staff for ignoring her.  I do not know nor care about Amanda's past here; this page alone shows the behavior of a stalker.   14:15 7-Nov-2017
 * Believe me, If I could’ve conducted myself invisibly on my wiki, I would’ve done so. However, you are missing the point, which is that I  cannot do so  because of inconsiderate Miraheze staff. If you can talk some sense into the staff and convince them to allow me to operate my wiki in peace, I would greatly appreciate it. Until then, we are here as this appears to be the only way that I can operate a wiki in peace. Amanda123 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I honestly don’t care about all of this, but since OP is clearly trying to return here despite nobody actually wanting him here I’m gonna sign this for the sake of it—WEMO666 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, who are you and why are you participating in this important discussion when (based on your contributions) you haven’t been a significant member of the community? Second, I am a “she” - please refer to me by the appropriate gender. Third, it is clear that the Miraheze community doesn’t want to see me or interact with me. That’s why proposal 6 is a fair compromise. I won’t see the community and they won’t see me while I’m still using a Miraheze wiki of my own - you can’t get better than that. Amanda123 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Guess what, nobody’s gonna give a shit if I’m not really involved here or not, I’ve still seen the stuff you’ve done and you have wasted your unban chances long time ago. Also, why should I care about your gender? I don’t even know who sits behind your account so yes. And if you want a wiki so badly, why don’t you host it on your own? Full control and all—WEMO666 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven’t wasted anything. I requested an exemption to my sister’s ban here. My sister was banned for being disruptive, among other things, and that ban collaterally affected me because we lived in the same apartment complex at the time. I was then re-banned, again collaterally here on the sole basis that my sister (LP) compromised my account and wreaked havoc with it. As such, this is essentially my first appeal (the second one if you want to count the first exemption request), and it’s an appeal for a ban that technically doesn’t even apply directly to me. Amanda123 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe a word—WEMO666 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * If you insist on having this here, fine. However, for the record this proposal is irrelevant and unhelpful. The entire RFC is about proposals that the community might agree on to allow to me to edit Miraheze again. This proposal is the exact opposite and therefore contradicts the entire point of the RFC. Additionally, the proposer said “If love of Miraheze were the basis, then OP (who is not subject to any of the old IP range blocks) could have created a new identity and resumed editing” — believe me, if I could do that, I would’ve done so a long time ago. However, the inconsiderate Miraheze staff won’t let me do that, and that’s why we are here. Amanda123 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * For the record, I am not evading a permban. The ban only affected LP, not me. I was just caught in the collateral damage because CheckUser couldn’t differentiate us when we were living in the same apartment complex. Amanda123 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 4
A limited unban from Miraheze, with a self-imposed “global topic ban” of sorts. This “topic ban” would include the following:


 * A complete ban from participating on Meta, including becoming a wiki creator or commenting on future RFCs/other requests
 * A complete ban from participating in the #miraheze IRC channel, unless needed for an emergency
 * A complete ban from participating on Miraheze Phabricator
 * A partial ban from participating on Miraheze GitHub — the exception being creating new PR’s for my own wiki only. However, all other activity would be prohibited.
 * An interaction ban between myself and any other members of the Miraheze community, except the independent users of my own wiki

All of the above inclusions of the topic ban would last indefinitely. Should I want them repealed, a new RFC or other discussion would be required. Should I violate any of the above restrictions, my account shall be blocked on Meta with talk page access. This way, I can handle the situation on my Meta talk page. This would also be an exception to the first condition of the topic ban.

Support

 * 1)  Second alternative to proposal 4 below. Amanda123 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  My patience is wearing thin with these proposals. Anyway, what I think we should do is unban Amanda on one wiki only. One wiki for her to use for her own project. Amanda should be banned from Meta, Phabricator and Github with no exceptions. She should not be allowed to request one right. She should be confined to her own wiki and the only way she can make feature requests is by setting up a page on the wiki that will list any extensions or feature requests she may need. This list should be checked every two weeks by a Miraheze volunteer/staff member and should be added to the wiki. My reasoning for this is that she has caused great destruction to the Miraheze community (I have put some thought into this) but I do not believe a full on ban is necessary. I believe one last chance will be necessary and if she fails to comply she should be banned indefinitely with no chance of appeal. If Amanda does not accept these terms I will oppose every other proposal that she makes and support the "Go away" proposal. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.
 * 1)  MacFan4000 (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  GethN7 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  LulzKiller (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Any comments in this section must be civil. Personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.
 * Please elaborate further as to why you believe that this proposal is not a fair compromise. Essentially, if this proposal is implemented, it would give the community what they want (not having me around), while also giving me what I want (a wiki on Miraheze). Basically, this would amount to me being able to host a wiki, but yet the community won’t see me and I won’t see them. Amanda123 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be blunt, I could care less and simply wish you would gracefully leave. There are many other services for wiki hosting you could try, and you can always self host if you wish to. Your fixation for here is frankly offputting and given how drama always tends to follow your presence, I believe the community would be better served if you simply picked up stakes and moved elsewhere. GethN7 (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And that’s exactly my point. You (both referring to yourself and the community) don’t want me here. I just want a wiki here. So, where do we meet in the middle? I simply keep to myself on my wiki only and work in the background. This way, the community doesn’t see me and I don’t see them. Amanda123 (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Complete confinement. So many of you's already know that I am a lenient person and that I am a forgiving type of person, I apologize if that angers many of you. I understand LP has done terrible things to this community and maybe Amanda too even though she can't prove she hasn't done. I am basing my opinions on the "benefit of the doubt" argument. I am trying to contemplate if Amanda has never done anything to the community which is unlikely due to the amount of evidence against her but I want to give her another chance and I ask you's all to support this motion as it works out the best for us and gives Amanda a scrap of Miraheze back to her.

I propose:
 * Amanda is too be disallowed from editing on the Meta wiki in any shape or form, on any page. She shall only have read access on the Meta wiki to keep up to date with Meta policies and discussions though she cannot take part in these discussions.
 * Amanda should be banned entirely from all other wikis on Miraheze, except for Meta and ONE WIKI. This one wiki will be the only place were Amanda shall be able to edit and grow a community.
 * Amanda will not have access to Phabricator or Github with absolutely no exceptions. She should be disallowed from making any contact with anyone through these services and should be blocked from making feature requests and making pull requests. The only way she should be allowed to update her extensions is by setting up a administrative page on her one wiki. This page will be checked fortnightly by sysadmins or any other person able to perform feature requests. This is a punishment as it will mean she will not be able to get her feature requests quickly and will only be able to request them through this page.
 * Any feature requests that require confidentiality shall be communicated through email with the Miraheze staff.
 * She will be wholly banned from communicating on IRC (even in an emergency) and shall only be able to contact Miraheze staff through email.
 * If any of these terms are broken or any other Miraheze global policy is broken then Amanda should be indefinitely banned with no chance of appeal.

There is no negotiation on these terms and if does not accept them I will support every proposal to ban her. This is the best chance she has got so I recommend she takes it. &#32;  CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  19:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  This is essentially just the same thing as proposal 3 above, except that it bans me from even making PR’s for my own wiki. I’m opposed to this because I’m not really interacting with anyone when I’m submitting feature requests for myself, however at this point, I’ll take anything to end this drama once and for all. As such, I hereby and irrevocably accept and agree to these terms. Amanda123 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  CnocBride brings some sense to a hostile table. With a total wall, there is no issue. John (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now we just have to convince the users above and below to stop being ignorant and look at this with fully open eyes. Too bad you aren’t a steward anymore... Amanda123 (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  as proposer &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Just go away.  21:34 7-Nov-2017
 * No. Amanda123 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  MacFan4000 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not going to accept oppose without a rationale here. This is the best compromise yet, and it wasn’t even written by me. As such, you need to explain why specifically you oppose this proposal. Amanda123 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the reasons are quite obvious, instead of dedicating yourself to questioning each vote of the users, you could let this flow and just talk when you ask questions directly to yourself, otherwise this will only make your situation worse. Best Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 22:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the reasons are not quite obvious. In fact, the reasons are anything but obvious as MacFan4000 (who wasn’t even a member of the community at the time of the last RFC) has not supplied a valid rationale for any of his oppose votes except the first one — and that rationale was largely based on incorrect information. Amanda123 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with AlvaroMolina. I have already dealt with you many times. No one can be forced to provide a rationalle. MacFan4000 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is simply and plainly not true. You have not had to “deal with me many times”. In fact, you didn’t even know who I was until you saw this RFC, because you were not a part of the community at the time of this RFC or this RFC (unless you were operating under a different username, in which case I will ask that you disclose that previous name). Amanda123 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have had to deal with you - both on WMF wikis and on testwiki.wiki . 01:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * TestWiki.wiki? I haven’t used that site in the longest time (can’t remember when), and it was known as TestWiki.ga or something like that the last time I used it. The last time I checked that wiki the URL no longer went anywhere, and then I discovered the new location on your GitHub page. Anyway, if I recall correctly, you didn’t have to “deal with me” - you just didn’t like what I was doing on the wiki. Don’t over exaggerate. And it is very possible, in fact very likely, that you’ve had to deal with LP on Wikimedia sites, but I’ve never edited a single Wikimedia site. I’ve been afraid to because of LP. Amanda123 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Amanda, I advise you calm down a little, no need to get personal. If you have evidence you were unfairly prejudiced, it would be best to present that to make your case, not merely accusing others of bias minus accompanying proof. GethN7 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "No one can be forced to provide a rationalle" This is a discussion, not a vote. If you don't provide a rationale your vote carries little to no weight. John (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)   If I had any confidence this wouldn't lead to more drama later, I'd be happy to accept this, but unfortunately, I have been utterly disabused of that sort of naivety, so I must oppose even this option. GethN7 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What sort of drama do you see here? LP is in jail and my Internet connection has been secured, so my account won’t be compromised again. The only way this would lead to drama is if I deliberately evaded the restrictions, which I would never do for obvious reasons. Even though you (incorrectly) think that I'm a vandal, you still need to assume good faith on behalf of me. As Jimmy Wales once said, “Remember that today’s vandals might be tomorrow’s contributors if given a chance”. And since I’m not a vandal, I should not have to be given a chance. I should be treated like a normal user. Amanda123 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Nope nope nope and nope on a nope—WEMO666 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, can you supply a valid reason why this is not a good compromise? The definition of a compromise is that both parties give a little and both parties get a little. In this case, I’m giving up complete and unconditional access to Miraheze, and I’m getting an independent wiki where I can work in the background. The Miraheze community, on the other hand, is giving up a complete ban against me which is wholly unnecessary and inappropriate, and in exchange they are getting the liberty of not having to see me or interact with me unless they choose to do so on my wiki. If you don’t like this compromise, feel free to propose a different one that you can support. Amanda123 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we don’t like you. I don’t see the point of you returning to a place where nobody likes you, so why are you still whining about this? And why don’t you simply follow my advice and get a wiki and HOST it on your own? What do you prefer, a wiki with full control or limited control?—WEMO666 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if you don’t like me, just don’t visit my wiki. Simple as that. And of course I would like complete control, but I don’t have the technical knowledge to host a wiki myself. Amanda123 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then learn how to do that. If you host a wiki on a server of your own, both of us gain something. You get a wiki and we peace and quiet—WEMO666 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You will still get peace and quiet under this proposal. I’ll literally be behind a wall and out of sight unless someone else breaks the wall by contributing to my wiki. Amanda123 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  LulzKiller (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * I’m also not thrilled that this is essentially punishing me for something that I didn’t do. Remember, I was never and will never be a troublemaker (at least not a deliberate troublemaker). The only thing that I did “wrong” that got me collaterally banned was not having strong enough security to prevent LP from compromising my account. Additionally, I have offered to prove that I didn’t do anything wrong, but yet my offer has been rejected. However, as noted above, I’m just looking to end this drama finally, and so you have my (reluctant) support on this. Amanda123 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your anger at this but this is the best you are going to get. Everyone in the community is against you simply because you have no proof you aren't Lawrence-Prairies. The ID's cannot be confirmed to be of a truthful nature or to be of you and this is the best chance you have. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever I guess. Upon thinking about it more, I’ve come to the conclusion that a ban on PR’s won’t be so bad. This is because all of the configuration for my wiki is still available here, and therefore all that would need to be done is for someone to revert that commit upon re-creating my wiki. Amanda123 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand peoples anger at accepting Amanda back to Miraheze and to be honest, I aren't to gone on letting her back in. Even though the evidence is stacked against her I am not 100% confident. I know it sounds silly but I just am not fully confident that Amanda did all this spamming and vandalism, I understand most likely she did but I believe in our world anything could be possible. I say "What if she is telling the truth". Until she can prove she isn't LP she should be confined. If she can't prove she should be confined indefinitely. I ask people to have leniency and mercy and please support this proposal. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  17:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing that just crossed my mind is that this proposal doesn’t mention how I would go about requesting CU or OS on my wiki should I ever need it. Requests for OS should NEVER be made publicly, and I’d be hesitant to post CU requests in a public place where the vandals I want checked can see them. Amanda123 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, as to the former, you can always email the administration. As to the latter, I do not understand why you would be reluctant to make your intentions public so everyone knows your request was a proper one, the onus would be on the vandal, not you, to prove otherwise if you go through public channels with a clear rationale for your request. GethN7 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it’s better for vandals to not know what is being done to stop them. Amanda123 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any requests that may be confidential must done through email. I have updated the terms. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  17:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 5A
Implement proposal 5 above exactly as worded for a “trial period” of 1 month. After 1 month has passed, if the conditions of the proposal are working fine and not causing problems, they will be extended to last indefinitely. If they are causing problems, the issue can be re-visited at that time.

Support

 * 1)  Honestly I think that this is the best I can get to “meeting in the middle” between what I want and what the community wants. If someone else thinks that they can make a better compromise, feel free to do so in a new proposal. However, at this point please do not just leave oppose votes without a rationale, and preferably don’t even bother leaving oppose comments here unless you can propose a different compromise solution. Amanda123 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  As I am proposer of proposal 5. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  23:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  I wasn't going to even bother responding to Amanda's dredged-up campaign to be reinstated but after reading this now rather laborious debate, which has covered many angles, I feel I must put my voice forward and support this proposal. Everyone has made a series of valid points, some hate-related comments, and the minority, favouring a compromise. To be fair the compromise pretty much completely isolates Amanda to her own wiki with none whatsoever interaction with the rest of the community. What is so bad about that? Yes, this whole debacle has been on and off for over a year now and I must salute the persistence from both sides of the argument.
 * I haven't agreed with a lot of things Amanda has said in the past and I do believe she is not as innocent as she makes herself out to be. Sorry Amanda but that is the truth, I don't say it out of malice but you have dug your own virtual grave more than once. And let us not forget the constant blanking of people's comments, the repeated mentions of CU and OS, plus the wording of your own comments that suggests you, and only you, can dictate what happens in an open forum, even if it is one you have created. This sort of behaviour only weakens your appeal, and ultimately negates whatever efforts you put forward to redeem your persona on Meta. So, with this in mind stop trying to control a situation where the odds are literally stacked against you.
 * Whilst I don't agree with the hate put forward here on this page, people's comments do hold water. However, if Amanda is so determined to have her own wiki hosted by Miraheze she has to prove to everyone that this is genuine. This proposal would give her the opportunity to do just that and work on her own wiki, staying clear of the community and literally everything else. If she isn't seen or heard by the community, and those that don't like her avoids her website, then I can't see any problem with letting her get on with her project and be done with it. However, I will make this clear, IF for any reason she steps out of line after warning has been given (and that would be determined by staff only) it would be beneficial for staff to consider an instant and unequivocal permaban without any chance of appeal . That would literally be the end of it. 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's from Monty Python, isn't it? Amanda's degree of determination is not an argument for or against anything.  Her repeated tendency to redefine reality after-the-fact to be less "unhelpful" argues that she will not be bound by anything, notably any promise she might make.  Future events will void them and will be "the community's fault."   02:22 12-Nov-2017
 * I’m kind of at the end of my line here and I’m really starting to loose my temper. if you don’t have anything nice to say I will politely ask you to please step out of this discussion as your comments are getting more hostile every time. Amanda123 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd watch that temper. Spike is simply expressing his opinion and I see no "hostility" in the comment. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  14:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above. John (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  For the reasons clearly stated above. MacFan4000 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  My rationale as defined in my other votes on similar proposals remains unchanged. GethN7 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Although I am not obliged to give any argument in this case because all of us who know you know the hostile behavior you had, for the first and only time I will comment on this case (and do not ask me questions like the others, I'm not going to answer you). You were given 2 opportunities (first as LP and then as Amanda), and the 2 occasions you did not know how to take advantage of and that led to the situation you are in today, where the community has a hard time regaining confidence towards your person.
 * The fact that the real LP/ILB have intervened, supposedly, your account is not a valid excuse. As with other accounts that you have on the internet, you are responsible for preventing others from intervening (either by logging out, using a secure password or by avoiding logging in to public computers), this is directly related to the typical and famous excuse of "my little brother did this".
 * As we have already told you many users, there are many hosting providers for wikis based on MediaWiki (even with almost the same Miraheze features) and where you can also establish yourself doing things right. Here, at least for now, you are not welcome and I do not think this will be resolved in the short term. So it is better that you desist. Best Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 23:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, deliberately and blatantly referring to me as LP/ILB when I’ve made it abundantly clear otherwise and even offered proof multiple times is a short slippery slope to getting an interaction ban between yourself and me — meaning that even if I’m operating a wiki behind a wall, I will take all measures technically possible to prevent you from ever crossing that wall. Amanda123 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  LulzKiller (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Just go away.  I do not accept OP's right to continue to react to losing votes on propositions by making new propositions.  I do not accept OP's right to rearrange this page and repackage old debates.  On the wiki I came from, a permanent ban means you cease to participate in the life of the wiki.  This Forum would have been locked and your new sockpuppet would have been banned — about a week ago.   00:02 12-Nov-2017
 * First of all, no ban is permenant. Bans are indefinite. Additionally, any ban can be appealed and bans on various websites are appealed all the time, as long as the appealing user goes through the proper channels, which I am doing. Furthermore, I am not technically banned rather I am caught up in a sticky collateral situation that I’m trying to resolve and therefore this is not officially a ban appeal at all. Amanda123 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, as this is my RFC, I am allowed to do pretty much whatever I want with it. The only things that I am not allowed to do are:
 * Remove legitimate votes or comments, even if I disagree with them
 * Make attacks or throw insults at my opposition
 * Attempt to close the discussion with a consensus, as I clearly have a conflict of interest
 * I am permitted to do anything else, including restructure and withdraw proposals. I also can close and withdraw the entire RFC if I want to, but I’m not doing that (yet). Amanda123 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the first bullet, you have already violated your own rule, twice. (Sec. 4.1).  I am sick of having a banned user tell us what she is "permitted" to do.  Just go away.   02:22 12-Nov-2017
 * First of all, the terms and rules that I have imposed on myself only go into effect AFTER this RFC has been closed. Additionally, if you read the bold text, you would notice that it said that the three bullets above are examples of what I am not allowed to do, not what I am allowed to do. Also, please stop typing the same line over and over again — I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that I will not “just go away” and therefore constantly re-hashing that point is starting to border on being disruptive just to prove a point. Amanda123 (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In case anyone thinks Amanda caught me in an error of logic: She says "The only things that I am not allowed to do are...remove legitimate votes or comments." Which, again, she has already done on this page, until she saw she would not prevail and the best she could do was to try to twist it into a guilt trip.  My votes here have been based only on the statements made here, but am now beginning to study Amanda's past.  It is easy to see the bad faith she has brought to everything — hence the "starting to border on being disruptive."  There is a pregnant comparison to US politics when one faction has run out of things to say.  So just go away.   04:02 12-Nov-2017
 * How many times do I have to say that I will not go away until I am treated fairly? A ban is only used as a last-resort measure when other measures have proved insufficient. In this case, no other measures have been attempted, let alone the the fact that I am not officially banned (only collaterally) and have no reason to be officially banned.
 * I wish to rescind my previous observation that Amanda's rhetoric suggests that of a stalker. In fact it suggests that of a (redacted -John ).  14:20 12-Nov-2017
 * (Agree with John that this is a CoC violation and I find it highly offensive. Redacted pending removal from the user. Amanda123 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC))
 * I wish to request you rescind that comment as a borderline Code of Conduct violation. John (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not rescind it, and I undo another of Amanda's edits of me. I am not accusing anyone of a crime; I am noting the refusal to be bound by anything, simultaneous with the promise of unprecedented good conduct in the future.  She will not go away until she is treated "fairly," by her measure, that is, until she prevails.   16:41 12-Nov-2017
 * You are insinuating and comparing Amanda to a rapist. It adds no value to the discussion and is an offensive comment you are making for the sake of it. You did not undo a bad faith edit, you undid a good faith edit. If you do not wish to rescind it, then it is a Code of Conduct violation. I have removed it as such, if you wish to come up with a better word feel free. If you re-instate it you are wilfully being offensive against any standards of a discussion. John (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with John. Although, I also feel that negative comparisons are undesirable in almost any situation. If you wish to express "the refusal to be bound by anything, simultaneous with the promise of unprecedented good conduct in the future", then do so plainly. -- Void  Whispers 18:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) Amanda, I respectfully remind you that this is a ban appeal. The onus is on you to win over people to accept you should be a member in good standing once more. Losing your temper because of entrenched opposition to you only demeans your efforts and emboldens your detractors by justifying their belief in your own intransigence. And I also must dissent with your view, your constant insistence you deserve to be a member in good standing without clear proof why that was ever in doubt being dispelled does not make for a convincing argument for your position. If you could clear that up to our satisfaction, that would certainly help your case. GethN7 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn’t really a ban appeal since I’m not officially banned in the first place. Additionally, at this point I’m no longer trying to win over anyone with anything. I’m just growing increasingly frustrated that the community won’t even let me operate behind a wall and completely out of sight from everyone else. Amanda123 (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is called "Amanda ban appeal", and you created the page with that title. If it's not a ban appeal, and you aren't banned, can you explain what the actual purpose of this page is? Southparkfan (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All the previous locks have referred to a ban and everyone calls it a ban. Though a ban is against a person not an account, in this case it's put forth the user being banned here isn't the banned user. They're using my logic in the argument. John (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

 * I was asked to comment on this RfC, and looking at the 'emotional impact' it seems to have, I'll comment. Let me say first that I absolutely hate (users like) L-P, and I do not wish to be part a project where its 'community' (looking at this page, I am talking about users, wiki founders, staff and ex-staff) would not allow me to deal with such trolls, especially people forcing us to break our own set of standards regarding technical stuff (we don't have unlimited money to get ourselves a crap ton of servers, security reviewers and developers to make literally every configuration change possible in a fraction of a second). Personally I do not believe L-P and Amanda are different people (but I know it's not 100% impossible, granted). Proposal 5A seems like a good compromise imho, provided that we can take action if e-mail would be abused.. could someone confirm that? Southparkfan (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can confirm that this could occur. However, the definition of “abuse” as defined by the steward and sysadmin team(s) should be clearly and broadly construed before the closure of this RFC, and notice should be given to me should the team(s) have a unanimous consensus to change said definition. Amanda123 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * I must admit, regardless how any of this goes, I find Amanda's open admission they refuse to just go away, community consensus on that or not, to be incredibly disturbing, arrogant, and only lends credence to the belief they have a stalkerish desire to remain here. They are essentially saying they don't care for the community's opinion on them, they will force themselves on us whether their presence is welcome or not, not matter how things are decided. I ask everyone bear this in mind when they wonder if their continued presence here is healthy for the community. And, just as an aside, if the community here unilaterally voted on my excommunication from Miraheze, I would be happy to accept such with grace and dignity, as the community has spoken and I would accede to the consensus without complaint. GethN7 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed! You might even react to such universal disapproval by taking a moment to ask yourself, between (1) you and (2) everyone else, whether events might indicate it was yourself whose conduct was ill-advised.  CnocBride may fancy a role for himself as peacemaker/conciliator, and may be young (which is fine), too young to know about the predictable consequences of reacting to flagrant misconduct with an Outreach Campaign.   00:02 12-Nov-2017
 * and I think that you both are taking me out of context here. I never said that I was not willing to accept the community not wanting me here. I am willing to accept what the community wants under any and all circumstances. However, what I will not accept is an attempt to prevent me from operating my own wiki invisibly behind a wall where the community won’t even see me or interact with me unless they contribute to the wiki. This entire page all boils down to “The Miraheze community doesn’t want to interact with you and they don’t want you participating in community affairs. That’s perfectly fine — that’s why proposal 5 exists. Additionally, if you have any doubt about this “confinement wall” working as CnocBride intends it to, support this sub-proposal. This way, after one month, if the plan is working, we are all set, and if it’s not, we can re-visit this issue at that time. But you never know if something will work and make both parties happy unless you try it first. The definition of a compromise is that both parties give a little and get a little. I’m willing to give up a complete unban from Miraheze services. Miraheze needs to be willing to give a little as well. Amanda123 (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, in case you guys haven’t figured it out yet, the only main reason why I refuse to just go away is because it is highly inappropriate and unacceptable for the global community to attempt to ban me when I have done nothing wrong. A ban is only used as a last-resort measure when other measures have proved insufficient. In this case, “other measures” (namely this confinement wall) have not yet been attempted. Besides, remedy measures shouldn’t even be necessary when I am not deliberately causing disruption. Amanda123 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Amanda, I shall make this clear, with no ambiguity, just so we are clear. I do not trust you. At all. I do not believe anything about you being a separate entity from Lawrence-Praries and never will unless unequivocal proof surfaces, and even if you are telling the truth, we have gone through so much drama here at Miraheze as a result of the presence of you and and LP I'm utterly convinced neither of you are worth the risk of further upset and discord, and it's become clear you have an open fixation on remaining here for some reason that comes off as stalkerish, and if you somehow manage to defy current consensus, which has been to show you the door versus showing you mercy, I would be utterly shocked if you somehow manage to not cause trouble despite all the restrictions you are saying you will accept, because again, I have absolutely no reason to trust your word, and frankly, many here feel likewise. If you somehow manage to stick around and don't cause any further mischief, either as yourself or whom you swear isn't your alter-ego (and again, we have no unequivocal proof to rule that out), well and good, but make no mistake, I DO NOT TRUST YOU AND UNLESS UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF OF YOUR INNOCENCE IS MADE AVAILABLE, I NEVER WILL. I hope this makes my position absolutely clear. GethN7 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * GethN7, I will ask you to PLEASE STOP SHOUTING as it doesn’t make the situation any better. I honestly could care less about whether you trust me or not. At this point, all I really care about is what said above, which TBH I really couldn’t have said any better myself. Amanda123 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things. One, I was bolding my words for emphasis, and two, you just admitted you are ignoring everything except what you want to hear. GethN7 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion is pretty much stalled at this point. I think that there is a rough consensus for proposal 5A. At least that’s the proposal with the most support comments excluding proposal 3 which is really out-of-scope to this ban appeal. As such, I suggest that we at least give it it a try. Additionally, as noted in proposal 5A, if these conditions don’t work after a month, we can re-visit this issue. Pinging and, as the two stewards who have not officially cast votes for an impartial closure. Amanda123 (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not stalled. Despite your own vote to free yourself from your ban, the proposal was defeated, 4-5.  Your suggestion that we cast this least overwhelming rejection as some kind of approval, and "at least give it it a try" is breathtaking defiance of reality and of other members.   13:37 16-Nov-2017
 * SPF’s “abstain” vote counts as a weak support, since the only reason he abstained was the lack of knowledge about how to handle “email abuse”. Considering SPF’s vote, the proposal is tied. Additionally, as noted above, this is the proposal that has the most support votes EXCLUDING PROPOSAL 3, which is off-topic for a ban appeal. Amanda123 (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It really depends how you think of abstain votes. It is true that there is more direct oppisition but SPF's abstain vote could also count as a weak oppose, which would make the proposal fail. MacFan4000 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It counts as neither. It's a neutral comment. Also the number of votes is irrelevant, arguments are the only thing that count. It's never clear cut pass or fail. John (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that’s the case, then this proposal has passed. The opposing arguments are either just “oppose, go away we don’t like you” and/or “strong oppose and i don’t want to provide a rationale” — neither of which is a valid argument IMHO. Amanda123 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have already stated that you don't want to hear talk that is "unhelpful" (to your victory). If you purport to be your own moderator and vote counter, you cannot hide behind proper procedure.   15:50 16-Nov-2017
 * I'm a sysadmin in real life (and once nearly had my own Wikipedia article). Amanda will probably keep coming back, like the infamous MascotGuy from Wikipedia (who's well-known for spamming bikini sites on wikis and forums) and the only real solution is to give her a "walled garden" wiki but perhaps limiting the featureset.

I have heard claims that this user (uncertain if it is the one here) posted pornspam on a few blogs.

CheckUser and oversight are liabilities, so perhaps she can't or shouldn't use them.

What I do know is that this user is probably not as bad as the spambots who keep returning to post links to hardcore porn, and Amanda isn't one of them.

Her and LP being different people, at face value it may be disputed, but take it on its merits. On a wiki I ran I had to deal with user who kept asking other users for colors of their underwear and harassing them via email to vote Trump. Amanda is nothing like these.

If the admins here want to ban her, no issue, but really, why not just give her a walled-garden, sequestered from the rest, as a sort of semi-punishment.

John CA Bambenek, cybersecurity expert. --JBambenek1 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing remarks
Well, Proposal 3 had more supports than any other proposal. As such, Amanda will be banned but with some caveats.

I'll be doing something a little more extreme but I think well deserved, and I'm doing such based on community input.

As an Operations member it's my responsibility to ensure the smooth operation of this site and the appropriate use of resources, including the time of our volunteers. I think I can say without a doubt that far too much time has been wasted going over this (and similar) proposals, but I wanted the community's nod on this.

As much as I wanted to give Amanda a chance and as much as I want to agree with John, CnocBride, and some of the other supporters, I just really don't want this to be a debate ever again.

I'm well aware of the fact that trying to ban Amanda will probably result in a backlash from /them/ and cause a headache for Miraheze staff but at least this wont have to be debated anymore.

Anyways, based on community feedback regarding the entire situation, I'm invoking clause 8 of our current Terms of Use, which allows Miraheze to restrict access to the site at it's sole discretion.

'''I recommend to all staff members that any accounts believed to belong to Amanda or anyone related to them should be indefinitely globally locked and any IP addresses believed to be usable by them to be globally hard blocked. Instances of collateral will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.'''

I won't put forth the effort to cite specific examples but the reason I'm going to go by the ToU to enact this is to keep things simple when it comes to dealing with future popups related to this.

Reasons for the ToU based lock (in no particular order) include:
 * Community input, as seen in this RfC and all previous RfCs.
 * Amanda's attempt to discredit staff by posting a negative review of Miraheze on our official Facebook page. Amanda & co. did not go through the correct channels trying to get these matters resolved and posting a negative review of us with 1 / 5 star rating when you even say you think we deserve a 3 or 4 star rating is stupid.
 * Your repeated attempts to control various aspects of this site.
 * Removing or editing other peoples messages, especially to shine the light in your favor.
 * Removing or editing other peoples messages, especially to shine the light in your favor.
 * Removing or editing other peoples messages, especially to shine the light in your favor.
 * Attempting to circumvent various global policies.
 * Your attempts to control staff.
 * Your insistence that people can't do what they want and that their opinions don't really matter because they're not relevant, when they are, in fact, completely relevant.

Anyways, thanks for discussing guys. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 05:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I too believe hope this is the last time this topic is discussed. I am sad to see that the community seen no hope in my proposal as I believed it was the best option for both sides but I would like to thank all participants in the discussion and I accept the communities decision :) &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was anything inherently wrong with your proposal, in fact, I liked your proposal. However I think most of the staff is aware of how Amanda/DeltaQuad/MatthewPW act. If I thought they would be fine in isolation I would have done something like that but I don't think they'd actually keep quiet and I think it would be more work for the same (if not more) ammount of headache. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 21:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Because 'Amanda' seems they are not understanding correctly, let me clarify this - "This is not a community ban but an invocation of terms of use clause (which you have agreed by using our sites)" and "we will not consider appeals in a foreseeable future" for their disruptive behavior. Thank you. &mdash; revi  02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)