Open main menu


A quick check

Hi Amalthea - a couple of Rian13 socks have popped up (User:Riansmith1992 and User:Riananthonysmith). I've blocked them both, but could you do a quick check for sleepers? Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do–tomorrow, if I may. :) Amalthea 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing else came up in the ranges I looked at. Cheers, Amalthea 10:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the spot check! It certainly helps spotting them when they file protected edit requests on the articles that have been semi-protected against their socking.... --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle rollout

AzaToth and I have been discussing the Twinkle rollout lately. But he seems to be busy at the moment, so I'm asking you for some possible assistance.

We are planning to have the following architecture for Twinkle:

(See also User:This, that and the other/Twinkle update.) But before this switchover can happen, I have to test it. And, being a non-admin, I need help to do it. So what I am proposing is: for a short time (probably a day or two), a test gadget is set up and added to the bottom of MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, like so:

* TwinkleTEST[ResourceLoader|dependencies=jquery.ui.dialog,jquery.tipsy]|morebits.js|morebits.css|TwinkleTEST.js

The following pages will have to be created, with the following contents:

MediaWiki:Gadget-TwinkleTEST Twinkle experimental gadget <small>'''(please do not use this!!)'''</small>
MediaWiki:Gadget-TwinkleTEST.js Create by moving User:This, that and the other/temp/MediaWiki:Gadget-TwinkleTEST.js
MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js Create by moving User:This, that and the other/temp/MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js
MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.css Create by moving User:This, that and the other/temp/MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.css

Once the testing is finished (in a couple of days, I hope), the TEST pages can be deleted, but the morebits files can be left alone.

Do you think this is possible, permissible, non-broken, etc.? If so, could you please spare a moment to carry it out? — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Setup looks good to me, I've moved them all in place and added a new test section to the gadgets. Have fun testing, and if you're planning a beta phase let me know so that I can change the wording of the gadget accordingly. Cheers, Amalthea 10:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for doing this. I'm just about to enable the gadget... — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for syncing... Is there any chance you could do it again, just for User:This, that and the other/temp/MediaWiki:Gadget-TwinkleTEST.js? There was a syntax error. Sorry to have to bother you again. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. Amalthea 10:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

New release editnotice

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Template:TFA-editnotice. A similar edit notice has recently been developed at Template:New release editnotice. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Popups image fix

Hi, I fixed another tiny bug, see Wikipedia_talk:Tools/Navigation_popups#Popup_for_a_commons_image. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Amalthea 07:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle test gadget

Could you please re-sync the test gadget? I'm nearing completion of my testing... well, I hope, anyway. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. FYI, see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-morebits.js. Cheers, Amalthea 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Please get onto IRC channel #wikipedia-userscripts, AzaToth 15:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Aww, I missed deployment day. :/
Good work, everyone! Amalthea 07:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle, Twinkle, little barnstar

  Twinkle Barnstar
The new Twinkle project has clearly been a mammoth task, and this is my recognition of everyone involved (and if I missed anyone, please let me know). The new look and feel, the new features, the prefs GUI, are all great, and rewriting it to use the API sets us up for HTML 5 (if not infinity) and beyond. And considering the wide impact, the implementation went remarkably smoothly - main teething issues solved quickly, and it finally inspired me to upgrade to Firefox 4   -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I didn't help at all -- I believe it was all AzaToth, UncleDouggie, Tcncv, and This, That, and the Other. Well, I carved that barnstar image, but that doesn't count. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you've clearly been offering support to the project, which is all part of it (and providing the barnstar, which I shamelessly ripped off) - I've got all four of the techies, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


I wasn't done yet, the editnotice doesn't display if there's already an editnotice on a certain page, I was going to create a blank one for the Village pumps and noticeboards. —James (TalkContribs)9:47pm 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you started blacklisting all pages where it didn't make sense after I deleted the namespace editnotice. There are an enourmous amount of pages and prefixes where it doesn't. RFA pages? Arbcom pages? Xfd pages? Wikiprojects? FA pages? FP pages? SPI pages? If you really only want it for policy pages, why not just add specific ones where they are needed? Is this notice useful in the first place? States the obvious, IMHO.
Bottom line though, show me community consensus that this is useful, and that yours is the right approach. This is far from uncontroversial.
Amalthea 11:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Rd232 recreated the namespace notice for the Wikipedia talk namespace and I myself was unaware of the Wikipedia namespace editnotice of ever having existed. Perhaps individually is better... there an awful lot of "non-policy pages" :S I thought the editnotice would be useful considering policy and guideline templates already say "do not make changes unless they reflect community consensus". —James (TalkContribs)10:04pm 12:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't thought about it too much, but IMHO a general 'follow the rules' editnotice is not useful -- not in WP space, and not in WT space (was there a discussion about the latter anyway?). Experienced editors know that already, and whether it's really helping any newbie and preventing enough non-constructive edits to be worth it is very doubtful, IMHO. We're overbannering the place, IMHO. If edit notices are the norm, people won't even see them anymore.
Amalthea 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly and no I don't think it was discussed, perhaps you should ask Rd232 afterall, he did recreate it. I noticed that horrid editnotice at WT:FSC and blanked its respective editnotice to hide it, it states the obvious and is way too general. I'll be going to sleep now, I've got a long day tomorrow and I need to catchup on all the sleep I missed. —James (TalkContribs)10:25pm 12:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


If practically possible for you, please camp on IRC channel #wikipedia-userscripts so we can communicate better. AzaToth 10:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you delete a page in test-wiki?

Hello and 1st of all - sorry for my bad english. I know that you a an administrator in test wiki. Can you delete this page there? Thank you. --Askarmuk (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. Amalthea 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Askarmuk (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Er, accident? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Twinkle was broken. Amalthea 11:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh, that explains it :-) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Count pages

Hello Amalthea,

Could you tell me if there is a way I can count how many times a template is used?

Riannedac (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

on the template page, follow the "What links here" link in the toolbox section of your sidebar. You can see the pages linking to or transcluding a template there, or you can follow the link to the external transclusion counter tool:
HTH, Amalthea 10:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ty! Riannedac (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you perhaps know if there is a 'counter' image/banner/template that we can put on our project page to shows how many times the template has been used? Riannedac (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. What exactly do you want to achieve? Amalthea 10:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
For our project we would like to reach a goal of getting 30.000 new articles about Africa on Wikipedia. I made a template for the project and I thought it would be nice to have a counter on the homepage. This way, people can see how close we are to our target. But, ok. It's not necessary, thought it would look nice. Thanks. Riannedac (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. What you can do is create an appropriately named tracking category, like Category:WikiProject Africa 2011 article drive articles or some such, and put the template {{Tracking category}} on the page. Afterwards, make your template categorizes the pages it is put on, typically by adding <includeonly>[[Category:WikiProject Africa 2011 article drive articles]]</includeonly> to the template.
Once that is done, you can use the magic word PAGESINCATEGORY to count the pages in the category with {{PAGESINCATEGORY:WikiProject Africa 2011 article drive articles}}.
Amalthea 13:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes! It worked, thanks. Riannedac (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Lock status/popups

Hi, I'm not sure if you missed this section, but I was wondering whether you thought that was a viable idea worth implementing. -- Mentifisto 23:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

a useful addition, and viable in principle, but I was hesitant to try and get the required information from the globalauth log since that has a few pitfalls: It lists items besides 'setstatus', sometimes the resulting status is hidden, and it will show incorrect results for unattached accounts.
I noticed that I can get all that I need from the globaluserinfo request to the local wiki's API though, so it should now be quite simple to add that functionality. I'll look into it as soon as I can (and figure out the answer to one remaining question).
Amalthea 08:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty. Not quite sure whether an unattached account is handled correctly on all wikimedia wikis, still need to find that out.
Testing: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Amalthea 09:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
An unattached account that has its unified account locked doesn't seem to display anything, which I suppose is correct behaviour. Thanks! -- Mentifisto 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


I know what you might say, WP:DENY. But would you mind blocking me without talk page access revoked? Also, there isn't any need to notify me of the block/anything on my talk page. Thanks, (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you email me @ Special:EmailUser/SEPTActaMTA8235, if you mind? No notices on my talk page either. (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Amalthea, I reblocked Perseus's IP. From my understanding, he is still under a siteban correct? Syrthiss (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't know about a ban, but the named accounts are still blocked, so as far as I can tell it is still block evasion, yes. Thanks for handling it. Amalthea 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You continue to make inappropriate use of your talk pages, so I see no motivation to restore your access to them. I believe you are aspiring to be unblocked, and are talking with another editor about the possibility of mentoring? Editing Wikipedia via IP while blocked is not a good idea then, even if you more or less restricted yourself to your talk page.
Anyway, I have restored email access to your original account User:Perseus, Son of Zeus -- feel free to contact me from there.
Amalthea 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/56tyvfg88yju. Can that whole page be merged into this one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I only have intermittent online time today, else I would have cleaned it up right away. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 17:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Will someone come by and re-tag the socks as socks of the proper sockmaster account? -- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Evidently. :) Amalthea 17:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help

If you are around need help with AufVeedersane (talk · contribs). Account created back on 28 May 2011. Only edits are to nom an article currently at FAC to AFD [1]. Probably 56tyvfg88yju (talk · contribs) from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. Help? — Cirt (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, handled by another CU. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bug related to $wgCheckUserForceSummary?

Per User talk:Reedy/Archive 2011#when... (perm), $wgCheckUserForceSummary is already set to true for, but for some reason doesn't seem to be working (see cu log). I figured since you have the tools, you might be best positioned to figure out what's wrong. Thanks! –xenotalk 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it! Cheers, Amalthea 11:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Xeno, if you want I can set up a temporary javascript solution to prevent empty edit summaries until the problem is fixed? Amalthea 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be great. –xenotalk 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 Y Done. Amalthea 10:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks... In the meantime, I've re-opened bugzilla:27078. –xenotalk 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Amalthea,

Thanks for letting me know, I was away in March so I guess I missed that discussion! I've warned the user and asked them to remove it from their gadgets, and they seem to be remorseful so they should follow the conditions of their unblock, otherwise they'll be blocked again for using automated tools.


The Helpful One 10:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: monitored short pages

I don't know how Category:Monitored short pages is used or how quickly pages in Category:Long monitored short pages are going to be processed, but would it make sense to automatically remove Category:Monitored short pages if the page grows large enough?
Amalthea 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Very short articles (smaller than around 120 characters) that are nevertheless legitimate articles have {{subst:long comment}} added to them. This adds a hidden comment to the article that increases its size by about 200 characters, and adds it to Category:Monitored short pages for tracking purposes. The reason for all this is so that the articles don't show up on Special:Shortpages, which in turn allows that page to be used to find other very short pages that might be problematic (whether new, or the result of mass content removal from an existing page). Without this system, Special:Shortpages would not be very useful. Automatically removing Category:Monitored short pages probably isn't that useful because once the article gets long enough, {{short pages monitor}} and its accompanying comment should be removed from the page altogether, since they no longer have any place in the article. This new category just makes maintenance easier, since nobody wants to hunt through a category of 10,000 pages just to find the ones that are largest.
Pages in Category:Long monitored short pages will be processed whenever I get around to it, since I'm the only one who knows about the category at the moment. It's not an urgent issue, since {{short pages monitor}} isn't doing any harm just sitting on the page on its own. The main reason I'm bothering to do it at all is that if a tiny, formerly 120-character-or-less article has reached over 1000 characters, something dramatic has happened to the page and while it's often been fleshed out into an acceptable article, sometimes it's because of a copy-paste or other mass of unformatted text that someone dumped on the page. Given that the {{short pages monitor}} system was already in place, this is a convenient way of finding such pages when they might otherwise go unnoticed. Thanks Gurch (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good eye

Hey, thanks for blocking his accounts. --Bsadowski1 09:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

He's really done it now. All my sympathies are exhausted. I saw him do a few constructive IP edits from time to time and didn't mind, but if he returns to such disruption every few weeks … Amalthea 09:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

You should know that User:Jack Merridew is no more indefinitely blocked than you or I are, as a quick glance at the block log will confirm. I understand that you have run out of patience with him right now, but it is a calumny to place the {{Blocked user}} template on his user page, particularly when you have edit-warred it back into place and then protected the page in your preferred version. This is not the behaviour I would expect from an experienced admin such as yourself, and you really ought to remove that template. It merely serves to give ammunition to those who want to demonise Jack.

Please understand that Jack isn't just some sock-puppetting vandal out for lulz. For the last two years or more Jack has been a serious contributor with a lot of clue and one of the most helpful editors I've come across. If I didn't think he was worth redeeming, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to persuade you to see him for what he is right now: angry, hurt and betrayed by a system that promised him rehabilitation, but refused to deliver on its promise. Please try to see that the more those in positions of power (such as yourself) label him as banned, or disruptive, etc., the more you make him think he might as well behave in a way to match those labels. That would be really counter-productive, and I sincerely hope that you don't want to push Jack into a corner where he actually does get himself banned.

I do despair when the project looks like it's going to turn an able, productive contributor into someone whose only way of expressing themselves on the project is by causing disruption. We have enough Grawps, Scibabys and John254s without manufacturing another one. Jack hasn't arrived anywhere near that point yet, but I do think it's in everyone's best interest no to push him down that road. Do you think you can help, please? --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack has been globally locked by the meta stewards, per his own request, which is the practical equivalent of blocking here on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he seems to be returning back to his old ways, so it seems unlikely he will be helped by anyone right now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk  • contribs) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
You are right that the Jack Merridew account isn't technically blocked at the moment. The person behind the Barong account lobbied to have it unblocked, since at that time, while the account had been deliberately compromised and in consequence SUL-locked, the person behind it was not blocked or banned from editing enWP.
However. It appears to me you are not aware of the recent history here.
  • You will know that in late March, the person behind Gold Hat/Jack Merridew deliberately compromised ("scuttled", as he likes to euphemize it) Jack Merridew, Gold Hat, and many/all of his earlier alternate accounts.
  • In early June, the latest arbitration request ended with a motion, asking the person behind the Jack Merridew account to restrict himself to one account only. At that time, the Barong account which was active during that request was again deliberately compromised, and the person behind it was back to editing anonymously
  • 12 days ago, an arbitration enforcement request was opened since the person behind the Barong account disregarded the Arbcom directive. While I was aware of some mainspace edits by the person behind that account, he had returned to talk page arguments with editors he was in dispute with. He chose to do that.
  • Earlier today, the person behind the Barong account again chose to deliberately compromise some of his new accounts, namely Waterbuck (talk · contribs), Puputan (talk · contribs), Nyupat (talk · contribs), il fugitivo (talk · contribs), by posting usernames and passwords to User talk:Jack Merridew and WP:ANI. The accounts had to be SUL-locked again to prevent abuse. A bit later another sock, The Inheritance of Loss (talk · contribs) was identified, I don't know how. Afterwards I found three undisclosed accounts of the person behind the Barong account, namely 1942 Porsche (talk · contribs), Czolgosz (talk · contribs), and Nantucket sleighride (talk · contribs). I can only presume that the person behind the Barong account meant to still use them since he tried logging into each of them during the fifteen minutes after the block. I can only assume that he meant to keep those under covers, to repeat the same nonsense with them in the future.
Why is he doing that? I ask you.
If it satisfies your want for proper process, I can restore the block of Jack Merridew, Gold Hat, and Barong, and nobody will question it in light of the last few weeks' findings.
He may have been wronged in the past. The recent ARBCOM cases could have found a more solomonic outcome, one with which all sides could have lived. Nonetheless, at this point in time, the person behind Barong et al. is editing outside community norms, and is plainly disruptive. If there has ever been behavior that can summarized as a WP:POINT-violation, it's this.
So. What do you want me do? In my eyes, the ball is in the court of the person behind the Barong account. If he wants to change policy, community norms, or his restrictions, he is welcome to try within the current norms. I'll happily turn a blind eye to his constructive anon edits and keep my arm extended with an olive branch in hand, but he must take it. As long as he continues to edit disruptively, as he is at the moment, he leaves me no choice but to block his accounts. And start a ban discussion the next time.
Amalthea 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your measured and constructive response, Amalthea. I am aware of Jack's recent history, and while you were researching it, you may have seen the several occasions where I have expressed my strong disapproval with the way that he has been treated. I wasn't aware of the socks that he recently created and must admit to some dismay at hearing about them.
I can answer your question about why he's doing that. It's because he's hurt and unhappy with the seeming hypocrisy of some of our senior editors who promised him a route to return to being an editor in good standing, but never delivered on that promise after he followed that path for two full years. Remember what Richard III says in his opening speech?
  • And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
  • To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
  • I am determined to prove a villain
  • And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
If we won't let Jack be a well-regarded, constructive editor, then he says to himself "Why shouldn't I become a disruptive? I won't be treated any worse." Please think carefully when you say he's editing disruptively - can you objectively say whom or what he's been disrupting, as I've seen no sign of it. His editing seems (as usual) to be tidying refs, non-breaking spaces and the like. I agree it's contrary to the wishes of ArbCom, but they were dead wrong in the decision they arrived at, and there does come a point where ordinary folks like me have to call them on that decision and reluctantly say that we shouldn't be supporting them in those circumstances. I'm no rebel ("famously mild" as Bishonen labelled me), but I feel I must point out that ArbCom has embarked on a road that's going to end up with a decent, valuable editor being banned for no good reason, simply so that ArbCom can maintain an illusion of infallibility. It needs folks like you to no longer validate their actions in such cases. It needs you realise that making the choice to re-block Jack just so that the template becomes 'accurate' would be an escalation; while removing the {{blocked}} template – it really isn't needed, you know – would be a step in the direction of de-escalation. Yes, you'd have to admit that it would have been better not to have placed it in the first place, but gestures of goodwill are what will help Jack to pull back from self-destruction. You know that's the outcome we all want. Please let's try to move nearer to that, not farther away. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) RexxS: I'm one of many editors whom Jack continues to be disruptive towards: but I sadly believe that you think I'm one of the "problems" on the wiki like he erroneously does. If Jack became a "Grawp" because WP didn't give into his demands, that would be absurdly tragic and ironic considering his constant railing against "trolls" like Grawp. Are you actually saying that if ArbCom doesn't reverse its nearly unanimous decision that it is their fault a disgruntled troll is running amok? That they created the monster? Really? You know, I'd bet top dollar that you've never been wikistalked by this individual: but I and plenty of others have. It's no picnic especially when he pops in randomly just to insult you, and follows you around to article after article in an attempt to undermine you in some strange way. I hope you're not disappointed that out of the four accounts he blabbed his password about recently that your talk page was not on a single watchlist. Mine was on all four; only three others shared that honor with me. Making "3 of 4", "2 of 4", etc. were some other "demonizers", some arbs, some allies - and his other socks.
He is in violation of his ArbCom restrictions, which were designed to replace a previous and still-pending community ban. Thusly, that ban should technically be reinstated. BTW: there are other socks that were quietly blocked by a recused arbitrator[2][3][4] - what's up with that? Were they him or more "impersonators"? He was offered a way out and chooses to stick it up everybody's bum. Rehabilitation? It was never a seriously realistic goal for either Jack or this "failed community". Doc talk 03:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Viewing what is on other people's watchlist is only possible at server-level, how do you claim to be doing this? pablo 12:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The other way it's possible is if you post your password in multiple places, someone sees it and is curious enough to find out if it is the correct password. It was. Why he does these things I have no earthly idea, but it's not a good idea. Someone should scramble the passwords, as I believe they are still active. Doc talk 20:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
That's the very reason why each of those accounts has to be SUL-locked, so they aren't open to abuse by others. I think that all compromised accounts have been locked by now, but if any are still open please report them to stewards Amalthea 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool story Doc, thanks for sharing. pablo 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it though: Logging into such an account can expose you to autoblocks and potentially malicious user scripts. Amalthea 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I won't do it again, believe me ;) In response to this: On the watchlists of Waterbuck, il fugitivo, Puputan and Nyupat - Me, Crohnie, AGK and Risker on 4 of 4; Diannaa, Bsadowski1, John Vandenberg and Newyorkbrad on 3 of 4; White Cat, MickMacNee and Gimmetoo on 2 of 4; and N419BH on only one. All, of course, had Lord of the Flies on their watchlists except il fugitivo. Sound about right? Only CU's could see it? I see it too ;> Doc talk 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You know RexxS, I was writing a looong reply to you, describing my motivation, Jack's motivation, improving the encyclopedia, the use of community and community norms, why I removed the text from Jack's page, and was about to bring it all into proper shape to post it (I was a 15k of text), when I saw the orange bar with another sock. You ask where Jack Merridew (I'll just call him that now) is being disruptive? He creates numerous sock accounts although he knows that the community has stark restrictions regarding legit alternate accounts. He has posted user names and passwords of several of his accounts to his noticeboard. He has done so before, he presumably plans to continue to do so. He ignores rules set up by the community (not arbcom) he breaks policies that every editor here should follow, not just he. What do you call that but disruptive? You want me to make gestures of good will? If I come by editors who found themselves blocked but may prove to be constructive, I try hard to open ways back into the community for them. But those editors must show willingness to edit within community norms. I don't see that Jack Merridew is willing to do that. My motivation is improving the encyclopedia, always. The "worship me or fear me" approach that you describe as Jack Merridew's motivation is damaging to the encyclopedia, pure and simple. If he thinks arbcom has wronged him, as far as I'm concerned he can start an RfC/U and ask the community. His guerrilla approach is certainly not going to change anything. Best I can tell though, Jack Merridew has no more interest in what is best for the encyclopedia though; He is only interested in himself.
    Amalthea 12:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Amalthea, I'm truly sorry you feel that way. But Jack (as good a name as any) really is not being disruptive. I've replied to you on my talk page about the IP sock - it was doing nothing that I could see other than a bit of minor gnoming - exactly what you earlier said we could turn a blind eye to. I have to ask you if you are seeing a problem where none exists? You are blocking Jack, not because of the nature of his contributions, but merely because he's making them - and that seems very wrong to me. I wish I could persuade Jack to edit from a single account in the way he did throughout 2009 and 2010, but in the end, we are wrong to enforce an unnecessary restriction on him that we don't apply to ourselves or to other editors in good standing. The crime of sock-puppetry is abusing multiple accounts - giving the impression that there are multiple editors when there is in fact only one. I challenge anyone to show me an occasion in the past two-and-a-half years where Jack has misled anyone in that way. Gold Hat (talk · contribs) was never anything more than a joke 'Mexican bandit' that was used for fun, and it was always clearly marked as an alternate account of Jack. And yet he was pilloried for the existence of that account, when all he wanted to do was show everyone that he wasn't a threat to the wiki. The same is true now: he's not making any threats, just going about his wiki-gnoming and accepting the blocks when they are made - 'passive resistance' if you will.
What I'm describing above is the reaction that seems 'normal' for folks who feel that they have been unjustly treated. From Krustofsky through Grawp to John254, they've all taken Richard III's line and socked continuously and disruptively. The amazing thing is that Jack hasn't kicked back in the same way. He's shown us all that he could become just as much of a nuisance, but all he's actually done is carried on gnomishly making little improvements to a wide range of articles. How would you suggest he could start an RfC/U when every time he edits, he gets blocked? This isn't a user who has become irredeemable, and it saddens me that you seem to have reached that conclusion. I had expected much better. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Jack sheds his supporters like his socks. You need some examples? Cut your losses so you're less embarrassed than the ones who believed he wasn't socking back in the day. They probably felt like total idiots when he revealed the big lie. Jus' sayin' ;> Doc talk 03:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • RexxS, it appears both your perception and standards are rather selective here. I disagree with pretty much everything you've written above:
    1) Jack is not being disruptive? What do you call it then? Nine alternate accounts in the last few days, five of which he deliberately compromise by posting their passwords here. Each of those needs required significant cleanup by multiple people. Why is he doing that, in your opinion, but to disrupt to make a point? The IP edit on your talk page: Point was how he chose that page for cleanup. He did so because at the time, the page was at the top of Favonian's contributions; Favonian had blocked one of his IPs minutes earlier. Doing that, when I read allegations of hounding above and elsewhere, is a provocation. If Jack Merridew wants to do gnome work just for the improvement, there are a bazillion of maintainance categories.
    2) I do not block because of the edits, but because of who is making them? In this case untrue. I have blocked accounts and IPs of his three times: First at AE, after I saw a provocative post somewhere, found through Jack Merridew's edits the open AE request, and acted on it, with a plea to restrict himself to one named account. Second, when he deliberately compromised some of his sock accounts, while holding back others. Third, when he deliberately compromised another sock accounts. I explicitly did not block before the AE, when I already had noticed him editing, and after the AE, when I saw anon edits. I have given him leeway. I block when I find it likely that it prevents more damage than it causes. My assessment of it obviously differs from yours, but I certainly don't do Pavlovian blocks. We are on the way though: Enforcing bans requires blocking and reverting an editor no matter the content, and at some point it is the least damaging reaction. A poor choice, but less poor than the alternative.
    3) We are wrong to enforce an unnecessary restriction? WP:SOCK applies to every editor. It's a policy set up by the community. If he doesn't like it, he can try and change it from within. If he tramples it to make a point, I will try and prevent that. Editing from one account only is not hard. Most editors manage it.
    4) All he wanted to do was show everyone that he wasn't a threat to the wiki? Well that turned out great. Everyone was obviously a fool to think that he might return to abusive socking. Evading a restriction or block is certainly inappropriate use of multiple accounts. You can argue that the original restriction could have been lifted earlier. And I would say that Jack could have asked for it before creating joke accounts. Not great that it turned out the way it did, and maybe ARBCOM could still have lifted it. But Jack certainly made his share of mistakes, and the restriction has no significant implications. I would never have known of the original restriction if Jack hadn't advertised his sock status in his signature, edit notice, talk page, and userpage from time to time.
    5) Yes, I've restored the block of the Jack Merridew account. Why? Because when the courtesy was extended and the account was unblocked, that courtesy was used by Jack Merridew to try and hinder standard procedure saying "you can't do that, Jack Merridew isn't blocked" (1, 2). Talk about a kick in the face.
    6) Gold Hat? I don't care about it. He used it and Jack Merridew for quite some time, even though there was a restriction, but nobody enforced it. Doing so with a restriction (that was set up due to abusive socking, I might add!) was not particularly clever, but as far as I'm concerned he can return to it. Oh that's right, he deliberately compromised it and it had to be locked.
    7) 'passive resistance'? Passive resistance would be if he stuck to uncontroversial anon editing. Passive resistance would be if he stuck to uncontroversial editing with a new account every day. Setting up accounts to make his point and then compromising them with provocative edits is not passive.
    8) the reaction that seems 'normal'? A normal reaction in any healthy community to unjust treatment is to appeal, not running amok. If you find this community unjust and consider rebelling the normal reaction then I have to disagree: I don't find the community unjust, so me preventing his rebellion is also normal.
    9) No, if Jack would set up one account, stick to it, and edit from it, he would 'not' get blocked and could of course appeal to the community via RfC/U. I don't see that an RfC/U would change anything, but he can.
    10) You expected much better? Wow. When I spend an hour trying to write up a constructive and exhaustive reply to you, and get sucker-punched with another deliberately compromised sock account that needs cleaning up, my sympathies and motivation to help Jack Merridew drop to sub-zero. I expected better from him. Like I said before, my motivation is to improve this encyclopedia. If I think pulling an editor back into the fold is a net positive, I do whatever I can. With the attitude I saw from Jack Merridew over the last days, my best guess is that even if he could be convinced to edit within community norms now, it would be a string of conflicts down the line. A net negative. And I didn't think so three days ago. And I expect better from you, in that you try to convince Jack Merridew to make at least a minimum effort to edit within community norms. An effort is all that is required, and you will find people will give second chances. And third, and fourth. Why don't I see you trying to doing anything in that direction? Why don't I see Jack giving the community another chance?
    Amalthea 11:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It's ok to disagree, Amalthea, and I respect your right to do so. I'm interested in your perspective, and hope you'll remain open-minded to my take on the issues.
Jack is not being disruptive by any definition that I'm familiar with. Look at the edits, not the editor, for that IP that you blocked: Special:Contributions/ - there's absolutely nothing disrupted by those 3 edits, and a genuine (if minor) improvement of J. M. Coetzee. I don't care how a gnome picks the pages he edits, and I'd like to suggest that you shouldn't care either. If we didn't both know that it was Jack, surely we'd be rushing to welcome the IP and encouraging them to register an account? So what becomes so intrinsically different when it's Jack behind the IP? He didn't revert Favonian, or vandalise the article or post a penis-pic. Have we really got to the stage where we have to block users because of a perception of provocation which arises when he makes a constructive edit to the article??
I do sympathise with your frustration at Jack creating accounts and then compromising them, but I can't agree that a global lock could be characterised as requiring "significant cleanup by multiple people" - pretty much one click from a functionary with the necessary privileges. But more pertinently, why do you think he did that? He's actually just said "I could be a real nuisance, but I choose not to be; I'm abandoning these, even though I could have used them."
"Enforcing bans requires blocking and reverting an editor no matter the content, and at some point it is the least damaging reaction." - that may be true, if terribly unfortunate, but you really have accept that Jack is NOT banned, and I do think that pushing him further towards a ban by treating him as if he were already banned is appallingly counter-productive. How would you feel if someone claimed you were banned and then blocked you as if you were? Think about it, there is a human being behind the Jack avatar and it behoves us all to treat him as we would wish ourselves to be treated.
It's a myth that Jack was in breach of WP:SOCK when ArbCom decided to place the restriction on him last month. He wasn't abusing multiple accounts and we all know it. So yes, I do call that decision perverse and I don't agree that anyone is under any obligation to enforce it. I'm glad you don't do Pavlovan blocks, and I hope that you'll remember you said that the next time you consider blocking over 55,000 Indonesian IPs just to stop Jack making constructive edits (as you seem to have done today).
What was the "standard procedure" that Jack hindered? Do you mean the placing of a {{blocked}} template on a user who isn't blocked? If that really is "standard", then somebody really, really needs to take a look at the SOP.
The point is that at the time when Jack was being vilified as "blocked" or even "banned", he was neither. ArbCom didn't make that determination. They determined that he should be blocked if he failed to tell them a name of an account he wished to edit from. What an extraordinary requirement, and totally unenforceable! You can't make people register an account - it's utterly contrary to the Foundation policy of open editing, and you need to think very carefully about what principle you're defending here.
If it's any help, you can rest assured that the reason you don't see my efforts to encourage Jack in the right direction is that my communications with him are in private. I hope you'll respect that. I do think, though, that you ought to check Jack's unblock in December 2008, where he appeared to have been offered a second chance and his review in December 2009 which gives an assessment, warts and all, that is very positive. He was commended for making a "clean return to editing". And yet, after another year of positive contributions, his request for the lifting of the remaining restrictions and a return to being an unsanctioned editor were refused. So I hope you'll indulge my scepticism about "second, third, fourth chances", as I see no evidence that even the second chance was really delivered on.
My advice is to accept that Jack isn't out to disrupt. Let him make his constructive gnomish edits as an IP. By all means, SUL-lock his registered accounts if he "scuttles" them. But let's put away the pitchforks; he really hasn't caused that degree of problem. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If you allow I'll skip the point-by-point rebuttal this time. I started, but as was to be expected I largely disagree with your points and find that you misunderstood me, missed the point, or are plain wrong. :)
I presume you'd feel the same with my reply, it's unlikely that we are going to agree on most of this. Hopefully we at least see each other's point of view and motivation. Nonetheless, if you want me to answer specific questions, feel free to say so. In the meantime I'll skip to the bottom line: What does Jack Merridew want?
Cause I don't see it. As far as I can tell, his approach from the last few days has only earned him antipathy. If he is not disruptive for the sake of being disruptive, as you say, what does he want to achieve? Where does he want to be on Wikipedia in a year from now? And does he see a realistic chance that his current approach will get him there? Or has he given up returning to a collaborative coexistence with the community, as is my impression?
As I see it: His path from the last few days can't get him anywhere desirable. Refusing to create an account and sticking with it, only to spite ARBCOM, won't get him anywhere either (and editing from one account isn't hard, like I said before, so the only reason I see he has is stubborn defiance). So what does he want, specifically? Amalthea 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Amalthea. Although I am an admin on this wiki, I am writing to you as a private individual in this instance. Sorry to interject here, but I couldn't help noticing that RexxS pointed out you have blocked 55,296 IPs in Indonesia in an effort to stop Jack from editing. While it is well known that you shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, it is only slightly less well known that it is also inappropriate to bring a nuclear weapon; the collateral damage is simply unacceptable. The chances that the editor in question has laid all his cards on the table are vanishingly small, and so are the odds of stopping him from editing by instituting these rangeblocks. Please consider lifting these blocks, as there are plenty of good edits coming from these ranges. Sincerely, --Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa,
38912 IPs to be exact. May sound like a lot, but the actual collateral damage always depends on the actual ranges, and I have of course looked at them before blocking. In this case, the one other regular editor affected is blocked for egregious personal attacks during the same period. The majority of edits from these ranges in June came by far from Jack Merridew. If you want I can go count and give you a more exact estimation.
Amalthea 08:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser privilege

Hi Amalthea, I've posted a complaint or whatever you might call it about you carrying out a checkUser on me at the Arbitration Subcomittee (juding from Wikipedia:Checkuser, it was the appropriate forum for posting it, though I'm not sure if I put it in the right spot) @ Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Statistics_and_reports. Again, I want to assure you this is done in 100% good faith and this is certainly not an attempt to avoid scrutiny over my previous accounts (I'm happy to continue that discussion on my talk page, though, yeah, I question whether you should have carried out the checkuser in the first place). ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If I posted it in the wrong place, I would appreciate it immensely if you would be so kind to repost it in the proper forum.ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries. It appears Courcelles has removed it in this edit and is sending it to the audit subcommittee's mailing list for discussion, but he asks that you still contact them via email.
Amalthea 14:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw, bizarrest place to post it ;), but you could please check up (checkUser or whatever) on User:BabbaQ and User:Keepvm? For the "evidence" of disruptive behaviour/suspected sockpuppeteering I already posted in this edit: [5] (summary: babbaQ reverts me twice, then says my edits are OK more than once [6][7], then when the page is reverted by keepvm, he asks for the page to be protected [8]). I think in this case, there are good reasons to suspect sock-puppetry in this case. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've asked another CheckUser: I'd rather avoid any potential for appearance of a conflict of interest and not look into a related matter myself. Amalthea 15:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've investigated some regarding BabbaQ and would like to get some more feedback since, unfortunately, there isn't a simple connection here. I'll send an email out. TNXMan 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you (both of you). For what it's worth, as you've probably noticed, BabbaQ has been blocked before for sockpuppeteering, and told me when I confronted him about this that he had learned from his mistake ([9]). I don't think I'm being cynical when I think this means he's more likely to have come up with a way of covering his steps or at least muddling them, like editing at work instead of at his home, for example. (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Why are you using an IP to answer back when you have a user account? And yes you are yet again putting the blame on others instead of taking responsibility for your own actions. Not that im not to blame for some of this discussion but it takes two to tango. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Email sent to func-l. Please let me know if any questions come up. TNXMan 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with that Keepvm user. So please feel free to check it out we have nothing in common. I have learned from my mistakes. Hopefully ENCRYPTMATRON above has to from now on, instead of accusing anyone that disagrees with him/her. All im saying is that there are reasons to why the article is only available for admin edits right now. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears Keepvm has disappeared into the aether whence they came. I will keep an eye on them in case more activity occurs. @Amalthea- sorry I couldn't be of more help. TNXMan 18:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for handling it! Amalthea 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick query

Can you add one more line to my monobook.css, for removal/hiding of "und-batch"? Thank you so much, — Cirt (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Y Done. Cheers, Amalthea 06:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked it, after a refresh. The "und-batch" tab is still showing up there? Any thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That fixed it, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, should have tested it in the first place. I thought I'd use a slightly more robust way of hiding it, but some other rule with higher CSS specificity got in the way. Amalthea 15:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

I am sorry but for someone who has namelessly accused me of vandalism, I am uncomfortable seeing you right after my edits to people's talk pages. I am not trying to accuse you it is just that last time this happened the involved people end up being sock/meat puppets of Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew. My hesitation is probably baseless and ill placed just trying to establish my point of view which is probably too paranoid at this point for my own good. -- Cat chi? 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't help that. And I'm fairly certain I haven't accused you of anything. And no, I'm not stalking you either, I've recently edited Casliber's page.
Anyway, for the moment, Jack Merridew is unlike to return to editing, so I hope we can stop talking about him and go improve the encyclopedia. The SPI case about you seems, as far as I can tell based on current technical evidence, unfounded, and I will make note of it there. Amalthea 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That is pleasant news indeed. Unfortunately this individual has a way of "reappearing" as he did 4 times in the past (as I documented in my graph: User:White Cat/RFAR/graph). I want to actually update that graph but am unsure what happened in the past one or two years since his unblock. Is there a good location for me to establish timelines? I just want to mark RfCs and RfArs for future reference as it had proven to be very handy in the past. -- Cat chi? 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate comment from User talk:John Vandenberg#Jack Merridew's continuing stalking. Keep it in one place, please. Amalthea 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of comments on George RR Martin's wiki page

As you removed my revisions from the GRRM wiki page as well as from this talk page and not otherwise responded to me, I have gone to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to get the revisions evaluated for inclusion in the article. DavidG3276 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I had moved your comment and my response to Talk:George R. R. Martin, so that others can participate as well. Amalthea 15:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Encourage substitution

With this edit you actually encourage substitution. Isn't that overdoing it a little? I'd say at most the line against substitution could be removed. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not encourage it? If you want to date the template yourself and not rely on a bot, which one is easier to type?
  1. {{subst:cn}}
  2. {{cn|date=June 2011}}
The first one is actually even better than typing the second one since it expands to the canonical {{Citation needed| date=June 2011}}. Amalthea 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You are right. It must be that I need time to get used to changes. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you very much for your help and patience regarding my friend. Diannaa (Talk) 18:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I was certainly not expecting that. Appreciated! Amalthea 19:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please participate

Please participate and leave your opinion in a thread I opened on MSGJ's talkpage. User_talk:MSGJ#Ambox_and_categories Debresser (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved. Amalthea 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And while we're at it, please tell me your opinion about a small issue on Template_talk:Cv-unsure#Who. Debresser (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion. Except that it should probably be discussed at Template talk:ambox. Amalthea 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I came here to inform you that the last issue has unexpectedly been commented upon by many editors, and that your input is not necessary any more for consensus forming. May it be that your two comments should be swapped? Debresser (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops, you're right, yes. Amalthea 16:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Request template coding

Do you have a solution for the last question on Template talk:Copypaste? Debresser (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved. Amalthea 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

he Last Username I Could Think Of

Hello Amalthea, in your opinion, should this guy's RFA be speedied as G3 or treated as a "true" RFA? Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

G3 sounds right, was only meant for disruption I'd say. Amalthea 19:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it was definitely disruptive. It's now been mentioned on his talk page, though, so I'll leave it be for the moment; if you wish to delete it, however, I'll have no objections. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011

Hi, Amalthea, I need your help. Please help me to stop Arielle Leira, she always threaten me by telling me she will block me from editing if I made a disruptive edit. Actually, I didn't made any disruptive edits, the edit that I have made was FACT, just because I don't have any sources, she threaten me like that, please stop her. Also, please tell her not to change my edit in Miss Asia Pacific World 2011, because I'm tired of repairing the edit back, sorry for bothering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosokawa (talkcontribs) 16:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Arielle Leira (talk · contribs) hasn't edited during the last three weeks. This edit? Arielle Leira is correct that the article is unsourced. Truth is not enough, information mus be verifiable, see WP:VERIFIABILITY. Add WP:Inline citations to WP:reliable sources for every fact. If you disagree with an edit, talk to her. We all want the article to be as good as possible. But it needs to follow Wikipedia policies. Amalthea 10:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know that making an articles must have sources, but the thinks that I want to tell you is, if Arielle Leira active again, please tell her not to change any of my edit in Miss Asia Pacific World 2011, because I don't like my edit was removed without reasons (except for the unsources edits), thanks. Oh, and one more thing, the page Miss Supranational 2009 wasn't my page, I never created that page before, so it wasn't my page.

If I look at Ariella Leira's last edits of Miss Asia Pacific World 2011, they all seem good to me. She gave a reason for every big change she made. Can you give me a link to a change you didn't like?
Everybody is allowed and encouraged to improve a page. Nobody owns any article here. If you cannot agree on changes, discuss them! Don't just undo each other. And, just like it says every time when you save an edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Other editors changing your text is a very important part of Wikipedia. If Arielle Leira is editing in good faith, I cannot (and don't want to) make her stop.
Kind regards, Amalthea 11:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Amalthea. Could you consider protecting [[Donna Martin] and Erin Silver from being constantly recreated, as you did with Annie Wilson? Left4Deadseries FAN is ignoring multiple requests to not recreate these non-notable articles, and has made their latest edit just recently. Simply thought I'd ask. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Erin Silver since it was part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Ward, and the current article didn't address any of the issues mentioned there. Not so sure about Donna Martin though: The old AfD was specifically on 90210 characters, and Donna Martin was part of Beverly Hills, 90210 as well. I agree that as it was, the article was not a viable encyclopedic article, and it was correct to redirect it. But it may be problematic to extend the 90210 AfD to cover Donna Martin when there is precedence of an acceptable Beverly Hills, 90210 article with Kelly Taylor (90210).
I'll keep it watchlisted, but think it needs an explicit consensus before the redirect can be protected.
Amalthea 11:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. -- James26 (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not bringing Silver (90210) to your attention before. Just remembered it; don't mean to sound pesky. It's basically a variant of the Erin Silver page. -- James26 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries, that's what I'm here for. That redirect doesn't appear to be contested though? Pages are typically only protected if there was recent disruption (except for some high-risk ones). I've watchlisted it though. Amalthea 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary about "overzealous warnings"

Just curious, how is uw-unsourced1 an "overzealous warning" when it concerns introducing unsourced content into a page about a school band's "critically acclaimed tour" that "entertained the masses"? Not trying to be confrontational or argumentative, I just really don't know, and if its a legitimate evaluation, I'd just like to know why so that it can be avoided in the future. Thank you. - SudoGhost 09:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I should have been clearer. Your warning was quite appropriate, but I think the escalation by other editors up to a block for adding an iTunes shop link to one song article went way overboard. The user made mistakes, but he's a good-faithed newbie, not a vandal. I thought that removing all warnings and leaving him an informal message instead would be the best way forward.
Again, nothing wrong with your warning.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 09:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything incorrectly. Thank you for your clearing that up with me. - SudoGhost 10:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
And now for something completely different: I like your style. If you're considering an RfA down the line and want someone to pre-vet you, ping me. Amalthea 11:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that's very kind of you. What does pre-vet mean? - SudoGhost 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I found WP:VETTING, but I'm not sure what pre-vetting is. - SudoGhost 13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone spending time looking at your contributions before an RfA, trying to identify issues that would otherwise surface during, and hopefully writing a nomination at the end. Like, if I did that now, I would notice that you've only been active for four months, and that RfA folks usually like to see at least six months of activity which would earn you opposes, so I would recommend to wait at least that long. :)
Anyway, just think about it, and don't be shy if this is something that would interest you.
Amalthea 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll certainly keep it in mind. - SudoGhost 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled

Hello Amalthea,
The last two revisions: User talk:Peter Horn#TCV and other places & User talk:Peter Horn#Proposed template deletion What was this all about? Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. Bot gone wild? Seems to have stopped, so I didn't look any farther. Amalthea 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and source for image

Hi, Amalthea, could you help me something ? Please help me to give this image [[10]] a copyright or sources, because I don't know how to give it, hurry before 14 July, because it will be delete after 14 July 2011, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosokawa (talkcontribs) 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you take the image, or find it somewhere on the internet? If the latter, do you have a link? Amalthea 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I took the image in google image, here is the link =>, please help me to give it a copyright or sources, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosokawa (talkcontribs) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm afraid I can't help here. All images you find on the Internet are copyrighted (with few exceptions), and cannot be used in Wikipedia.
Think of it this way: imagine you would earn money by selling photographs. You wouldn't like it if someone just took your pictures without paying (not even asking). Copyright is important since it protects people's creations, and we must respect that. Amalthea 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you can't help me with this, its okay. I know how to give it a source now.

Well, ok, but listing the source is not enough (even though the warning said so): We cannot use a non-free image in this article. There really is no way around this. If you want to read up on image licenses, there is WP:File copyright tags, but it's a bit complicated. Amalthea 09:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Amalthea, I need your help ! Arielle Leira want to delete my page Miss Asia Pacific World 2011, just open this link User talk:JRheic, she want to remove my page because my page have some reliable sources, please help me to stop Arielle Leira ! The sources that I given to my page were reliable, but she said the sources that I given was unreliable, please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosokawa (talkcontribs) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you shouldn't think about "stopping" people. Think about whether she is right. Wikipedia has many rules about its pages. One of them is that topics must be notable (WP:NOTABLE). A topic is notable if reliable sources (WP:RS) discuss it in-depth, like a newspaper article about it. If there are such sources, it will not be deleted. If there are no such sources, then Wikipedia should probably not have a page on it.
But don't panic! Like I said, we all want to make Wikipedia better. And if it comes to a deletion discussion, we still have one week to discuss and decide what is best for your articles. Amalthea 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...but I'm afraid that she will delete my page, and I'm very worried, what should I do ? I can't sleep last night because I always thinking about this, and I even doesn't have any mood to play computer last night because I was very mad about this, please help me how to stop worrying about this, thanks.

Block of User:Fatcud

Are you sure the user is a sock? The sock was renamed, and this is a new user (or at least that's what I, and the renaming 'crat, thought at the time of the usurpation). demize (t · c) 22:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, but I'm afraid that yes, both the old blocked account and the new one belong to the same person. That person has a tendency to try and usurp all their account names that were blocked. Amalthea 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Amalthea, please block User:Malingsial, his username "Malingsial" mean "Damn Thief". Actually, "Malingsial" is a nickname from Indonesian people to the Malaysian. Some of the Indonesian people called them "Malingsial", because Malaysia like to copy Indonesian cuisine, culture, include ethnic groups. Please don't block me because I just explained the truth, I don't have any mean to attack the Malaysian. Hosokawa talk 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I agree that this account was only used for vandalism, and I have taken care of it. Amalthea 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for block him. Oh, I found another user again, his username was very impolite, he is User talk:FuckMainstreamShit, please block him, thanks. Hosokawa (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That account was already blocked in May. Amalthea 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Was closed as fixed, but without the javascript hack you made for me, the box is still not checking. Any more thoughts? (revision not live yet maybe?) –xenotalk 15:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I thought I had made a mistake and needed to set up a new installation to test this first, but yeah, it's just not live yet, neither in 1.17 nor 1.17wmf (see SVN, relevant changes were in rev:82804 and rev:83034). Amalthea 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What should I do if I doesn't want my uploaded images delete by other administrators ?

Sorry, Amalthea, can I ask you what should I do if I doesn't want my uploaded image deleted by the other admins ? Because some of my images deleted because of copyright violation, what images should I upload ? Hosokawa (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, files you just find somewhere on the Internet can not be used. There are only very few exceptions, but please ask me before uploading any image.
File:China America flag.jpg has at least two problems with regards to copyright: it is used in several places (1 2 3) and we can't say who created it, and it's probably a compound image anyway and we actually would have to find out who created the image of the dragon.
More importantly though, we don't want to use that image anyway! A Chinese American is still an American national. If you want to decorate the person with a flag, use the USA flag. Also, this is not an official flag! It is a satirical flag (read the text!) that someone made for fun.
Amalthea 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
For wheel-warring over what amounted to an AE:Block for the simple reason that it was *wrong*. Terima kasih. Uncontroversial Obscurity 02:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
For being the best admin in the business! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Odd standards you have! :) Amalthea 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI closure: Admin and checkuser roles

I have just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diogomauricio3, after you had acted as a checkuser in the case. For some reason doing so has prompted me to get round to asking about something I have often wondered about, but never before bothered to ask about. Frequently a checkuser reports a checkuser result on a SPI, and there seems to be nothing more to do, so the case may as well be closed. However, the checkuser, despite being also an administrator, does not close it. This happens so frequently that it encourages me to suspect that there is some policy, guideline, or accepted standard of practice that says the same person should not act in both capacities in the same case, but I can't find any documentation of that principle. Purely as a matter of interest, can you enlighten me? It always seems to me that it would save time and trouble for the checkuser/admin to finish the whole thing off in one go. (Completely irrelevant, but I feel like mentioning it. Before writing this message I looked at your user page, which as far as I remember I had never done before. I had to go through a dramatic mental readjustment: in all the times I had seen your edits and comments, on the basis of your user name I had always assumed you were female.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've just looked back at your user page, and seen your Moonriddengirl userbox. So, giving the impression of being female may not be so accidental as I thought. I admire her too, but I don't want to be her: I will leave you and her to fight over the privilege. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Heh, no, I'm not (self-)diagnosed with gender identity disorder: all my usual nicknames were occupied at the time, so I resorted to Special:Random to select a user name, thinking that it doesn't really matter, and thought it OK to name myself after an asteroid – should have paid closer attention to Greek mythology, I guess. :)
Regarding your actual question: In general, it depends: In clear cases, I do everything, including closing and archiving the case page. If I think more eyes would be helpful, I leave it open. Sometimes I think that it's better to separate the roles, and only report back on checkuser findings, and maybe leave a recommendation.
In this particular case, I didn't close it because there was still stuff to do when I left the {{confirmed}} template: I was still looking through contributions myself (and you beat me to reverting a series of edits that I was still looking at), still deleting pages, still tagging – I would have closed it myself once all loose ends were taken care of.
That's just my way of doing it though, I don't think there's really a rule. I asked a clerk when I started, who he told me it doesn't really matter that much to them how I leave things.
Cheers, Amalthea 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers, which were interesting. While I'm here, I'll just say this. I don't off hand remember ever having communicated with you before, but I've often seen your work, and have a very high regard for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! And I believe we last talked three weeks ago (but I only know this since this came up again a few days ago, my memory isn't any better either).
Cheers, Amalthea 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. "I don't off hand remember" was deliberately non-committal, because I thought we had very likely been in contact, but I just didn't recall any specific occasion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
When it comes to SPI, I prefer not to be the judge, jury and executioner. I see myself as the jury only; I tell the admins whether the parties are guilty or not. The admins sort the rest out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle sync

Any chance of a Twinkle and morebits sync?... — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. Amalthea 08:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ...?

I'm not sure why the blocked editor posted on your user page, but he seems to be using Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MosesBeacon as some sort of trophy. I don't know if it is possible, but removing that category, or at least removing all the entries in it might deter the editor from continuing the disruptive edits and adding to his "trophy". I only bring this up because it is my understanding that such a category is generally not needed (I remember reading that such sockpuppet categories were not needed, but I can't remember where), and in this case it seems like it would be better not to have it. However, my understanding may not be correct, so I wanted to leave you a message first and see. - SudoGhost 13:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The categories have their uses, but if they become a motivation and serve as a trophy case, I agree -- and they do here, per this. Amalthea 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Donna Martin

Hi again. User:Left4Deadseries FAN recently recreated this page again (which you yourself previously said is not encyclopedic material and should be redirected). I've restored the redirect. Left4Deadseries FAN has been doing this for months now -- defying WP:Notability, WP:No original research, and WP:COPYPASTE -- while ignoring comments from myself and another user.

Since this person doesn't seem willing to listen to me, could you possibly request that they stop? Or do I need to make a disruptive editing report? I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I believe that those of us who put the time and effort into creating articles the correct way shouldn't have to tolerate others creating non-notable original research. -- James26 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left them a message. Let's see whether it helps. Amalthea 14:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your efforts. -- James26 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, are you the person who blocked the Hosokawa account ? I want to tell you something, that account was used by my brother since August 2010. After 1 day I created it, I gave the account to my brother who also love wikipedia. The reason I left that account because its hard for me to understand the articles editing.

In July 2011, my brother angrily give that account back to me, and I was shocked to see that my old account was blocked. I saw that account was blocked due to harrassment. My brother told me to replace his work as an editor in wikipedia, so I decided to create a new account in a computer in different location. Also, my brother pretending to be me by saying that he is a 14 years old teenager. In fact, I'm the person who is a 14 years old teenager. Last, please do not block or ban me, I had explain all the important reason to you.

The most important of all, I don't have any mean to abusively use more than one account, the reason I created this new account because my brother used my old account to harrass other users and was blocked.

Thanks for understanding DeshintaChandra (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


See this discussion. Have you ever made the standard offer to one of his socks? That's the only reason I can think of this "six month" issue coming up.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not that I remember, but I tend to be liberal with that offer. I'll try and have a look. Amalthea 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading that discussion now, the "6 months" seems to be explained by that IP block now. Amalthea 08:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

China America

Hi, sorry for bothering you like this. The organizers of Miss Asia Pacific World Lawrence Choi said that Tingting Chen will still represent China America in Miss Asia Pacific World 2011. She didn't represent United States, but she will represent China America. I think it would be better if it use China America name. Also, people will not thing there are two US's representatives on Miss Asia Pacific World 2011. I don't changed the flag, I just changed the name. DeshintaChandra (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Can you please CU and confirm that these accounts are used by the very same person:

As seen from their contribs, they are WP:SPAs working on the same topic, and same perspectives. The person's name could be Rahul Johnshon,(as evident from a/c #1). Here in a/c #2's page ([11]), the same name is reflected. If you can note the surname in that link, the accounts have been recreating an article on the very same topic that was nominated for deletion, and subsequently found non-notable and merged (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palakkappillil). The "rj" of the a/c #3 could mean "Rahul Johnson"

Please make a CU and do the needful. TIA. Arjuncodename024 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid CheckUser can't help in this case since the data collected from two of the three users is   Stale. This would need to be decided based on contributions, probably best at WP:SPI. Amalthea 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Presumably that's because you can't actually _access_ said statistics! =) –xenotalk 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You presume correctly. :) Amalthea 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You should do something about that! =) –xenotalk 19:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I really shouldn't. :p Amalthea 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Bah! –xenotalk 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the reply here.

Thanks for the attention

I can understand why at first glance an admin would come to the conclusion they did, but thanks for reviewing the matter further. A more indepth look at my edit history shows a very different story. Since I started editing the poker/gambling articles, I've been accused of being six or seven different people, and working for or against nine different online gambling companies, so I'm kind of used to being accused of stuff, but if after seven years I ever make a sockpuppet, I think I'd be more clever at it. :) In terms of the apparent edit war with DegenFarang, unfortunately as usual with him he starts something new accusing others, which obscures the real issue, and that has nothing to do with external links or any content really. It's just his desire to go to battle, fight everybody (now including you probably). I have killed a million brain cells and made a summary post about DegenFarang's tendatious editing and how this merits his permanent blocking. I hope you will take a look. I personally have been worn out by all this mean-spiritedness, and I'm very disappointed that admins did not already instantly ban someone who vandalized a BLP by saying a person majored in "thieving scumbaggery" in college. This sort of thing should not be allowed over and over again. Anyway, I hope you take a look at that, and thanks again for taking a look at the blocking. 2005 (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW 2005 ignored your warning not to revert the articles in question without first reaching consensus and has rolled them back to their previous version yet again. I started an ANI requesting, at the very least, that 2005 be blocked from reverting my edits. That one simple change would prevent all of this from happening. Every single conflict 2005 and I have ever had has started with him reverting my edits. If they are really that bad another editor will revert them. DegenFarang (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I've also posted a great deal of evidence that the accounts in question were either socks or meatpuppets of 2005 at the ANI. Please review it. I am sure you have acted in good faith but your conclusion is wrong. Perhaps the IP's are different but everything else points to 2005 controlling the accounts. At least five other administrators agreed. "User:TheTakeover" first claimed he doesn't know the other sock and then admitted he lied about it and claimed they are merely close friends. I don't know how you can ignore evidence like that... DegenFarang (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated

First off, I would like to thank you for unblocking me and allowing me to edit the Wikipedia again. A few days ago, I thought I wouldn't be editing again regardless of whether my block was lifted because I was so frustrated. Now that I have had a couple of days, I am more interested than I have ever been. There are several reasons for this increased interest, but mainly I find the whole process to be mentally stimulating. It kind of reminds me of "Law" and almost makes me sorry that I never pursued the law degree that I was encouraged to pursue.

For now, I could use your help/opinion on two things:

1. Even though the technical evidence doesn't support that I am a sockpuppet of 2005, I am concerned that if I post my opinion or suggestion on a talk page where I side with him, my opinion will not only be disregarded, but I will be accused again and again of being a sockpuppet. So far, two editors sided with user 2005 and both have been accused. I want to weigh in on matters that I am knowledgeable (poker, board games, Hip-Hop, fitness) about, but don't want to face constant attacks on my character. So far this only seems to happen in the poker category and unfortunately for me (at least in regards to the Wikpedia), this is where I am most knowledgeable and the subject I am most passionate about. Your opinion on the best way to go about this would be helpful.
2. I would like to clean up my talk page. I actually want to delete the whole thing and "start fresh." When I deleted some things over this past week, I was told by user DegenFarang " if you keep this up they are going to block you from editing even this page." Am I allowed to clean up my own talk page? Can I delete old things where issues have been "resolved?"

Thanks for your help. TheTakeover (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia is supposed to work based on consensus. To quote, "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". If an argument is policy-based, it should not matter who makes it. It also shouldn't matter whether it is voiced by 10 people or just one.
    In reality it's not always so. Sometimes numbers matter explicitly, like at WP:RfA. But when we decide on content, we should aspire to that ideal. Arguments should never be disregarded based on who brings it forward.
    Every editor should contribute in the areas they feel most comfortable in, the areas they think they can help the most. Any active editor will get into disputes some time. Disputes should be handled calmly, by focusing on content, intent on improving the article based on policy, and while assuming good faith. And if a dispute cannot be resolved on the appropriate article or article talk page, there are plenty of processes, noticeboards, project talk pages to escalate them. In areas with active WikiProjects, I like to add a neutrally worded pointers at the respective project talk page, to invite further opinions of knowledgeable editors.
    Seemingly easy ways to resolve a dispute, be it persistent edit warring or recruiting like-minded editors through back-room channels, don't work in the long run. One needs to convince the broad majority of one's opinion, only that will show implicit or explicit consensus and will make other editors enforce that consensus.
  2. See WP:BLANKING for all the details. In short, yes, you can blank your talk page.
Amalthea 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I will be submitting my input on various talk pages shortly and hope that things go smoothly. For some reason, I don't think its likely as two seperate users who have disagreed with DegenFarang have been added, TODAY, to his list of sockpuppets of user 2005 He has also accused you ( of being "familiar" with user 2005 and basically said that is why you lifted the block. In that same little blurb, he continued to call me a "sockpuppet" which is very frustrating to me. Regardless, here goes nothing. TheTakeover (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You are a sock or meat puppet and that tag will follow your account forever. That is until you make it completely obvious (again) and you are blocked (again). DegenFarang (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is he allowed to harrass me like this? TheTakeover (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are you allowed to follow me around and undo everything that I do and claim you are five different people? DegenFarang (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


I don't know any other admins, and if there's someplace else on Wikipedia I should post about this, please let me know. But I'm trying to focus on discussing content on the "controversial" edits, and in every discussion, DegenFarang accuses me again of being a meat puppet or sock puppet. I'm doing my best to ignore these personal attacks and discuss the actual content issues, but can't something be done about the incessant accusations from DegenFarang? I can provide a list of diff's if necessary, but you can see the accusation raised multiple times in every discussion about removed content that I've started. Rray (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is blatantly obvious you are 2005's meat puppet and your views and opinions are identical to his. Either post on your own account or accept the fact your opinions are going to be merged. It is pretty simple. You can recruit and create all the accounts you like and your opinion on all of them still counts as one. DegenFarang (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rhydian article - thanks

Dear Amalthea, Many thanks for restoring Greenock's changes which I had hastily deleted. This was when I discovered that some "individual" with a numeric name (ISP only!) had deleted all my headings, basically vandalising the article and wrecking its organisation. I jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that Greenock had done it, so deleted their changes and then managed to delete the true offending ones. I have poured alot of time and trouble into this article over the last couple of years, so I really appreciate your work in saving. About a week ago, I did a massive day of editing, re-writing and reformatting of the article. Please watch the Rhydian article for the present, as it occasionally gets hacked in this way. Kind regards, FClef (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


Sorry for being late but thanks for disabling email from User:SEPTActaMTA8235, we was attacking me from email. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 13:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Sorry to wake you from your semi-slumber, but... there's lots of juicy goodness in the repo that people are just hankering for... — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Where would we be without you, Amalthea?... — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, crazy times. Do keep pinging me -- may take me till the next workday till I notice, but usually no longer than that. Amalthea 08:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I just re-read what I posted - it could be taken two different ways... I meant it in a nice way – your edit rate seems to have slowed ("semi-slumber"). I don't expect you to keep your eyes glued on the repo or anything. Sorry if the message seemed snarkily sarcastic – that's not my way. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Heh, no worries, I know how you meant it. Was merely a stab at myself, I'm annoyed that I can contribute so little recently. I should have put an emoticon in there somewhere, sorry for that. Cheers, Amalthea 12:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite see how I'm involved here, but it seems to be resolved. Amalthea 12:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


What other account did Govynn (talk · contribs) use? You can email me if you wish. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MJC59/Archive for details. Cheers, Amalthea 12:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Di-no license

 Template:Di-no license has been nominated for merging with Template:No copyright information. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Gh87 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Can you please take some time to examine the concerns expressed at User_talk:Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry#GaryNiger_and_Gary-Niger. Both Cavalry and I feel that an uninvolved sysop should offer a third opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bumping. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies that I didn't react sooner, I was largely offline for the last two weeks, and could not take time for Wikipedia.
I believe the situation is resolved now, and judging by what I read in that section I agree with the outcome.
Again, sorry that I couldn't help you at the time.
Amalthea 07:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It's alright. I can understand that you were busy. Thanks anyway. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award Amalthea this barnstar for his great effort in dealing with sockpuppets of Diogomauricio3. CT Cooper · talk 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Until you came along, I was almost the only one dealing with these socks. Just so you know, I let Teles (talk · contribs) know when a new sock comes along as Diogomauricio3 is also disruptive on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and Teles is an admin over there who will block socks on sight for us. CT Cooper · talk 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll continue categorizing them, as it looks right now he should check the category every week or so. Cheers, Amalthea 11:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to New Orleans developers' meeting

New Orleans Wikimedia Hackathon
MediaWiki and Wikimedia developers' meetup
Hi, Amalthea. I'd like to invite you to come to the New Orleans Hackathon 2011. It's an opportunity for MediaWiki developers and Wikimedia operations engineers to come together to work on advancing Wikimedia's tools and infrastructure, focusing on Wikimedia Labs (starting with the dev-ops virtualization cluster), and to train and to squash bugs.

The theme of this event: "the infrastructure of innovation". We're going to improve and discuss the Wikimedia Labs projects infrastructure and other stuff that makes it easier for anyone to supercharge Wikimedia with awesomeness. We're going to work on our gadgets/extensions/tools support, authorization/authentication strategy, dev-ops virtualization, and general training and hacking.

It's mostly going to be dev sprints and bugsmashing, with some discussion and workshops. The event is open to anyone who wants to come and contribute, and is an opportunity to spend time with senior MediaWiki developers & ops engineers, write beautiful code, and learn about the latest developments.

If you can make it to New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 14-16 October 2011, we'd love to have you. Please add your name to the attendees list. Thanks! Sumanah (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) (Volunteer Development Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation)

Sumanah (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see that I will make that trip for this event (even though I'd like to to visit New Orleans at some point). Amalthea 11:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You might also be interested in the upcoming Brighton, UK hackathon... what regions/continents do you find easiest to get to? Sumanah (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi, I'm assuming User:Tenage Stupid 2 is User:Tenage Stupid, whom you blocked as a sock of User:Diogomauricio3. Lagrange613 (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. Amalthea 08:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

  1. Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
  2. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

No, not the repo this time..

(Although it's about Twinkle...) I'm implementing a feature that will detect tags already present on an article and allow the user to remove them by un-ticking the box. (At the moment, I think I will add a confirmation box when the user clicks "Submit" after de-selecting tags - just to make sure it doesn't happen by accident.)

In order for this to work, all 70 or so tags that Twinkle uses need a CSS class added to them. I have got some admins to add another parameter to {{ambox}} (class=) which can be used for this purpose, but I figured that rather than flooding CAT:PER (which seems to be permanently backlogged at the moment), I would ask you directly.

The format I have been using for the class names is "ambox-<template name, with spaces replaced by underscores>", e.g. "ambox-BLP_sources". (I know it's not pretty, but the reason for using underscores instead of hyphens is so Twinkle can detect the real name of templates it doesn't know about). I have been placing this class= parameter directly beneath the type= parameter in the template code. See Template:All plot and Template:Fiction for a couple I have done.

Could you please add this parameter to the following fully protected amboxes? {{wikify}}; {{advert}}; {{BLP sources}}; {{BLP unsourced}}; {{cleanup}}; {{COI}}; {{context}}; {{copy edit}}; {{copypaste}}; {{expert-subject}}; {{in use}}; {{more footnotes}}; {{no footnotes}}; {{notability}}; {{original research}}; {{orphan}}; {{plot}}; {{POV}}; {{primary sources}}; {{prose}} (why on earth is this protected??); {{recentism}} (again, why?); {{refimprove}}; {{tone}}; {{unreferenced}}; {{update}}; {{weasel}}

I'm also still trying to decide how to handle redirects... the only solution I can think of is to have hard-coded lists of redirects. What do you think? — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Will answer tomorrow at the latest, sorry for the delay again. :/ Amalthea 08:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you have gone away... I can ask someone else if you would prefer... but who to ask? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the requested additions to the above templates. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 14:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ioeth! :/
Crazy times. Which is good for me, but very bad for hobbies. Amalthea 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Bulgaria in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest}}

Hi, I have no particular interest in this topic but fell over it while stub-sorting Bulgaria in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011. I see that when two editors amended it to add 2011 you reverted, saying they were serial hoaxers, but the ref at states that Bulgaria is indeed competing in 2011. I've amended the template, and added the source to the article. Am I missing something? PamD 07:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks for double-checking the information. Amalthea 08:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about Vitorvicentevalente

I'm not going to make a formal checkuser request, but I'll draw your attention to this. I marked it as closed, but the editor specifically denying what seems to be an obvious sock makes me queasy about doing that.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Once Vitorfatale wandered into WP:BADCHART violations, I changed my mind and made a formal checkuser request.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Checked, and unrelated.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back. I noticed the first SPI at the time and agreed with your assessment that it was no abuse in any case -- sorry that I couldn't get around looking at it in detail myself. Cheers, Amalthea 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Diff templates

Sorry, I forgot to take into account the secure server. Is it ok that I remove the title=& from the diff templates, though? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's there for a reason, see the template history for details. Amalthea 20:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Andorra in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

who do you think you are to erase 'Andorra in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest' It's True, They'll make it's debut so it's better for you to restore it bitch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betopedia (talkcontribs) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No need for the personal attack.
If you have a reliable source to support it feel free to add the information back -- a cursory search at Google news yields no results, and the person who created the page is evading his block for systematic additions of incorrect information to Wikipedia. Amalthea 21:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
And the official page does not list Andorra either ... Amalthea 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Virtual barnstar of wonderfulness

For not only thinking of the template I wanted to create, but creating it, and giving it the right name! Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

I got very distracted after creating the first one of the series -- if you start using it I can try and start work on the other important ones?
Supported parameters of the quick variant were chosen after looking at a huge number of pages and analyzing the used parameters. The next most used ones are first_name and last_name which can just be combined to author though (maybe even as a template parameter default, that should still be comparatively lightweight). The testcases were all looking good at the time so it should render exactly the same as the base template (the apparent differences shown at the subpage (renders very slowly, naturally) are IIRC due to some odd whitespace issue and can be ignored).
Cheers, Amalthea 18:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I just need a way of avoiding non-implemented parameters. Could be done with templates js, perl, AWB regex... Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC).
OK it's looking good, I have managed to get London out of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded by using the template. The others I have tried so far are more resistant. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

A beer for you

  Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About the JESC 2012 article

Hallo. I'd like to ask for your opinion in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article. Isn't it too soon for a stand-alone article? We only know the host country (not even city) and two participating countries. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just redirected it to the main contest page. Here's the previous revision for your convenience. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We have started a discussion here. I'd appreciate your input. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 08:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


Every day, I stare at Prettybeautifulnailsalon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Every day, I go "Is it Brexx?", but it's been far to long to request a standard checkuser. Then I look and say "Is it TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)?", and notice the fascination with Nicki Minaj, but note the lack of interest in Ciara. It bugs me. Maybe I'm seeing ghosts. I'll just put a bug in your ear, and if you think my suspicions are warranted, you can do something.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

He finally went past my concern threhold by editing old Brexx articles: Sundays at Tiffany's (film) and Marry Me (2010 film). Feel free to trawl through his history for fresh proxies to block if you want.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Already taken care of, as you know, main underlying IP (which was unusually static, and does not appear to be an open proxy) already blocked. Didn't actually match the technical data I know from half a year ago, but I agree that behavioral match is very clear now. Amalthea 10:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I left a message with MuZeMike (since he blocked the original IP) as well, but (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems clearly related to (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). wasn't marked as a proxy (which surprised me as an observer), but this new IP may give some insight as to how an editor from the UAE is editing through geographically diverse IPs.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) too. If these aren't checking out as proxies, my bet is a botnet-based anonymizer.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Amalthea/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC).


Yes, I understand your request. I have been an active member for six months to one year (March, April and may are excused due to a Wikibreak), may I apply in January 2012 for RfA because, I was most active as an IP editor frequently. Can it be speedy closed when I apply in 2012, tell me the reasons. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What time should I apply for RfA you can review my edits and explain. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you do, I was commenting on this edit of yours, not on you.
From a glance, I would recommend that you don't focus on going through an RfA that much. Keep improving the encyclopedia, that's what's important. Amalthea 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MosesBeacon

Mind if I create that category, along with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MosesBeacon, with the text {{sockpuppet category|MosesBeacon}}? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you wouldn't, see User talk:Amalthea/Archive 6#Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ...?. Amalthea 11:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


I found a message in my inbox--say, Amalthea, have you been spamming recently? ;) Drmies (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no, no relation, they appear to be using my good name for their nefarious scam. :) Cheers, Amalthea 11:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Amalthea, I'd been looking for a way to describe talkbacking/watching of my user talk page, and I saw that your page notice says pretty much exactly what I wanted it to say. So, I copied yours; I hope you don't mind. Thanks! Writ Keeper 13:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. :) Amalthea 13:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lenna image

Believe it or not, this is becoming a bigger issue than I ever expected regarding File:Lenna.png. There's now an RFC about it at File talk:Lenna.png. Would you please consider commenting? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fa Mulan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fa Mulan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Kind request

Hi Amalthea, can you please delete the history of this user page of mine (or altogether if necessary) User:Hoverfish/Memo? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's gone. Next time you may want to place the template {{db-u1}} on the page to alert an admin. Cheers, Amalthea 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Amalthea, I added the template to my tools. Hoverfish Talk 01:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections

[12] Thanks for not handing out templates. There is a point that wants to be made here.

These are elections for a (supposedly) important committee, and not only is the committee is badly run, the lineup of candidates are even worse!

It manages to find time to deal with "Tree Shaping" yet cannot deal with any of the factors that bring about the high rate of contributor attrition. The people who line up for a seat are career contributors to a badly run volunteer project. You'd hope that you'd see people lining up who have experience in, say, public administration, or who have have successfully overseen a medium-sized project. Yet you don't have that. That's both a symptom and a cause of rot. 23:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I disagree with your interpretation and conclusion (although I do agree with some problems you name). Arbcom's role is not to administer, and it can only affect a part of what causes contributors to leave: unresolved disputes and editor misconduct.
If you think arbcom should fulfill other roles, lobby for that. If you feel other people are better suited to help at arbcom, try to convince them to nominate themselves. Just saying that those who /are/ willing to step up (for whatever reason) that they all suck is making a point disruptively instead of constructively. Amalthea 11:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me get this change in?

Upcoming developers' event

Thought you might want to know about the upcoming Wikimedia developers' meetings. best, Sumanah (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Substitution checking

Please see the two sections I posted about this subject on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check and Template_talk:Fix#Method_of_substitution_check (one right after the other). I compare Ambox with Fix, asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle tag suggestion

Hello Amalthea. I posted a message on Twinkle's talk page about adding the {{current}} template to the list of tags on Twinkle since we have the {{recentism}} template already added. TTO said to ask for your and SchuminWeb's input about adding the current template (SchuminWeb is on a WikiBreak, so I decided to ask you first). Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 18:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you Amalthea, for letting me know of the discussion. - Yellowdesk (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC).


Thank you for your assistance Amalthea. You were a great help. If you wish to discuss this further, please email me. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cite web quick

Re: "23:30, 14 December 2011‎ Amalthea (talk | contribs)‎ (1,581 bytes) (rv: Using only a fraction of resources (Preprocessor node count, Template argument size, ...) and thus allowing a citation template to be used /at all/ on some cite-template-heavy pages counts as additional functionality I'd say.)"

Such as where? I removed every single deployed use of it, and this had zero negative effect that I can see. In point of fact, what it was really used for was for a few editors to write mostly sloppy, incomplete citations. Just cleaning up the mess caused at Cat took me hours. If there are pages where citation templates cannot be used, I'd be curious which ones they are. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 13:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) PS: Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded isn't sufficient justification to POV-fork the citation templates to only include what you personally feel are important pieces of citation information. That should be a consensus discussion at WT:Verifiability. And the template technical fix for this needs to be arrived at by consensus at Template talk:Citation/core after WT:V decides what sourcing details can be sacrificed in the name of template code paring. More detail at the TfD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite web quick

 Template:Cite web quick has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Cezary Baryka

Moving to User talk:Xeno as Amalthea appears to be absent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Has that actually been looked into? Amalthea 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel L. Barth

I saw you confirmed that User:YummyDonutsmmm was a sock of an already-blocked editor, but you didn't say anything about the other editors involved in the AFD. Can anything regarding them be checked, if only to see if there's been vote-stacking? Thanks, DoriTalkContribs 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dori,
since you've asked on the SPI page as well I've replied there, to keep everything in one place.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks—I dropped you the note here as I didn't know if you'd see the other before the page was archived. DoriTalkContribs 01:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian IP Hopper

Hey Amalthea. I'm so upset that there is no easy solution to this sock/IP Hopper. What you said about converting them - I could try again. Should I suggest making an account and advice them to stay on the same account. Then I could try and mentor them. Or just let them continue to use the IP's?Rain the 1 16:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry that I couldn't be of more help. :(
If you're willing to try and can convince Brian to do it I would actually recommend to go back to his old account (if he can still access it). If you're interested, here's how I started a similar probationary unblock once. Every editor is different though, you will know better what lead to the block of the account, and what happened in the time he evaded the block. Most importantly, Brian needs to want to try and and edit collaboratively and in compliance with policy for this to be a success. And you will need to have nerves of steel … Amalthea 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, it is okay, not your fault, it is just one those things. Thanks for showing me that too, gives me an idea of how to do it. I'll ask around with all the other regular soap contributors to see if they would be willing. Then see if Brian is too.Rain the 1 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Xebulon SPI

I may have an active account that could be added to the case. Would I be able to do that or would I have to start a new SPI?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is easiest for you, either a comment or a new SPI section is fine. Cheers, Amalthea 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I decided to create a new section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators possibly needed to settle editorial dispute

Dear Amalthea,

could you be so kind to inform where and how I can establish contact with the higher office of Wikipedia for the possible assistance by administrators to settle editorial disputes around the highly original, biased and incorrect attempts to revive Serbo-Croatian as a classification standard primarily on pages Bosnian language and Serbo-Croatian?

Thank you for your help MarcRey (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

for content disputes I'd refer you to WP:Dispute resolution, have a look at the side bar there for the dispute negotiation steps. I'd say the appropriate next step in your case would be a WP:Request for comments.
If you start one, please make sure to word it as neutral as possible, don't just call it a biased and incorrect attempt to revive a term. I believe the best way to start an RfC like that would be to author it together with someone who holds the opposing view in your discussion. Find a neutral wording to sum up the dispute that you can both accept, then add brief sections for each side trying to show why that opinion is more in line with Wikipedia policies.
Amalthea 18:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion for MOTD


Could you batch delete all the dates like you used to when requested for the 2011 mottoes? The dates in question can be found at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive 2011 (but don't delete this page). Cheers. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A few months are gone already, I'll keep April–November for a bit to try and debug some annoying Twinkle or MediaWiki API error. :)
Amalthea 11:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk: The IP is subject to two range blocks, one of which was imposed by you. (A checkuserblock, from 13:32, 11 January 2012 to 13:32, 25 January 2012.) The other is a proxy block, which I will refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Perhaps you could consider whether there is a case for lifting your block or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered there. Amalthea 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Detecting public IPs

I am curious how you are able to find out that the IP for is a public access WiFi hotspot address. I was only able to trace it to Macquarie Telecom in Sidney but no further. Thanks. Jojalozzo 17:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I trust myles325a and he said so. :) Amalthea 17:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah! So no magic tools, just good connections - plain old detective work. :-) Thanks! Jojalozzo 02:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Unblock request on User:". Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Amalthea 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A request

Hello. Thanks for your reply on the Twinkle talk page Located Here regarding my proposal to add the {{Find sources}} parameter to the Article for deletion template Located Here. I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but since you're an administrator, I am requesting that if appropriate, could you go to the discussion occurring at Template talk:Article for deletion and strike out User:Mtking's multiple Oppose votes. They have voted "oppose" three times in bold, and I feel that it is misleading and casts an oppositional tone on the page. If I'm not mistaken, it's also against voting guidelines on Wikipedia.

I ask because I am hesitant to correct this problem myself, to avoid further unconstructive complications with this invididual. I've posted a request on the discussion page to the user to strike their multiple votes, but they haven't responded. It is biasing the discussion page. It also appears that the person may be engaging in some intentional obfuscation while not actually reading comments in the discussion, as evidenced on the Twinkle talk page, which you commented on. Please respond at your convenience on my talk page, and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Northamerica1000(talk) 13:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Never mind, I've closed the discussion. It wasn't receiving much input. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. I was waiting to see for Mtking's response to your request before getting involved, but I agree that the discussion wasn't really getting anywhere at this point. Amalthea 08:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal Version of Twinkle

Would you please clarify at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Twinkle_localization_to_Bengali_Wikipedia whether having a personal version of twinkle is possible anymore? If its possible, it'd be great if instructions on how to get one were available. Best regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've replied there. I haven't followed the thread so far, so I'm not sure whether that's actually going to be helpful. :) Amalthea 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet

Hello Amalthea. I appear to have found another sock puppet of Asgardian, User: Mistersaxon4. Judging from how Mistersaxon4 edits and leave edit summaries as shown here ([13]), I think Asgardian is using this account to evade his ban on Wikipedia. Can I request usercheck for this? Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 12:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a specific example of an edit summary that would match Asgardian? Aston Villa F.C. would be an unusual topic for him. Amalthea 12:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
One example of an edit summary Asgardian usually used was rv. I'm not sure, but remember how he used PurpleHeartEditor and did a huge bunch of edits that were similar to his edit summaries? Well I think this is the case as well. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"rv" is probably one of the most common edit summaries, that by itself doesn't mean anything. FWIW, Mistersaxon4 has used that edit summary once, PurpleHeartEditor never, Asgardian never in his last 5000 edits, and I thrice.
Don't let me do your work for you, you must have noticed something specific that prompted this section, give me diffs please.
Amalthea 15:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI of Tartanator

I don't know what the entire point of this is, since Nodar95 claims WP:CLEANSTART, and if I and Tartanator were indeed the same person, a block for something that occurred 8 weeks ago would be rhetorical. It seems to be a waste of everybody's time and could boomerang back at Nodar95 for some of the statements he has made. What do you think? GotR Talk 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you have also replied at the SPI case page I've replied there, to keep the discussion in one place. Amalthea 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
You got mail. GotR Talk 16:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Received. Amalthea 16:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
... and replied. Amalthea 11:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

sind deine Ohren brennen?

Bitte anschauen User_talk:Gerda_Arendt/Archive_2012#SLA PumpkinSky talk 23:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

War zu langsam. :) Amalthea 08:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Traurig ;-) PumpkinSky talk 10:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you "Amalthea" for giving me a chance to help out in the Wikipedia community.

I don't really know what is the criteria for giving these stars, but as I found this while checking out Wikipedia, I think you deserve it for giving me a chance even after sockpuppeting. Inlandmamba (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for updating the rolling six month CheckUser data! Risker (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin Sky CCI

I'm confused: you're saying here that Pumpkin Sky is Rlevse? Could you please fill me in, per Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I don't really have much more information than that, but no doubt that both accounts belong to the same person. Amalthea 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ummmm ... ok ... I've been poking around and now I see all the similarities (that is, if we account for feigned ignorance), but can we say conclusively that they're the same, in terms of understanding his input at both WT:FAC and WT:DYK? If that is the case, we've had a massive upheaval and ongoing disruption at FAC based on not just one, but three returning-from-vanished or cleanstart users, which reinforces the concern about "sour grapes" coming in to play in the politicization of FAC. What evidence is there that PumpkinSky is Rlevse, beyond that it looks like him ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Among other things he acknowledged it when I talked to him via email. Everything I know lines up, it is without a doubt   Confirmed.
Interesting regarding the RfC: I saw that he opined there and was concerned by it already, that's a prime example of why WP:SCRUTINY is important; I hadn't been aware that there were other users with a similar history, or of any further disruption that you mention. Amalthea 20:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Disgusted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tr:In Bruges

Hi, I'm curious about how you managed to delete it, I've tried with API, normal delete, nuke without any results :) Snowolf How can I help? 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see now you used the pageid, good idea, didn't occur to me :D Snowolf How can I help? 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky

Hey Amalthea--if I find a copyvio in a single edit, can I just revdel it with a copyvio note? And if that's OK, do I still need to stick that CCI template on the talk page? Thanks. Hey, I saw this--I don't mind helping, but even reading the instructions isn't easy. And first, I gotta cook dinner and then put the girls to bed. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I was hoping to channel (guilt) some energy into the cleanup that way. :)
I'm really not the right person to ask though, there's a reason why I stuck to the trivial edits. :) I would have thought it sufficient to make sure any text you found is either removed or rewritten. I'm sure MRG had a good reason to create {{Cclean}} though, so maybe it's best to ask at WT:CCI or one of the CCI clerks. I also think that revdel isn't always necessary either -- but really, I'm out of my element there. :\
Amalthea 23:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I look at a long list. Some articles are mine. PumpkinSky was tremendously helpful copy-editing my Germanic prose. Can I just say so in general? Or do I have to check off every single article? Don't we have better things to do??? Loosing such people? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just found one, which I why I was asking. As for losing--these are copyright violations and that's a matter that can threaten the whole project, a project in which you have invested considerable time and energy. It's not trivial by any standard. I learned the wiki-ropes a long time ago from someone who instilled the joy of article creation in me, and taught me the importance. Then they got blocked basically for trolling where they didn't get their (political) way, and began socking, finally just trolling. I still find that incredibly sad, but that's the way it is. It's like the friend who teaches you how to play the guitar, but you can't invite him to dinner parties anymore because he keeps spouting racist stuff in conversation. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
By all means, if you know edits were just copyediting then please check them off.
And well, I agree that there will likely only be a few articles that have to be reworded, but we can't just ignore it either. There is reason to believe that a number of those edits introduced problematic content, turning a blind eye would in the long run damage Wikipedia -- maybe not even legally in cases like this, but it would certainly hurt our reputation. And believe me, this was not at all the outcome I was working towards over the last days, but I had little choice when he stopped responding. Admittedly, with what I know now, it was probably bound to end in drama. Amalthea 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I checked off 28 articles, only the ones I know that is, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Even flawed editors can be incredibly helpful much of the time. This is one of the challenges Wikipedia has to deal with on a regular basis. Geometry guy 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I resemble that remark! Drmies (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure where to put this, so: {{Cclean}} was created in the days before rev deletion when we had two options: either selectively delete the content or remove it from publication and hope it doesn't come back. At that point, it was to help prevent people accidentally restoring the content, because selective deletion was rare and only for really bad cases. :) It's still useful when stuff isn't rev deleted, and even if it is, it's a way of explaining to people what happened to the content they lost. I am inclined to use it less now than I used to - mostly when I think there's a higher chance for editor dismay or confusion and when I think there's a higher chance that the person who added the content actually could be the copyright holder, especially if it was added by an IP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrase, but how?

I am setting out to fix instances of "copy-vio" by PumpkinSky.

No 1 Bozeman Carnegie Library, found and addressed as a problem:

  • "The building is also opened for special events such as Historic Preservation Week." vs.
  • (source) "its new owners have opened the building to the public on numerous occasions for special events, such as Historic Preservation Week."


  • "Their plan worked as the red-light district and Chinese population steadily dwindled away." vs.
  • (source) "the local Chinese population gradually dwindled and Bozeman's red light district soon withered and disappeared."

I admit that I fail to see a problem in this case. Make me understand: Would it be acceptable to say "for example" instead of "such as"? Use a different term for "special events"? Say "conducts special events"? I am completely helpless in the second case. Help!

No 2 Lonesomehurst Cabin, I restored the description and some history. Again, I failed to see close paraphrasing from the public source "United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service". There are architectural terms in the description that I don't know ("rabbitted cornerboards"), so I would not know ho to paraphrase without losing precision?? Please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Popping over here per your request on my talk; Gerda, it's not only the phrasing-- the problem we often see at DYK (and that folks everywhere fail to pick up on when they use tools like the duplication detector) is that the entire structure is copied. When the flow and structure matches the source, you can see that text was copy-pasted in, then words just juggled around (which avoids duplication detector tool picking it up). These frequent claims that involve "only a few words" come from people who aren't looking at the structure of the article. You can read the source, read the article, and see that you're looking at the same thing with a few words juggled. If you've addressed that, I'm not concerned for a closer look-- feel free to remove the tag if you're satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No 3 Cranberry Creek Archeological District, I changed the line "and was designated a State Natural Area in 1986", copied word-for-word from the source. But who thinks that Wikipedia is in danger because of such a line? Not me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, examine the structure-- not just the words and phrases. Copying the structure is copyvio. See the Plagiarism Dispatch:

Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast rule for how much revision is necessary to avoid plagiarizing. In evaluating copyright concerns, the United States courts adopt a "substantial similarity" test that compares the pattern and sequence of two works, finding such similarity where "the ordinary observer [reading two works], unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."[17] Even if all of the language is revised, a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar".[18] Likewise, plagiarism may exist if readers comparing the two works would come away with a sense that one is copied from or too heavily based on another.

I read the source from Lonehurst Cabin, then read the article, and there was no doubt I was reading the same work-- then I engaged Duplication detector to pick up specific instances, but if the structure is copied even if words are juggled, it could still be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The article No 3 has many sources, sometimes more than one in one sentence.
The structure in No 2 is now different because I put things in chronology. Repeated: There are architectural terms in the description that I don't know ("rabbitted cornerboards"), so I would not know ho to paraphrase without losing precision?? - There was no tag to be removed, just content restored. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good-- it's OK to use direct quotes on terms like that ... By the way, since MoonRiddenGirl is also on this page, perhaps she'll educate us ... in the Cabin case, the reason I removed text instead of tagging was that a CCI wasn't yet open at that point, and it was my understanding that if you get to a copyvio before other hands have touched it, you should just remove it. Maybe MRG will tell us if that's correct? I also queried her talk since I wasn't certain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, Sandy! Amalthea 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring / 3RR

You have been reported for violation of edit warring / 3RR here: --Sallynice (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Already replied. Amalthea 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I just realized, with some embarrassment, that I had not thanked you for the good work you've done on the Pumpkinsky case. So let me remedy that now -- thank you so much for your good work. It's greatly appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well. I feel like an ass, who caused a bazillion wasted editor-hours. I'm not convinced I improved Wikipedia. Amalthea 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes you did. Regardless the outcome in this instance, there's a whole lot of education/communication/clarification happening, which was needed and will help at least in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For the professional way in which you dealt with a recent investigation, including the manner of communicating results. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All the best

I'm relieved and glad to hear from you and apologize for my part in your distress during a very stressful time for all; all the best, and please return soon, and refreshed. Kind regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of MOTD

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have any opinion on that. Amalthea 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Shrikatnv's block

Please see this thread. Was this supposed to be a SOCK block? --Chris (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Amalthea 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


FYI, That one used to go in the "Awaiting clerk approval" section since it implies a CU request. T. Canens (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, fixed & works. Thanks, Amalthea 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Amalthea,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Can you please move this page back to the original title? [14]. An user abusively made the move, even if the result of the Req for Move on the talk page was "no consensus". The title from the official site of the organization is Szekler National Council 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhantyMansiMagyar (talkcontribs)

Please stop evading your ban. Get yourself unbanned first, and then I will gladly look into whether your request has merit. Amalthea 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Human rights

We lost Khazar, fighter for Human rights, and I feel guilty because I had told him that DYK is a friendly place again, which he found it isn't. Thank you for reviewing in the PumpkinSky copyvio investigation. As of today, 492 articles have been checked, 237 are open. Flatscan noticed that in the lists on Montana people the text is the same as in Montana. I would not think THAT is copyvio, but learning. One sentence was removed, everything else ok so far. - I lost a friend in real life, PumpkinSky helped with that article and those of relatives. - Taking up the fight for Human rights here: looking at AN threads where you and I are mentioned I miss the respect of living people that we demand in BLPs, and I lack the words to fight it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I too am distressed by how ugly this got, and am sorry that Khazar left; I have stayed away from all related discussions since Friday so I don't know what caused it, but I can guess. I'll try to help out on the CCI page some more later this week. Amalthea 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Only a few articles are left in the CCI, please have a look, I would like to see it settled. I dislike three things in "Gerda Arendt is another absolute supporter of the copyright violator under any name it chooses". I mostly dislike the "it", talking of people, second the "copyright violator", I don't see the term justified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii

I think I nailed Mbhiii to Trift to Dawakin. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


So, let me see if I understand this: Rihannano1fan gets blocked for two weeks, creates Iluvrihanna24 to evade the block, makes a complete pain in the ass of himself for nearly a year until getting indefinitely blocked, socks hard enough from his IP address that his IP winds up on a long-term block, and now wants what amounts to an IP exemption? My immediate instinct is to block Rihannano1fan so that when the IP block expires he can't resume use of the account. Having yet another editor that has inserting fan material into Rihanna articles doesn't seem like a result that I'm willing to bend any rules to help see happen.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, and from the reply I just read I don't think that anything has changed. :/ Amalthea 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping.

Please note that I have a replacement for SoxBot underway. Your bot operating temporarily on it is helpful for getting it done faster.cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)



That works!


I have actually been improving the sockpuppet stuff lately I noticed you were a checkuser tpoo, I hope maybe Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace/Sockpuppets looks usefulish? Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace looked like a giant mess to me so tried to help out a bit make it more human-readable friendly

I actually got told off by an admin for tagging sockpuppets, but all the templates it looked like you are actually meant to tag IPs if you suspect they are sockpuppets, and then someone checks them to see if they are right or not like with {{editprotected}} etc?

I'm interested cos I think you are honestly better having the "early warning system" decentralised rather than relying on only a few people, that makes sense for the actual checks but I don't think it's really constructive for people to be being warned for tagging sockpuppets for investigation?

My user and tak page got vandalised a tonne and the admins blocking didn't even tag most of them, I don't think they were ever investigated by the looks of it since the first one was tagged sockpuppeeteer and the ones after that sockuppets of the first, even though the first one was obviously a sock and not the real sockpuppeteer — I saw that too on the ones I tagged before and tried to help out, it seems to me like it might be the norm though that the templates aren't really being used properly? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots of points to reply to:
  1. While existence of a tag is apparently reason enough to use it in practice, it really shouldn't be. We have lots of article tags in particular that don't really have much purpose or are used way beyond where they make sense.
  2. IPs are generally not tagged with sock tags, see WP:SPI/AI#Blocking and tagging. It may make sense to tag an IP if it is was used by only one person and had significant edits, but not otherwise.
  3. Risker's note had of course more facets than just tagging an account for investigation.
  4. Tagging an account with a sock tag won't actually make anyone look into it, no. If you want an account checked you'll need to start an WP:SPI case, and present evidence why you think abuse of multiple accounts is happening.
  5. I don't see why a decentralized system would be better. For one, it's helpful in an investigation to have the archive with all previous investigations handy, including all prior accounts and comments. For another, I'd expect it would lead to much more conflict if editors felt legitimized to tag active accounts as suspected socks without having to present concrete evidence to back it up and "prove" it first.
  6. In case of the edits on your user talk page, at least one of the accounts was checked, but apparently nothing came of it.
  7. For trivial vandalism or disruption WP:RBI still works well. We don't really have to tag each disruptive account with the name of a sockmaster (and can't anyway), and it's often counterproductive. There are several ways to prevent disruption, and as long as we can keep the nonsense down enough to keep working on the encyclopedia it's enough.
I hope I got everything, feel free to call me out if I missed something or misunderstood you. Amalthea 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right on a lot of that about the templates etc I guess, having looked at the SPI reporting pages it does seem a more clever way to have the discussion at least decentralised, and yeah, getting anyone to report in if they see stuff as a neighbourhood watch thing, I was putting this off to reply to properly (it's nice to get such a thoughtfully laid out reply to my thrown out points  ) but that's probably it really lol  
What I was thinking of though as well though is the more long term POV pushing RE stuff like WP:PAIDWATCH it would be useful if tagging was more standardised maybe even done semi-automatically somehow like with the Wikilove button, I had an arbitrator earlier say they found the system confusing too! User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Trollolol   I'm not sure if maybe there's some secret page that keeps track of stuff in the longterm though it seems like it would make sense for it to the stnadard to label sockpuppeteersa nd their sockpuppets uniformally so people can recognise stuff easier to report them when they arrive back on articles, this is especially important as they are sometimes quite sneaky about it inventing multiple false identities and even personalities, to continue catching them you need to keep up with them I think. For me it was less concerns about vandalism and nonsense but the more insidious WP:PAIDWATCH style pushing as I saw on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.   --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Kindly review your WP:OUTING policy. Thanx. (You know who.) -- (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Kindly review it yourself, plus checkuser policy and the Wikimedia privacy policy. If you are concerned that I have violated any of those policies, contact the audit subcommittee to have my actions reviewed.
    My advice to you, if you don't want your accounts marked as socks of your original account, stop with inappropriate use of multiple accounts. If you want to engage in a constructive discussion about inappropriate behavior of administrators, request an unblock with your original account and become a welcomed member of the community first. Evading your block and creating mainspace (!) pages with a list of admins you find abusive will change nothing.
    Amalthea 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Review help appreciated

I told Iluvrihanna24/Rihannano1fan that I would unblock him with some conditions if he could prove to me that he could be a valuable editor by improving a sandboxed copy of the Rihanna article. This is the result. Any opinions are welcome. I'm a bit frightened by the idea of someone making 160 edits to the same article in a week, but I guess he's a little eager to be released.—Kww(talk) 12:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. :) Yes, it would be helpful if he changed his editing work-flow: Useful edit summaries with every edit, previewing and checking changes before saving. I have only taken a glance at the changes (and can't promise that I will be able to take a closer look); there are a couple of minor things that I'd rather he wouldn't change, but that's no big. I have not checked to see whether he added any poorly sourced material, that plus unresponsiveness on his talk page was I believe the biggest problem with Rihannano1fan.
Amalthea 16:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Amalthea,

Thank you for your message - which reminded me that Thehelpfulbot still had IPBE. I was just testing Tor back in May 2009 and I didn't really use it after that time. I guess I forgot to remove IPBE!

Thanks again,

The Helpful One 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for taking care of it. Amalthea 00:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Amalthea! I had to look through some history on my talk page earlier, and I noticed this which led me to this. I had forgotten that it was me who gave you rollback rights years ago! I am glad I did give you became an admin a few months later, and to my knowledge you have been a great editor and admin. :) At any rate, I hope you're well. Acalamari 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I had yet to learn to keep discussions on one page it seems. :)
But I still remembered that you gave me rollback, and also what you said half a year later. :) Amalthea 00:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I still agree with that comment of mine too. :) Acalamari 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My clerckship and the chart

Your bot dosen't recognize that I'm a clerk when it fills out the 'Last Clerk/Checkuser to edit case' field at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview. Can you please fix that when you get the chance? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you caught me, I took a shortcut back then and hardcoded the list instead of parsing the clerk page. Will try to fix that ASAP, and have added you manually until then. Cheers, Amalthea 09:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for MSK fullurl fix. Nobody Ent 10:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Was not moot, by the way: The link was a link (note missing language subdomain) so it wasn't automatically switched to one of the two secure variants by javascript. Amalthea 10:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


I've unblocked the PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) account, and converted the corresponding IP block to a soft block. Pretty much normal restrictions, except that I experimented with a variation of 0RR: he isn't permitted to restore material that he added and another editor removes. I hate enforcing 0RR restrictions on heavily edited articles, because if you get too technical about it you can always trawl the history and find a version that matches the new version.—Kww(talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Amalthea 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
13 hours, 59 minutes this time. I just can't fathom exactly what this was about.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Think there's any hope here?—Kww(talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I told him yesterday to be constructive and focus on content and today he posts a rant and spews insults. My impression is that he will never be interested to work with others on those articles.
But then again, with Greenock125 I had a few very rough days at the beginning and had lost hope as well, but it's now been close to 10 months.
Amalthea 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI bot

Do you think you can also have the bot clerk the "quick checkuser requests" section? Basically, remove a subsection with {{SPIquick|done}} after, say, 48 hours? T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can, sure. Will have to go through BRFA, I'll try sometime next week? Cheers, Amalthea 22:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
BRFA. Amalthea 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


When and where was the decision taken to ban me? If you can point to an explicit decision, I'll respect it. Otherwise, it becomes another of the many misleading statements made by a certain editor. Why is he allowed to repeat these false assertions? (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "effectively banned". Amalthea 13:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
And when you say "I'll respect it", do you mean that you'd respect the ban? Amalthea 13:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Provided that until I'm banned I get treated like a normal editor, which means that my posts don't get reverted by people who simply don't like them and who justify their reversions by false assertions about me. (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Because you seem to have no respect for community norms now either. You are already indef blocked, and not supposed to be editing here except to ask for an unblock. Amalthea 19:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That does not seem to be correct. It has been alleged (on no obvious grounds) that I am one, some, or all of a long list of users who are neither blocked nor banned. See [User:Altmathsci/vodafone here] for one unsunstantiated and in fact hilariously inaccurate allegation, making me responsible for all the edits on one popular mobile ISP too. If I, we or they choose to edit logged out, why not? Oh, and what community norm am I failing to show respect for? Would that be the protection of a grossly incivil user from having their lies exposed because ArbComm find it useful to unleash him on pushers of a POV they do not dare to censor explicitly? (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Circumventing sanctions is a violation of the community's policy WP:Sock puppetry. You have been blocked, and you continue to evade your block. If your original block was made incorrectly, log in to your original account and request an unblock per WP:APPEAL/WP:GAB. Once you are again a member of this community in good standing we can discuss grievances you see. Amalthea 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

revisionuser magic trick

Ok, that's just weird, it does work when you preview the page, but it turns out it doesn't work in actual practice. I only tried preview and I figured it must have been fixed, why would it have been intentionally disabled? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the magic word is still there, and it will still work as intended. The unintentional use, where it emitted the current user in editnotices and editintros and other message-like texts in some contexts was prone to abuse; for example, imagine an a link like [http://my.evil.server/collectIpAndUsername?username={{revisionuser}} Click here to leave me a message].
Bug was bugzilla:19006.
Cheers, Amalthea 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your dilemma

You are right. You do face a dilemma. They do contribute quite a bit (how valuably you be the judge), but if you are worried about the balance they provide the articles JW and I were discussing, please don't be. Instead, with JW's help, please help recruit unbiased authors you can trust to "get it right", as he says, and ask all "fans" and "anti-fans" to refrain from working in the mainspace. For my part, I agree to this compromise in advance. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Just out of curiosity, what did do that warranted blocking? Also, are you planning on placing a block notice on that IP's talk page? I ask, because when I blocked that IP for a month last month, it was reversed because it was deemed "too excessive". I'm not terribly surprised that less than two months later, it requires blocking again. If you were to place a block notice on that page (and any opinions you have on the matter of longer blocks), it may help illustrate to others (specifically, those more permissive admins who think such blocks are "excessive") that such blocks are sometimes necessary. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember, yes. One of the banned users I mentioned back then became active again recently and came back to this IP (and others). I predicted back then that it may require re-blocking down the line, and that's what happened now.
I see I've also commented then what I thought about this specific IP.
Cheers, Amalthea 01:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

  Thanks for helping out in repairing the damage I did with my edits on Jimmy's talk page. I think I was accidently editing off of a historical page. Sorry for the confusion I caused. Cheers Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to put up a SPI page?

For Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rlevse? Or can look at them from that cat? My methodology for the IPs I've tagged is similar to what I used for the BarkingMoon case. The edit summaries left by the IPs I've tagged match edit summaries of Rlvese (via Snotty's tool). Will Beback tagged a couple more IPs which were open proxies; those were a bit more speculative, I think, but they toed the same line that FAR and some addressed people with "Mr." which I saw PumpkinSky even used as "Mr. IP" here. I thought this shit could be forgotten, but Rlevse's wikifriends insist on hearing some sort of official take on this. If any IPs used by BarkingMoon were saved somewhere, we might have an explanation for that mystery well. I'd be interesting to hear what you make of the geolocation of the IPs in that category anyway and their status a open proxies or not. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken none of those IPs made edits this year, so I don't see why there is any need for any action at this point? I assumed it was consensus opinion that some of the IP comments at the FAR were made by Rlevse, and he will presumably have to comment on them once he asks for an unblock. Who insists where on what?
Amalthea 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the disruption from those IPs was mild. They engaged in some personal attacks against Will Beback, for which they were admonished by User:Nikkimaria who is a "delegate at FAR" (according to xyr user page). Besides that, some of the IPs were indeed constructive in adding references etc. So, I don't see a great reason to investigate them further, but there are always disbelievers [15] accusing me of "misdirection" and "Hollywood theatrics". PumpkinSky was asked about the IPs on his talk page [16] but shortly thereafter he withdrew his unblock request and never answered that question. Other editors would like to see this clarified for different reasons [17]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Seemingly unrelated topic Human rights, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No opinion on whether those edits were disruptive.
  • I think Balloonman is correct in his analysis of the community, as he often is.
  • At this point, Wikipedia is not improved by us trying to uncover every last detail of this situation.
  • If I looked into this and commented on it I might indeed provide fuel for this discussion. I am intent on avoiding that because I don't regard the discussion at this point as constructive, and because I have been accused of fueling the drama in this regard before.
  • Once Rlevse returns, there may be a cause to investigate those particulars.
I understand that you are unhappy with Ched's words, but I still ask you to please let this rest for now. I can talk to Ched if you want. Amalthea 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Understood, this was my inclination a few days ago as well [18]. I'll just avoid engaging Ched on this topic until then. He has his biases, and I'm unlikely to be able to correct those anyway. I do have to make a correction to what I said above though. It was User:Dana boomer who warned one of the IPs [19] not Nikkimaria. I'm sorry for the confusion on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Amalthea 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The section Human rights, mentioned above, is archived. Some is history, some still applies. Khazar's last DYK appeared yesterday. Every time I look at his legacy, other problems seem smaller.
@ASCIIn2Bme: I have my bias also, so have you. Think about the term "correct", please.
@Amalthea: Thanks for cleaning up the Vanished CCI. I guess he would help, if he wasn't blocked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Self redirects in your userspace

Hi Amalthea! I'm responding to a request to fix some of the odd double redirects on WP:AN, and noticed that you've got some double redirects in your own userspace. This unnecessarily confuses the bot scripts, so I would like to delete the following pages:

The English Wikipedia isn't typically used as a testing ground for redirects, that's why we have - please feel free to create your redirects here. Please confirm that you are okay with the deletion of these pages (and delete them yourself if you like! :) ). Thanks, The Helpful One 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to keep these pages, policy says that you may; WP:UP permits userspace testing and does not prohibit any redirect in userspace, except of your main talk page. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather keep the pages as they are: I have linked the page from at least one bugzilla report since there was confusion about the current length of working redirect chains, and the test-wiki does not necessarily have the same configuration as enWP has. The page is marked with {{nobots}} so any bot should simply skip it -- I sure hope all bots editing arbitrary pages are exclusion compliant. Amalthea 16:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I cleared the other awkward pages at Special:DoubleRedirects(you protected the first /rd1 page so a bot wouldn't be able to touch it), excluding user created redirect loops so it shouldn't matter too much now. The Helpful One 23:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Special:DoubleRedirects

FYI -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle rollback links

Hello Amalthea, yesterday I noticed that the twinkle rollback links disappeared. I can access all of the other twinkle tools, but the three rollback links aren't appearing. I tried purging my browser cache, but that didn't have an affect. Looking at the page history of MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js, it appears that you have been maintaining the tool, so I thought I'd ask you about it. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the issue. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, very good. I was having the same problems. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't reproduce it myself, by the way. What browser are y'all using? Any related error messages in your javascript console (see WP:Reporting JavaScript errors)? Amalthea 16:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I disabled the revision jumper, and the links are back. (I use Opera and Google Chrome) Thanks for the help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see it with Chrome. I'll let Hexer know. Cheers, Amalthea 10:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Should now be fixed. Amalthea 17:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Revision jumper and twinkle are both working correctly now. Thanks for looking into this matter. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Would mind commenting here? Some editor has been removing an image from Take Care, citing no reason, but some dubious edit summaries. Dan56 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have stated my opinion on the talk page.
Please be very careful with the word "vandalism" in the future though. I have no reason to believe that Jaylon305's edits were "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". He may have ignored editing guidelines and principles, but I can certainly see good-faithed motives for his edits. Instead of with a warning, please try to start a discussion on a more constructive note next time, particularly with unexperienced editors like here.
Amalthea 11:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments Needed

Hello, would you please provide some insight on the doability of Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Global_Twinkle. Any inputs would be highly helpful.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Amalthea 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- MarkAHershberger(talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Berlin hackathon, and possible sponsorship

Hi! Would you be interested in coming to the Berlin Wikimedia hackathon, June 1-3 2012? I can offer some travel subsidy. Please reply on my talk page on if you're interested, or email me at sumanah Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That one is actually close enough to consider it. I'll think about it. Amalthea 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My header

Thanks for fixing the markup in my header. I was wondering what was going on there.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 522,106,339) 11:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Amalthea 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Please blank this page. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why. Amalthea 16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Posting personal information is harassment and places the victim in peril IRL. Do you seriously believe that AF does not have followers & thugs in my part of the world? Your smarter than that, S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Linking those two accounts is not WP:OUTING, and it seems the edits you made with the sock are of the same nature as those of your main account. In addition, blanking that one user page would not change anything anyway: The account page is not indexed by search engines, and the account would still be listed on the SPI page of your original account.
I don't see that I'm obliged to blank the page, neither morally nor by policy; in fact I find it generally important to link accounts that advocate a position per WP:SCRUTINY. Why should I then grant you the courtesy of blanking the page?
Amalthea 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Amalthea

What is this about deleting Tales of Amalthea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley J M (talkcontribs) 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

well, as you know the Wikipedia community requires that a topic must meet our notability guidelines to have a stand-alone article. Like I described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of Amalthea, I don't believe that the topic at hand currently meets the relevant guidelines detailed at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). In particular, this is a new and unfinished web project that is not yet covered in-depth by reliable third-party sources.
Amalthea 11:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added to the article, saying at the beginning where I have seen the names of the creatures before. Take a look.

OK, but that does not change the current notability of the website. As long as the website or project itself is not getting press coverage or coverage in other reliable sources, I don't see that we can have an article on it on Wikipedia. Amalthea 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Setting up a company wiki


Another ‘crat suggested via email that I contact you.

Executive summary

I have a corporate website and expect to be soon moving my webhosting from SiteTurn (who suck) to Fat Cow. One of the main reasons for Fat Cow is they are highly rated for web‑hosting provider that supports MediaWiki ( I want a company wiki to use as a collaborative writing tool on some lengthy, structured, and highly technical medical documents. I am interested in MediaWiki 1.18.1, which, as far as I know, is the engine running Wikipedia. But I need help in configuring it so it is a private wiki; which is to say, so visitors must be logged in before they can read any content.

Virtue of a wiki for collaborative writing

I’ve long recognized that MediaWiki—as exemplified by Wikipedia—is an awesome and ideal collaborative writing tool with a wide variety of virtues like…

  • a continuous running history “article” history (“document” history in this case) all the way to day-one,
  • one‑click ability to undo edits,
  • ability to read rendered text and read the code of all previous versions,
  • ability to copy text or code from sections of articles in an old version and transplant it to the current version,
  • ability to see who made what edits when,
  • ability to add pithy comments to edits,
  • ability to look at ∆ edits between two versions,
  • accompanying talk pages to engage in lengthy discussion.

All of this makes MediaWiki the ideal collaborative writing environment for complex and lengthy documents. Emailing Word-docs back and forth and looking at edit comments is an absolutely abysmal experience if you have three or more editors in the mix. Google-docs is an improvement but still falls far short of a wiki.

Configuring the wiki for private access

However, all I intend to have Fat Cow do for me is enable the raw wiki—not configure it. I will need to go into the new wiki and set myself up as a bureaucrat and set up privileges and passwords. What I want is to configure it so visitors can’t even view the main page without entering a username and password. From what I can read at MediaWiki (Manual:Preventing access#Restrict viewing of all pages and Manual:User rights#List of permissions), there are at least a two very different techniques to set restrictions so all un-logged-in visitors can’t view content…

  1. Via the Apache’s wbserver tool.htpasswd, which could prevent everyone from seeing even the main page ( “htpasswd - Manage user files for basic authentication”), or
  2. And via a combination of $wgGroupPermissions, which can also require username and password to read content, in combination with $wgWhitelistRead which would allow me to exempt the main page so visitors can log in there.

From reading the MediaWik, even though non-logged-in visitors can’t *view* pages, with clever guessing of the path names to files (and I think images are “files” on a wiki), un-logged-in visitors could still download files.

At least, the above is my *understanding* of how permissions to restrict reading of our company wiki would work. I know enough about permissions and setting myself up as a ‘crat to make myself dangerous and appreciate the fact that I should seek help. It appears that if I wasn’t careful with $wgGroupPermissions, I could make it so even *I* couldn’t log in—that’s my worry, anyway.

And, of course, since I am an experienced wikipedian and the others collaborating on the documents would be shear novices, I would set myself up as the ‘crat and would give the others the normal privileges that typical registered editors enjoy.

There are a few templates like {{nbhyph}} (one that I advocated for) I would like to get transplanted.

Seeking your help

I can see why I was also referred to you; it appears that you also operate a bot.

Could you help? If not, could you suggest some venues on Wikipedia for me to make this appeal? Could you leave a short note on some of your haunts pointing to this thread? I was thinking of posting at VillagePump but I imagine that there must be places where technically minded ‘crats and developers hang out that would be even better.

Contacting me

Please respond either by placing a {{talkback|Amalthea}} on my talk page, or via email by going to my user or talk pages and using Wikipedia’s built-in email facility—either way, I’ll receive an email. Once we have a backchannel going, I can share more details. Regards, Greg L (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of information, but I'm not sure what you are actually asking?
You said you need help in configuring it to be private. The best approach will depend on the detailed circumstances:
  • Does it have to be accessible via Internet in the first place? Yes, contributors will be on different sides of the U.S.
  • Is it feasible that the site maintainer manually sets up accounts for webserver access control? Yes. There will only be three or four contributors.
  • Is it really necessary that it's /completely/ hidden? What's good enough for the ArbCom wiki should be good enough for you? Files can be configured to only be viewable if you're logged in. Not necessarily / OK. I have a programmer friend who might be able to set Apache to provide front-end protection to the entire wiki if that proves desirable. Fat Cow could also do it.
Other questions:
  • I'm not sure that anywhere on Wikipedia is a good place to ask about setting up a MediaWiki installation. Indeed, this is not en.Wikipedia-related conversation, but then, non-pertinent threads aren’t entirely unknown around here. Besides, the whole concept of running one’s own wiki—one that works exactly like Wikipedia—is a concept not many are aware is a viable option and this thread might be of general interest to other wikipedians who have a similar need. More to the point, I can’t think of any other place in the world where there is so much talent and expertise in setting up a wiki.
  • Trivial templates like {{nbhyph}} can simply be copied. Use Special:Export/Special:Import for more complex pages OK
  • As long as you have access to the database you can't ever lock yourself out Good.
Does that help? Amalthea 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I’ve emailed you since discussion beyond the above general technical details of how wikis work and are configured and how they can be useful for many other purposes should be conducted off Wikipedia. If you aren’t interested in further discussing this, please delete this thread or state as much here. If you interested in further discussing this, you can respond to the email I sent. Until then, thanks. Greg L (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


I have replied to the message you left. Regards. Farine (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, handled now. Cheers, Amalthea 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
Message added 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI - question about Mtking (edits) 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse invite

Thanks for your assistance on the template! The things I learn are the right thing to do in one place, are the wrong ones in another. :) I will check with the Teahouse founders regarding the licensing of the images. heather walls (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 14:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip.
Message added 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Think you missed the follow up here. :) Leaving it in your hands since your comment seemed to point to something. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'll see what needs to be done, thanks! Also thanks for chipping at the SPI backlog over the weekend, even though I read you're not quite back to full health yet!
And for something completely unrelated, since I've now had a number of first-hand experiences of webhost ranges being used disruptively I've done a 180 and now rangeblock them quite liberally ... :\
Cheers, Amalthea 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. My health is not something that is going to be a statically calming down over time (well at least not in the immediate future), and since it's related to personal things, i'm going to keep that discussion off wiki, but feel free to poke me off wiki to.
I find it interesting that you did make that 180, although you did give me something that I needed, and was to use a little more discretion and a few more grains of salt before blocking them. I want to hear your opinion though on possibly making webhosts hardblocked (when we get edits from it) or some derivative of that, a policy. Of course then CUs might have to issue several more IPBEs for legit editors, but we'll see. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Case

Thanks for your help with the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy case. This guy is in Charlotte, NC and for some reason has an obsession with MeTV and I think I drew his ire when I reverted his edits and pointed out his sockpuppetry. I only hope he doesn't continue to utilize new IPs. He claims his edits are not vandalism, but the insertion of incorrect facts (the MeTV edits to WDSU) are not in keeping with the spirit of the wiki. Also, I have worked hard to keep the style of the NOLA TV wiki pages consistent and his latest round of edits were a deliberate attempt to provoke me. Sore bluto (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Magic pixie dust

Otherwise known as the Checkuser Log? T. Canens (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to Someone? If it was merely the log I'd use much more careful language. In this case I can make a more definitive call, but I'm not comfortable discussing the details publicly. Since you may be handling the case I can send you some more details by e-mail. Amalthea 08:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong here because a bunch of the other entries on the page had single quotes, not doubles. Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Single quotes are fine as string delimiters, but you then can't use unescaped single quotes ("You're invited [...]") inside the message. Amalthea 00:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you very much. MBisanz talk 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to an anonymous IP, < Personal information redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)> and exonerated her of any wrongdoing. The IP message seems more than a little suspect, but for the life of me I'm not sure what to do in this situation. On one hand, if this is true, I'm not sure we should have this sort of personal information on wiki. On the other hand, I can't imagine < Personal information redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)>, and it also happens to exonerate her and seems like a great way to make you feel bad about blocking her. Not sure if it should be blanked, ignored, or replied to, but with an open unblock request perhaps something should be done. I've got zero time to edit today, so I'm throwing this back into your court. AniMate 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.
I know that two CUs looked into the background as response to the unblock request, but neither seems to have gotten around to act on it either way. I myself am the one person who /can't/ act on the unblock request, and it would also be improper for me to remove a message that questions the appropriateness of a block I placed.
I'll ping some more folks.
Amalthea 00:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it, but decided against a revdel or protecting/semi-protecting the page. I'm definitely involved, so I won't be doing anything with my tools. AniMate 01:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
< Personal information redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)>. (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there are a few things hereto consider. Flyer22 got caught using socks, defends herself with the classical My Little Brother Did IT defence and when that was not swallowed hook and sinker, the next post is about an apparent suicide. I personally think that if someone, who posts pseudonymous, thinks that her 'reputation' is so damaged that she need to commit suicide, such a person needs to see a psychologist to untangle her online persona from her real life one. Someone like that should not be editing wikipedia. Quite frankly, the response train fits quite nicely with the general pattern of histrionics I have encountered with this user, so I have a hard time believing anything is true. If I am incorrect, please feel free to contact me by e-mail with proof. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm familiar with you. Why should you be contacted? Please, administrators, do not contact this person about my sister. This is one of the users my sister fought against and is one of the reasons I was tempted to sign up for an account during that time. Everyone, please take a look at User:Flyer22/"Common use" and "own" at Pedophilia article. This user's comments about my sister will always be biased. My sister was not caught socking. I was. The "Little Brother" defense that I have just read fails to consider that such defenses may be true, except to say "too bad." In this case, I can prove why it's true. There are articles, for example, I defended that were not of interest to my sister, and I used an endless supply of IP socks to edit these articles in addition to the ones she favors, sometimes from different locations to acquire a new IP. She didn't know who I was, and even scolded me at the physical attractiveness talk page because of my edit war with another user. If my posts about my sister's difficulties should be striked, then so should this user's. Saying that my sister has a general pattern of histrionics is beyond the pale. She was not mentally ill and did not attempt suicide because of this one thing. It has been a buildup of things over the years and as of late. She did see a psychologist at times these last few years, and, as others have said, she was more than fit to edit Wikipedia. Her honors and the people who compliment her work ethic here are a testament to that. She knows a lot about the topics she chose to work on, and Wikipedia was one of the few things that kept her mind off of some of her life troubles. That is all. The same cannot be said of KimvdLinde, who admittedly hates Wikipedia and who has had the same "general pattern of histrionics" leveled at her by different users because she is difficult to work with. She should not be here slinging mud at my sister. I have seen her announce that she would retire from this site. Others have said that she is always announcing her retirement. So my question to KimvdLinde is: Why aren't you retired instead of commenting on my sister's problems? Your comment should be removed. (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have rev-deleted the comments on the user Talk page and have semi-protected it. If true, personal information like that should not be posted by any other person (and if false, obviously it shouldn't be there). I'd strongly urge people not to discuss this matter openly like this, but take it to the appropriate mailing lists if necessary. I'd also suggest removing and rev-deleting the same personal information that has been posted on this page too, as it should not be here either. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    In fact, I've redacted it, above. Amalthea, I hope you don't mind my doing that - I'll leave you to take whatever further action you deem appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    Not at all. Amalthea 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


Amalthea, thanks for all the work you do, including at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive. As you surmised correctly, I am "monitoring the situation". Whether I'm reasonable or an idiot remains to be seen. When I get a moment I'll drop you a nice barnstar or a kitten or something as a token of appreciation. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with him! From the little I've seen he seems enthusiastic and does not want to be problematic, so I would hope that this can be worked out. Amalthea 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Right on, Amalthea. Thanks for your work in the SPI department. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


I know this discussion took place back in July, but I've noticed lately that WP:SPI often has a backlog, and I'd like to help with that so I was wondering if you would still be willing to pre-vet me? - SudoGhost 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For an SPI/CLERK? ;)
Gladly, but it is likely going to take me a couple of days. Any closets full of fresh skeletons I can expect to find?
Cheers, Amalthea 21:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Other than possibly this embarrassingly inappropriate behavior (which I did apologize for), I'm not aware of any sort of skeletons. I'd also like to help out with WP:AIV and WP:AN3, but if after looking into it you think an RfA wouldn't be appropriate, I'd be more than happy to help on WP:AIV as a non-admin clerk. :) - SudoGhost 22:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten you, by the way. Obligations are keeping me rather busy. :/ Amalthea 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, I understand. If I ask something of you then I'm on your time, not the other way around. :) I'm in no hurry. - SudoGhost 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

Hello, I see you were active recently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Billy_Hathorn/Archive. I think might be making edits in the same patttern. These edits are what sent me looking. Novaseminary (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Left comment at User talk:Orlady#Billy Hathorn. Amalthea 08:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed on behavioral grounds. I blocked the IP for one week. He has used this IP in the past; earlier I had noted it on a list. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It frustrates me that he has been unreceptive to past efforts to get him to acknowledge the issues with his editing in order to get his account unblocked. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Novaseminary pointed out a different IP than the one you blocked, and he has just left a brief comment there: User talk: Hathorn. Amalthea 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You never did understand

Buck 11:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And I don't understand that either it seems. Amalthea 11:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Mailed you again. Not sure if you plan to scuttle those as well. Amalthea 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew / user:Uncontroversial Obscurity

Hey Amalthea. I've been cleaning up some of Jack Merridrew's accounts and I'm confused about user:Uncontroversial Obscurity. It's a Jack Merridrew sock account, and the arbitration committee prohibited him from using any account other than Balong. Yet after Ironholds blocked him last year, you undid his block. What's going on? Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See Xeno's edit in the page history of the user page, or the explanation on Ironholds' talk page back then: The account was used in compliance with Arbcom motion, not abusively. It was later retired.
Quite in general though, I don't think it's good or helpful for you to do any kind of cleanup there, I believe you and Alarbus were in a discussion that apparently was rather personal/emotional, and this situation is complicated enough as it is.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:I'm sorry about your trousers

Hi Amalthea, I can't quite figure whats going on here - should the block template be removed? If so, can you? Moondyne (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Amalthea 11:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Do you think you could give the gadget a sync? Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, done. Amalthea 11:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Im quiet impressed of your work in Wiki. I wanna learn few things from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin Toppo (talkcontribs) 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Amalthea. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello Amalthea, Can you please add {{Welcomeen-or}}, Odia Non-English welcome template in to MadiaWiki twinkle.js page. Thanks in advance :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be best if you proposed that template at WT:TW. Amalthea 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


Probably time for the last round. I can't stay glued to my screen all day. Feel free to act in my stead if necessary.—Kww(talk) 13:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I actually came online to have a look. I am annoyingly busy at the moment though. Amalthea 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

77 hours. I wish I knew a better way to deal with these things. Whack-a-mole is no fun, but letting them loose is usually worse. I've only had it work at all once, with Petergriffin9901.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, and there's Greenock125 where it's now close to a year without significant issues. As long as it sometimes works it may still be time well spent (although you probably had to spend many hours reviewing PJH's edits ...).
Hard to say whether it has a chance of working without knowing the person. If the editor doesn't make a real effort to stay out of the areas that kept getting him in trouble, it's hard to make it work. Amalthea 09:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


  reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who reads this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is over, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For a quick view, 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in thoughts that Geometry guy thinks should become an essay, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
See also ... we'll never know the true story (6 March) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Recommended reading: Great Dismal Swamp maroons, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Now   --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Khazar is back as Khazar2, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I know. Amalthea 08:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
When you said "I know", did you mean that Khazar is working for Human rights and the progress of this project again, or also the alledged identity of BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky (see "essay" above, also about who forms the "community", the admins, the editors or the readers)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that Khazar has returned to editing. I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with "alleged identity", but in my opinion it is not helpful to ponder that at this point. Amalthea 10:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It was pondered before, see above, with Geometry guy, but I understand that you didn't know that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

← The identity of BarkingMoon and PumpkinSky was pondered about at many places. What I said is that I don't think it's helpful for anyone to continue the pondering at this time. Amalthea 10:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I should have pursued a clarification last year (also see above), only I was too distressed then, I didn't even know what "ArbCom" means, and I did not know how to interpret "let sleeping dogs lie". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: it has been pondered also several places that BarkinkMoon and PumpkinSky are NOT the same person, collaborating yes, but two people (my POV also) - people with feelings, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to tell me. Amalthea 19:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Happy Easter, one after the other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I should have actually followed the link. Auch Dir frohe Ostern! Amalthea 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Frohe Ostern! follow the link ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
10.000 Easter eggs on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Glaub nicht an Wunder, verlaß dich auf sie" (Mascha Kaléko), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
On this day the Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning an approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
For more enjoyment: Bach cantata and Osterbrunnen (Yngvadottir and I celebrating) on the Main page today, one after the other this time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

German story #2, a good spy story, with a story, a good collaboration story ;) (did you know?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

German story #3, planned in December, finally real, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Frohe Pfingsten! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Amalthea/Archive 6".