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)[reply]

Hi,
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: http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=en.
HTH, Amalthea 10:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ty! Riannedac (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per User talk:Reedy/Archive 2011#when... (perm), $wgCheckUserForceSummary is already set to true for en.wiki, 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! –xeno^talk 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. –xeno^talk 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Amalthea 10:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... In the meantime, I've re-opened bugzilla:27078. –xeno^talk 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi,
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, 173.49.140.141 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you email me @ Special:EmailUser/SEPTActaMTA8235, if you mind? No notices on my talk page either. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea, I reblocked Perseus's IP. From my understanding, he is still under a siteban correct? Syrthiss (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks so much! -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Evidently. :) Amalthea 17:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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.

Thanks,

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Fixing things from within does not work. I've been trying that for years. I'm reading a good book, atm, (no, we've no article on it). It describes a traditional shipboard punishment. The offending sailor had a hand bound behind his back (that would be a restriction) and the other nailed to the ship's mainmast. He was left there until he managed to tear his hand to shreds. I'm ready for my close-up. Stone Town (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's taking the piss; easy-peasy. There's no road back, nothing but smackdowns, so I'll take mine explicitly. No one even ventured a guess at what "nyupat" means; see: ISBN 9781865088631, p. 177.

see: WR && WT:AC. WikipediaLeaks. Stone Town (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

ya know, I'm feeding the likes of you, deliberatly. anyhoo, how about explaining your perported knowledge of the contents of the watchlists? I don't think that even CUs can see that. so, i'm thinking you just pulled that out of your ass(hole;). Stone Town (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]