Thanks for the "root for" mod! It's excellent. Do you think some whizzkid with template parsing may want to build in a "he/she" switch because we don't want to come across as sexist. :D – B.hotep •talk• 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I solved that by using "they". Good luck in the next match, and I really hope not to see your team until the final, OK? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 22:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that means both teams making it into the final I'm all for it (and for the inevitable penalty shootout, hehe). :) Amalthea 09:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have it all worked out (with the help of an Excel spreadsheet). Germany will beat USA, Argentina, then Spain in the semi; England will beat Ghana, France and Brazil in the semi (don't laugh!). Then after 120 minutes of thrilling football and endless penalties, both sides show the spirit of world unification by declaring the first draw in a World Cup ever and share the spoils as an example for world peace... it might happen. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil wasn't so great, in the first game. I'm much more worried whether Germany can get past Argentina … Amalthea 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard someone say that the world cup was invented for the England vs. Germany matches. :)
Happens earlier than you predicted. Not sure I'm looking forward to that match, England is getting better with every match, while Germany is getting worse.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was saying to someone after the results were in that Germany would probably, given the choice, want to avoid England in the round of 16, and vice versa. USA and Ghana can probably enjoy their match without any pressure, whereas we will be on the edge of our seats for 90 minutes trying to avoid red cards and... penalties!! Oh, and I still haven't spoken to an Englishman who thinks we can actually win on Sunday. However, this World Cup is definitely shaping up a bit oddly so far so who knows. I will be the first to shake your cyber-hand if you beat us, but please be aware I reserve the rights to gloat if it's round the other way. :) – B.hotep •talk• 20:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh … Penalties! :D
And that's for sure, I wouldn't have minded if Germany came out second in that group, much easier way into the semi finals. Now it's first England, and the winner gets to meet Argentina … yikes.
Amalthea 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm... well done and good luck against Argentina. I will most certainly be rooting for Germany and hope you give them a lesson in football as you did to us! It will be all the more sweeter because they have the Hand of God as their coach now. :) – B.hotep •talk• 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, Maradonna, that guy is like a cartoon. :) I look forward to seeing him jump around at the sideline. 50:50 who's going to have the upper hand in that game, IMHO, my (virtual) money is actually going to be on Argentina. Amalthea 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance the script you wrote to flag reviewers can be rewritten so it only leaves the template on the user talk page if it actually flips the bit? Thanks.--Courcelles is travelling (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Xeno found it preferable this way, for some reason, but it could get a config switch. Amalthea 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Amalthea 09:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It was preferable for the first few days (as I used it to go back over those who I had granted the bit out of the blue to notify them). Now, probably not so much. Thanks for the note! –xeno^talk 14:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now we can complete the database reports without worrying about leaving someone their second or third message. Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reviewing the individual users at all? Amalthea 20:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see you appear to be now adding batches of semi protected articles to pending protection. [1] is this correct that you are simply adding random pools of semi protected articles and pending protecting them? I don't see much value to that unless pending is a replacement for semi protection. Moving an article to pending without either a request or a check of the article to see if it will benefit from pending could disrupt some articles for no benefit. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The batch from your link came from the pool of articles that were previously selected for the queue. But you're right that they were all pretty much chosen randomly from the list of semi-protected articles (and I think over 80% by me).
I think everyone who actually switches an article checks the protection log to see why the article is currently semi-protected, and leaves protection unchanged if it seems detrimental. However, since we have very little knowledge about which pages can benefit the most from PCP, and which pages will only get vandalism and noise, I for one have a hard time deciding that without trying it – that's one aspect of the trial, after all. Personally I've not flipped known sock targets and some obvious bad ideas like Suicide or The Game. I hope that people will re-request semi-protection on an article if it turns out that PC-protection doesn't work, like on Selena Gomez. After the trial all articles will be reset to semi-protection (at least that's the current plan, as far as I know).
If you have any criteria for article selection that you want to try, then feel very free to add them. You have my blessing to remove all those I added. I'm very open to try it on whichever articles you think are good, I only listed some so that the queues can be filled and we can continue to ramp it up to a decent amount of articles.
An idea I had was to try it on, say, the thousand most-edited BLPs that are on fewer than 30 watchlists. Needs consensus to do that, though (and someone to do the database report).
Was that your question? Amalthea 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My question was just a what is going on request. Thanks for the explanation, I didn't know that we were just swapping semi protection for pending, is there a link to where that discussion was supported? I realize this is a trial and there is a need to get a feel for it. I am like you I only know about articles on my watchlist (which I need to trim as it is getting massive). One of the football articles was put on pending after I had it semi protected until after the world cup, it was nice and stable on semi protection and I liked it that way, users are also accepting edits that are not vandalism but that are detrimental to the content which I don't like. Presently as the trial is going so far I am a bit disappointed but there is still time. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you there: I too think that only constructive edits should be accepted. If a reviewer doesn't know enough to decide whether an edit is beneficial or not, he should just leave it unreviewed. As it turns out no all agree on this very basic issue, though, some people say that everything but blatant vandalism should be accepted, and that the goal is to get closer to "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit".
But yeah, thus far I'm not convinced of the feature either. It may well be that we're using it on exactly the wrong articles: Those semi-protected articles were protected for a reason. My current train of thought leads me to one of two extremes: Do it like the Germans do with Level 2 PCP throughout for the best quality control, or scrap it and only use Patrolled Revisions for anti-vandalism work. Trade-off between free editing and quality.
I wasn't very involved with the whole thing until a few weeks ago, so I *think* I picked up on using semi-protected articles at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pending changes trial, but I'm actually not at all sure. You should probably ask Cenarium. Nobody has complained so far so I don't think I just invented it. :)
Amalthea 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes only works if there are beneficial additions from unconfirmed accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but even Selena Gomez had one or two constructive IP edits. Amalthea 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in, I think it fixes the wrong problem. If I could build an edit filter that basically said "Article is about Lindsay Lohan, Lady Gaga, or Robin Thicke and the edit is coming from the UAE", I could unprotect about 300 articles. Our insistence on not letting the edit filter operate on the underlying IP address and not supporting per-article protection rules is what gets us into this mess. We tend to know where the problematic editors are for most articles, but then refuse to use the information because of privacy concerns that are, in my view, overstated.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you placed a 1-year block on this IP. I don’t see the editor has edited any pages for the last four days. Just curious if the IP is a sock or what prompted the block? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open proxy, and yes, it was used to evade a block. Amalthea 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I understand your point that I should not have made that block, and I would not have made it had the 4th revert been against me. Since he was edit warring against 3 independent editors at that point, I didn't see the need to bring another admin in just to say "yup, bright-line violation, standard block imposed".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can relate to that of course. As I see it the more problematic part is that you have certified the RfCU and that you've played an apparently important part in the discussion about that authorship dispute. It's not easy to draw the line between uninvolved and involved so that every side agrees, but I've seen so many COI accusations after a block, it's almost always easier to drop a quick note at ANI simply to avoid the discussion.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking and re-blocking for the remaining duration would probably be a good thing at this point, yes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that too late. Since he agrees to find consensus and thus not edit the fact anymore the reason for the block is gone, so I've unblocked him. I keep my fingers crossed, as I said on his page he really needs to work on his editing, the next block for whichever reason is almost certainly going to be indef, enough being enough. Amalthea 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. It was a reasonable condition that he agreed to, so the unblock was reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amalthea, for keeping your word. Honest admins are a priceless commodity around here. Adding you to the list, I still don't have to use my other hand to count the ones I've found.Mk5384 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amalthea, a single-purpose account Falcon2112 has extensively revised the article on Zeitgeist: the Movie. I tried to revert individual edits that were especially overreaching, and asked that the user go to the talk page, but he/she immediately reverted my reverts. I don't know what you would normally do in this case, but I restored the original version for now (until Falcon2112 reverts that edit). Thanks a million! -Jordgette (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the editor a short notice and encouraged discussing the changes. If there is explicit consensus against some of the edits you should point that out on the talk page and give him a chance to respond (if possible without the sarcasm, that doesn't help). I've only glanced at his changes but they don't seem to be completely unreasonable by themselves. In particular, the external links that were previously in the article seem a bit excessive to me, too, I'm not sure they are needed and policy-compliant.
There are though enough experienced editors watching that page that I don't need to get involved there, I think?
Amalthea 13:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

...to User talk:Falcon2112. I assume that is was you intended. :) Syrthiss (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's new. :)
See the section above, where the supposed link to the user goes into article space instead, which I blindly followed.
Thanks, Amalthea 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea, thanks for this. Let's hope it helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful, he wasn't really vandalizing, seems he's just not familiar with how he should approach such differences of opinion.
To be sure, he should have stopped editing and engaged in discussion when he got all those warnings anyway. Amalthea 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether anonymous newbees actually see the messages on their talk pages. I never tried this, but does an anon somehow get a notification when they go into edit mode and when they have unread messages on their talk page? Or do they have to (1) happen to go to the history of the page, then (2) happen to notice that there is a blue talk page link attached to their IP, and finally (3) happen to click on that link? If this is how it goes, then I can imagine that many, if not most, shortliving newbee vandals play around a bit and suddenly find themselves blocked without having seen any warning on their talk page. DVdm (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no, they get the same orange bar. I got #Thanks after leaving a welcome notice for an anon, for example. :) Cheers, Amalthea 21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh. All this time I have been thinking that only logged on (and therefore registered) users got the orange bar. This is good to know. Thanks and cheers! DVdm (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, they went back to anon and continued with [2] and [3], resulting in [4]. Not very responsive on talk page :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: [5] Are you sure that all of these sources were introduced by the sock of a blocked/banned user? It seems that multiple editors were working to source the awards claims. It would be a shame to throw out their work just because it had been readded to the article by a bad actor. Active Banana (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that most of the content was removed by BiCloud (talk · contribs), for whatever reason, I didn't realize that when undoing that one edit.
In any case, go right ahead and do what's best for the article! As you say, going to that extreme would be absurd, and I wouldn't have undone the edit if I had realized it. Thanks, Amalthea 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement#Criticisms

Please see user Falcon2112 editing the above page to remove any factual and credible criticisms from 3rd party website from the wikipedia article. Evidence in that discussion shows the zeitgeist movement are making a concerted effort to target the removal of the factual evidence against them. Their members are being actively encouraged to remove and join in to have said material removed, as well using emotional arguments instead of observing the information presented against them to get information removed. To me this is unethical and damaging to wikipedias credibility.

Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked someone who appears to know more about the topic than me, but I can't say yet if or when he gets around to it. Amalthea 11:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "COI" is the right word for it, but people who post on the Zeitgeist Movement messageboard regularly chat about coordinating to bowdlerize Wikipedia articles. See, e.g., [6], [7]. I wouldn't know whether this user participates over there (does not appear to be one of the editors who coordinated on "Resource-based economy"), and even if I did know, I'm not sure that posting there gives one a COI with regards to the Zeitgeist Movement. This is just s routine banning situation, in my opinion, where an editor fails to abide by Wikipedia's norms. Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- φ OnePt618Talk φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you very much for fixing Friendly's auto mode =)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Good job! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, no reason to keep that SPI open. Right now Jagged is hardly following the "clear up behind yourself" agreement from the RfC/U but he is editing video game articles, which is not something I will be complaining about. (And he clearly has much to contribute, in that and many other areas.)

As it happens I've just raised another SPI for an entirely separate incident, but having done that I will now be getting back to the "oh no it's not a depressing list of edits at all" to continue with all the Ns and the occasional Y. Thanks for your work there.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk)

What do you mean, depressing, I'm guessing that 0.5% of all edits were already checked, in only one week, so we'll be done in only another … four years. Amalthea 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'm being very slow at ticking off any of the more substantial ones as I have trouble getting access to all the relevant sources; I've taken to emailing authors to check on details if I can't get access any other way. And if I'm not sure about the reliability of a source or about whether it is a widely accepted position, it can take me a day or two (or more) to find other material to check it against. So yes, it's an engrossing hobby for the next few years, no doubt about that.

I was wondering also if I might take this opportunity to ask for some advice on an SPI case I've raised, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ksweith: would it be a good idea (or even appropriate) to ask for a checkuser for this? I'm unclear whether the vandalism would be considered severe enough to warrant it, tho' I have the feeling that if these were to be a single user and they had done all these edits from a single account, they might have been liable to some sanction for vandalism.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying, zero time ATM. Hope to get around to reading it up on the weekend. Cheers, Amalthea 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Much the same state here, so well understood. All the best and hope all is well. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. (Hi. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moon,
thanks, will hopefully get around to it on the weekend.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Amalthea, do you know why using Twinkle to post a vandalism warning gives the edit summary "General note: Unintentional vandalism/test on..."? I'm pretty sure that for the last two vandalism warnings I've left, I chose uw-vandalism and not uw-tests. I expected to see "General note: Vandalism on..." Is it me? Thanks, Maedin\^talk 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maedin,
it was recently requested to change it since {{uw-vandalism1}} doesn't actually mention "vandalism", so the old "Caution: Vandalism" was a bit harsh. See WT:TW#first warning test/vandalism, but I'm always open for better suggestions. Cheers, Amalthea 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, sorry for not responding sooner. May I suggest "inappropriate" as a much better wording for the summary than "unintentional"? It makes us look a bit like fools when someone replaces, say, "owl" with "penis" or "wassup?" and then we call it unintentional! I don't think it's in our favour to appear so naïve, :) Maedin\^talk 06:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "General note: Nonconstructive editing on..."? That would more closely parallel the actual words of the warning. PleaseStand ^(talk) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated it to "Nonconstructive editing", for now.
Maedin, I myself don't leave any warnings for first-time poop&penis vandalism (to not encourage the vandal), and start with level 2+ warnings for any subsequent vandalism to avoid looking like a fool myself. :) Amalthea 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! Just right, :) Maedin\^talk 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Amalthea. SPI was recently updated to use a new template, {{SPI case status}}. More information about it can be found at AN. Could you update Twinkle so that it adds that template? Currently, [8] and [9] are still using the old templates. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Örks. Will do as soon as possible, subzero time ATM. Thanks, Amalthea 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the expert on Friendly, how to I make it so it doesn't add pages I tag to my watchlist? That is the only part of Friendly I have installed. CTJF83 chat 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From Wikipedia:FRIENDLY#Configuration

if( typeof( FriendlyConfig ) == 'undefined' ) FriendlyConfig = {};
FriendlyConfig.watchTaggedPages			=	false;

–xeno^talk 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, xeno, that's exactly how. Ctjf83, remember to bypass your browser cache after the change to your skin script file. Amalthea 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you both. CTJF83 chat 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any set process for checking whether an IP is a proxy? I'm very suspicious that 216.66.59.41 (talk · contribs) is Brexx editing through a proxy, but don't know how to go about checking.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one method, no. It's a non-trivial question: there are many types of proxies, some good, some bad, some easy to detect, some hard. Often the outgoing IP is different then the IP you connect to so portscans aren't always revealing either, and you'll have to rely on secondary information.
For quick checks, I usually start by googling the IP or visiting whatismyipaddress.com which, for most open proxies, gives you a strong hint.
The IP you mention was used by Brexx, yes, I blocked it for a short while. Short because I don't know what exactly what kind of server is behind the IP.
Amalthea 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Probed around some more. There's a set of 8 proxy IP addresses there (not aligned on a /29, for some odd reason). Many had Brexx-like edits, so I blocked the set for two weeks to match the block you had installed.—Kww(talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The anonymizer he uses here is hotspotshield.com. I'll try to look into what other IPs that uses tomorrow, and how stable they appear to be. From a glance a longer block might be appropriate, has been used by other socks before as well, but of course by legitimate users as well. Amalthea 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My security software won't even let me visit that site.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]