Jump to content

User talk:Amalthea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Call of the Wild (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 28 March 2012 (→You never did understand: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Precious

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)[reply]

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

For a quick view, 719 of 729 articles were found with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in thoughts that Geometry guy thinks should become an essay, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also ... we'll never know the true story (6 March) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading: Great Dismal Swamp maroons, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar is back as Khazar2, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

← 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] accusing me of "misdirection" and "Hollywood theatrics". PumpkinSky was asked about the IPs on his talk page [2] but shortly thereafter he withdrew his unblock request and never answered that question. Other editors would like to see this clarified for different reasons [3]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly unrelated topic Human rights, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.
  • 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 [4]. 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 [5] not Nikkimaria. I'm sorry for the confusion on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 test.wikipedia.org - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Special:DoubleRedirects

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

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)[reply]

Ah, very good. I was having the same problems. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comment?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 mediawiki.org if you're interested, or email me at sumanah@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Outing

Please blank this page. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.240.19 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 173.206.240.19 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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

Amalthea,

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 (Host-Finder.net). 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.

Details
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 (Apache.org: “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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/William313

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

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

Talkback

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.[reply]

FYI - question about 172.130.252.250. Mtking (edits) 02:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Talkback

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pre-vet

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Magic pixie dust

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

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)

Geonotice

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Flyer22

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
< Personal information redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)>. 140.98.210.233 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. 210.51.43.82 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not at all. Amalthea 13:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talkback

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)[reply]

Billy Hathorn

Hello, I see you were active recently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Billy_Hathorn/Archive. I think 68.203.251.2 might be making edits in the same patttern. These edits are what sent me looking. Novaseminary (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left comment at User talk:Orlady#Billy Hathorn. Amalthea 08:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, Novaseminary pointed out a different IP than the one you blocked, and he has just left a brief comment there: User talk:68.203.251.2#Billy Hathorn. Amalthea 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never did understand

Buck 11:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amalthea&oldid=484347930"