{{
ssp}} automatically looks up the latest page, as in {{ssp|Mykungfu}}
→
WP:SSP page on "Mykungfu" --
Ben
23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten {{ rfcu}} added to the tail end of {{ user5}}, thus:
{{user5|Mykungfu}}
→
Mykungfu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)Should I likewise add {{ ssp}} to {{ user5}}, or would it be redundant there at WP:SSP?
Also see {{ usercheck}}, as in
{{usercheck|Mykungfu}}
→
Mykungfu (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
block log ·
lu ·
rfa ·
rfb ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
socks
confirmed
suspected){{usercheck|Monicasdude}}
→
Monicasdude (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
block log ·
lu ·
rfa ·
rfb ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
socks)-- Ben 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying out a conditional template {{ socks}} as an add-on to {{ ssp}}. See above, both types of socks lists, confirmed and suspected, show up as links only when those categories actually exist. Is this useful as an add-on to {{ ssp}}, or would you rather keep the {{ socks}} function entirely separate? -- Ben 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you can now use {{ ssp}} and {{ socks}} entirely separately, as you see above. On the occasion you want both, use {{ ssp|Mykungfu|list=y}}, and you'll get WP:SSP page on "Mykungfu" confirmed socks suspected socks . Note that {{ socks}} still doesn't show the user's name, and each link shows up only when the category actually exists; that is, each link disappears instead of turning red if there's no such category -- they won't even leave an empty space on the screen, so there's no waste. (The red links are disposed of in an environmentally safe fashion and in full compliance with all pertinent EPA regulations.) -- Ben 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was the person who initiated this report. I noticed that when you closed the discussion, User:Hahahihihoho, User:Thunderman and User:Horde Zla are all indef blocked for being the disruptive troll, Hahahihihoho. But I also noticed that User:Alkalada (who is a 100% proven sock of Hahahihihoho) is not currently indef blocked as his sock. I think this is not the right decision; besides the fact that he is Hahahihihoho, User:Fred Bauder gave User:Alkalada another chance and unblocked him. But then, two days after the unblock, he was blocked again - this time for one week, for incivility, personal attacks etc. After that block expired, Alkalada was blocked yet again - this time for one month (See his block log). This latest block expired recently, and he has immediately jumped straight back into his POV editing, personal attacks and blind reverts. I believe this user will never learn from his blocks, and will never change his ways. I think it's only fair that he be indef blocked, just like all the other socks of User:Hahahihihoho. — King Ivan 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You said they were "dynamically assigned"...now does that mean they are assigned to just that person or to a group of people? (I use cable internet, so I am not sure about DSL) If they are assigned to just one person, can Verizon be notified when the next vandalism/attack occurs and the person be ID'd and then caught while online? If so, this would take care of the problem without having to block any IP addresses. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the troll on my userpage. Hope things are going well with you. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try AN:I. The person in question ended his recent career in a lengthy series of direct attacks on me, and so I honestly can't set any punishment or suchlike, without my motives being called into question, and rightly so. Best I get others in. Adam Cuerden talk 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Could be, but with RJASE1's userpage saying he's in Nashville, the source of the socks, we ought to check my reading anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, please see Neil's talk page re my attempt to fix the problems with {{ user5}}. I'd removed everything I thought might have caused a problem, including every transclusion other than "rfcu" (which has nested transclusions). No "basepagename" invocations; even the little "⋅" character is given as the HTML tag "⋅", just in case that somehow affects something. The code works right on the talk page... but then so did the previous version. What happens when it's a template transcluded onto subpages which are themselves transcluded onto a main page? Since "lab testing" didn't guarantee field success last time, we can't trust this "lab testing" result either. I've fixed every potential problem I could think of, short of taking "rfcu" out altogether, but I'd like to have someone watching WP:SSP for any problems, and trying out every link in one or two actual users' tags, when we try the new update -- so if it doesn't work in actual use, it can be reverted immediately. That's the best idea I've got; if you can think of anything else, please tell me. Would you be willng to coordinate a time with Neil that he can make the change while you watch the effects at WP:SSP?
And can you tell me in a bit more detail just what the "hosing" looked like during the last update? It might help me figure out exactly what went wrong, so I know what to avoid. Thanks doubly! -- Ben 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, your explanation makes sense, although I did reload the page a couple of times before I posted the request to revert. I wonder if in the future SSP cases should subst the {{ user5}} templates. The main page takes a long time to load sometimes.
Akhilleus, the GOOD news is that WP:SSP does not appear to have been hosed up. In fact, please tell me if it is any slower-loading than before, or the reverse. And the other GOOD news is that {{subst:user5|Mykungfu}} does not lose the auto-updating feature of "rfcu"; that will continue to show new pages created after the subst'ing. Example of subst'd template:
Mykungfu (
talk •
contribs •
page moves •
block user •
block log
• rfcu)
So please recommend subst'ing if there's a slow load at WP:SSP, to reduce the transclusion overhead without losing any functionality. Yayyyy! --
Ben
02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndyCanada. If I click on "block log" for Prolancet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) or Firstocean ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I get taken to a log for User:Prolancet.E2.80.8E or User:Prolancet.E2.80.8E. Any idea why that is? --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha, there never was a problem with Firstocean's entry, which is why checking that block log never found one. The problem was solely with Prolancet's entry, and we could both have stared at our screens forever without seeing it... because it wasn't there to be seen.
The difference between the first and second times Prolancet's name was typed was that on the first try an invisible character was put after the final T and before the first closing bracket.
Here's a cut-and-paste of that segment → Prolancet}
Go into edit mode, put your cursor just after the bracket, and backspace/delete (NOT left-arrow): first stroke, you delete the bracket; second stroke, nothing seems to happen; third stroke, you delete the final T. That second stroke deleted the invisible character.
I would guess that, in trying to type the first closing bracket, some almost-correct key combination like control or alt or fn, plus ] or }, got entered, resulting in no wrong visible character, no visible character at all. Anyone would naturally shrug and go on to type both closing brackets correctly. Everything else parsed the username without a problem, but block-log could not....
It's the "intermittent" problem that's the real headache, isn't it, like the car that squeaks except when the mechanic is there. At this point taking a sledgehammer to the car is generally a great stress-reliever, though perhaps a bit more expensive in the long term than two pints of Guinness at the local pub while grousing to the publican and your fellow drinkers. — Ben TALK/ HIST 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
... I took it and ran with it. ... Working code for tryout on the talk page. ... Commented-out copy at the bottom of this section on the actual WP:SSP main page. If everyone's happy with it, remove the comment marks and let it run!
By the way, try subst'ing {{ socksuspectnotice}} on your own talk page with no parameters, and hit Preview (don't save). Okay. Now try the same thing on User:Mykungfu, since his talk page's protected. Which evidence page gets linked? Neat trick, huh? A side benefit from {{ ssp}}! -- Ben TALK/ HIST 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, way to be bold! Thing is, the instructions are still complicated, because of the unfortunate decision someone made at the beginning of SSP to have separate pages (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) for each case on a particular user. Using the {{ ssp}} template to discover previous cases is clever, but it will be beyond the capability of some users. Is there any way to have the inputbox run a script to see if a case has already been filed on a sockmaster? Or, the other thing to do is to steal another idea from RCU and have each sockmaster get a single case page, no matter how many times they're reported. Looking at the subpages of SSP ( [2]) shows a pretty healthy number of sockmasters w/multiple cases, and there's always the danger that one of them (like Mykungfu) might get a new case filed, and then you'd have 5 Mykungfu cases, with new information getting added to the 1st case. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but I wanted the reporting system to be as simple, and elegant, as the one at RCU, and unfortunately it isn't. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I think you've demonstrated that the SSP filing system won't change soon. To merge all the Mykungfu cases, just as one example, would require merging page histories--the kind of thing that has to be done manually by an admin. And there are at least 55 suspected sockmasters that have multiple SSP cases. In contrast, changing the links in the subst'd {{ socksuspect}} and {{ socksuspect}} notice cases wouldn't be that difficult--as long as you know how to code a bot. I don't.
As a stopgap, though, one of the other kinds of inputbox is a search box. Maybe we could put one on the SSP page, so one of the steps in filing a case would be a search for "Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER". Try this:
Put "Mykungfu" in there, and you find his cases; put "Akhilleus" in there, and you find that so far, I'm clean...
BTW, I'm pretty sure that the inputbox won't allow scripts to be run. Code is here. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Gahhhhh! Picture me running in tight circles in the middle of the room, bashing my head with a discarded tabletop that is rapidly splintering and beginning to shed pieces of itself along my trail. At last I slow to a stop, fling the few remaining shards away, and turn to you with a bleeding forehead, a mad gleam in my eyes, and a frighteningly calm voice with which I tell you:
Say, why doesn't {{ socksuspect}} carry with it the "suspected sockpuppet" category, the way {{ sockpuppet}} does? That'd be a list to read through.... -- Ben TALK/ HIST 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been accused of having sockpuppets here without a usercheck. I want to dispute this. Wiki Raja 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
“ | Wiki Raja, if you disagree with the blocks of those sockpuppets, you need to contact the blocking admin ( User:Nichalp), or ask for a review on WP:ANI. WP:SSP isn't a place to prove your innocence. Please note that I have no opinion whatsoever about the merits of these blocks, or whether you're a sockpuppeteer; I closed the case because I noticed someone else had blocked those accounts. I don't have the ability to block (or unblock) anyway, I'm not an admin. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Thanks for the notice, I needed a good laugh ;-). I've left a note on WP:AN/I that will hopefully get another admin to take a look. I'm leaving in the morning (7 hours from now actually) for Spring Break so hopefully somebody will get to this soon. This benjiwolf guy has reached a new level of strange with all the images... auburnpilot talk 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Page moves actually never show up on people's watchlists, which is something I've never quite understood. Maybe you could leave a note on Cretanforever's talk page. I've deleted the redirect, so you can move it back now. Khoi khoi 05:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate your attention to this article. I'm well aware that no one really wants to be involved with another article where one's efforts there seem to require a perverse amount of effort in order to stick. I wonder if you might have a wise word, or any practical information, that can help me deal with the conflict I've found there with Doug Coldwell. His edits seem in good faith, in the sense that I think he regards his contributions as factual. But, as his interests grow to embrace more and more out-of-the-way topics in late antiquity, etc., I am plagued by a vision of crackpot irrelevancies (or worse) being added all over. What's the best thing to do in one's normal capacity as an editor? Are there any Wiki-procedures appropriate to such a situation? (I imagine it's not what is called vandalism, but on the other hand, I'm sure the community has had to deal with active editors with strange convictions before.) I know you may not know better than I, but I thought it couldn't help to check with someone I know values the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient world. I just saw your note on my talk page after writing this, so I know you're friendly too. Anyway, I don't know if even our augmented numbers over there are enough, so I'd appreciate any brainstorms. Wareh 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for atleast contacting me and taking the time to discuss the issue. Look there are so many differences between the two, i'll list below if you like:
And i truely could go on if i need to. As you can see there is a number of problems with having the same article for both, and so many differences between them, Simply having a separate article which has already been created could solve all of the problems. It's the logical thing to do.
Do you now agree and see the need for separation? ( Bradleigh 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just got it. Thanks. And let me know when you do want to be an administrator, I'd be happy to nominate you (though I see several others have also offered in your archives). See you around. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked you a legitimate ethics question on your application to be an administrator. The person who nominated you and another deleted it. They are mad. The question is legitmate. See your application page or you can click here [5]
Ethics is an important issue. We uproar if someone gets special favors from congressmen. However, ethics is a part of everyone's life, you and me. Dereks1x 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
You are awarded the The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for many reasons, happy editing! Lakers 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
So what is the ancient Greek word for mop? Durova Charge! 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not totally certain about this, but I think the Greeks would have used sponges instead of mops. Will have to investigate further. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW you've gotten one oppose vote, which might not count due to the short edit history. [6] It was based upon a link I supplied rather than any of your actions or statements. I've posted an explanation to the discussion. You might wish to post to the editor's user talk and ask the person to reconsider (in case they haven't watchlisted the RFA). Durova Charge! 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a classics student and have a few issues with the section of the Atlantic article dealing with the location theories of Atlantis:
1. you gloss over the Thera (Santorini) theory as if it were just another "quack" theory, when in fact it is the only theory out there which is based on actual verifyable historical events, supported by archaeology, dendrochronology, and carbon dating.
2. Your wording seems to tacitly assume that proponents of the Thera theory believe Thera "IS" the mythical place "Atlantis." In fact, I doubt any serious Classicist actually believes "Atlantis" as described by Plato ever existed. Instead, they (and I) believe that Plato invented the story based on some popular folk-legend of a destroyed island city. This folk legend, probably very un-detailed, may have originated with a recollection - passed down for generations, of the Thera eruption. As this was a massive event which would have been felt throughout the Mediterranean, darkened the skies and cooled the Earth for decades (and helped to wipe out the Minoans) - it's not surprising that the story would have been passed down. Is it?
In conclusion - I think this theory should be treated better in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vnocito ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
After nearly unanimous support and some cajoling, you're now an admin. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure. I'm sure you'll do well, have fun using the new tools. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you doing the SSP too fast? The rules state that there is to be debated up to 10 days. Shouldn't we give the people a chance to respond? No need to respond. VK35 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't throw around accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence; it can be considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2007
This was a legitimate concern based on as much evidence as was used to justify accusing me of scok puppetry. I expect my accuser to be given a similar warning. Lojah 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you were successful. Modernist 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have responded to your optional question. Thanks for participating in my RfA! -- Hemlock Martinis 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA!
Praise, Goddess, sing the praise of Peleus' son Akhilleus,
Mopped and broomed, that caused the vandals countless blocks,
I think I'd better quit here before this gets any worse. My apologies to Homer and also to Robert Fagles. Congratulations. -- Kyok o 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I read:
3 Questions:
FYI:
I have no idea if the block was mistaken. I tend to think not, but I really do not have any facts. I just tend to trust admins' judgment, though I have no idea why I do. I believe the duration was a bit harsh and I think the approach makes it look bad, and I feel that it should have been handled differently. I feel that WP:MEAT was not a good reason in this case. Perhaps some other violation applied though. I am not in agreement with people who, simply because of an administrative judgment, impugn the integrity of admins. But I also do not think admins are flawless. -- Blue Tie 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I'll just respond here on the assumption that you're watching this page. User:Mnyakko and User:Zeeboid work together on the radio show Race to the Right. Mnyakko wrote an article on the show, and when it was put up for Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right), Zeeboid's first edit is to argue that the article should be kept ( [7]). That's a clear instance of an editor recruiting a friend/colleague to influence a discussion on a controversial topic. Zeeboid's participation in that AfD would justify an indefinite block; the fact that most of Zeeboid's edits are to back up Mnyakko in controversial discussions further strengthens the case.
Note that we have no way of telling whether Zeeboid and Mnyakko are different people, except that they say so, and according to precedent in cases where we can't tell if we're dealing with two different people supporting the same position, or one person with two accounts, we treat it as a case of sockpuppetry. Again, meatpuppets/sockpuppets should be blocked indefinitely if they're used abusively, so if anything, Durova didn't block for long enough. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about this. The fact that they're coworkers and they're supporting each other on AfDs and that COI/N thread justifies a block. As I've already said, this is a straightforward application of WP:MEAT, and I think if you asked just about any admin, they'd endorse Durova's action--in fact, I am an admin who often works on sockpuppet-related matters, and I think Durova's action was correct. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was an Indian name. Nevermind. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I did not have the chance to congratulate you for the successful RfA! But it was no surprise ...
Since you are a classicist, I wanted your input to this: User:Haiduc proposed some changes for Demosthenes. I was reluctant to accept them, but then I let him add a new section, which I just modified a bit. You can see the discussion here, and the recent additions in the article's recent history (Haiduc's addition and my modifications). As the main contributor of this article I cannot be as objective as I would like. Since I am not yet sure about the utility of such additions, and since we speak about a FA and the issue is serious I think that your opinion and your input (among those of other prominent classisists I've invited to the discussion) will be very useful. Please, have a look at the article and the discussion! Thanks in advance!
Cheers! And Χριστός Ανέστη (I don't know if you are a religious guy, but this is the standard greeting in Greece these days!)!-- Yannismarou 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the support of those who (by their own statement) do not understand why e might be used for η. I trust you won't mind if I carve off the half of this article which deals with Classical antiquity and give it the name I am accustomed to. ;->
On a more serious note, I see that Names of the Greeks is using Homer as a source for the history of the Bronze Age, and is therefore calling Trachis Trehine; it could, I suppose, be Trihini, which would be worse. Can this be cleaned up, or is the article hopeless? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Bless you, sir. I had forgotten about FGJ, whose pattern was also similar. I will also take a lesson from this extended (10 months, at least) episode and deal with this kind of problem-child editor better in the future... Specifically, to take it to an admin right away, and resist edit warring. Wahkeenah 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your followup note. There are at least two other things I've learned over the course of time: (1) confine the debate to the talk page, as repeatedly trying to revert a persistent vandal is futile; and (2) try to keep the debate on the subject rather than on the editor. The blocked editors in this case never learned this. The one even took personal shots in his request for reinstatement, and the admin rejected the request on that basis. It is hard for a leopard to change its spots. It is maybe worth pointing out that there was another editor, with similar attitude, called Axlalta. However, he doesn't show up very often, and may actually have other interests beside this topic. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
I, Durova award Akhilleus the Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience for consistent hard work and calm sense over a year of interactions. Keep up the good work! Durova Charge! 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
Πηληϊάδη, on your adminship. Even though we had an argument or two, I admit you have a good knowledge of ancient Greek history. Keep up with the good μῆνιν. Odysses (☜) 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
archive6, thank you very much for your support in my successful
RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, |
I have volunteered to help in informal mediation for a editing dispute involving Missouri. One side has already agreed to participate. Recently, you blocked Enorton and Enorton08. Blocking is potentially very discouraging for a user, particularly since my cursory look shows that the user is not abusive, may have logical reasons for his edit dispute, and wasn't using both users to try to make it look like there was support from multiple users for an editing position (which is what improper SP do).
Please consider switching the punishment by lifting the indefinite block from Enorton08. If you must, convert it to a 24 hour block (what left of the original 48 hour block). If you must, convert the 48 hour block on Enorton to indefinite. This is because the Enorton08 account is much older and has been used much longer. Doing this may (or maybe not) help in calming down the situation so that it can be resolved. VK35 00:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pleases do not archive talk pages in which you have no involvement, especially if discussion is still ongoing. This is very rude and only serves to endorse the strife through discouraging discussion. Please reconsider your actions. ~ UBeR 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
akhilleus is actually contributing to the reverting problem problem. dispite my appeal to stop censoring links akhilleaus in league with teadrinker and megapixie seem to be violating the three revert rules when i pointed out that megapixie was already almost doing it. you cannot violate the spirit of the three revert rule by working with three others to repeatedly censor a good link to globalboiling.com. i repectfully ask once AGAIN that people stop censoring this relevant informative link to data on global warming. 'nay logical person will clearly see globalboiling.com is a relevant and good link for the article on global warming.
Per this I would have expected admins to start taking notice of the slow escalation. Last night people got blocked on one good faith edit. Now reverts are starting without repercussion. Forcing reverters to work with other editors is probably a good thing. -- Blue Tie 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, I have a question involving image copyright. There are some American Civil War photographs I found on copyrighted websites, but generally are these pictures' copyright already expired since they are too old? Wooyi Talk, Editor review 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The discussion on Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada is still active, and new voices have joined the discussion, so I've reverted the closing of the discussion. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For keeping Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets from its previous horrendous backlog. AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
Yeah. I am fully acquainted with the 3RR . Have to! I have been blocked twice for 3RR vio in the past 45 days ! Thanks . I understand that you intend to help me keep out of trouble and i will keep your advice in mind. Both these chaps D-boy and Bakaman are experienced users and should know better : to discuss an issue on the talk page before making or reverting any changes. especially when someone else has started a discussion on the talk page. I even wrote a detailed edit summary and I am sure Bakaman has seen that before he clicked undo, yet he went ahead. That show how much these guys believe in collaboration. Anyway I will play it safe. Thanks again. -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Akhilleus, I hope that you remember our discussion on the Rylands Papyrus article? Why was the very very specifically incorrectly worded line that I took out of the article then allowed to be put in the article on the Gospel of John? No where does any scholar state that the fragment does not whole to the form of the Gospel of John. LoveMonkey 17:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I have sent you an email with the evidence. Apart from you, Aksi great and DaGizza have seen the evidence - Nishkid64 is claiming to have seen it, but I don't know as I haven't spoken to him about this issue. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain how to move forward with this but I wanted to inform you, as a significant contributed to several articles I've come upon recently, to read the message I posted on the talk page of Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece. I will be rewriting sections several articles that I see as NPOV (see comment on talk page of linked article) in regards to the topic of pederasty.
In regards to your message I'd refer you to the article I mentioned above for a greater description of how I see that article in particular as NPOV. I'd also refer you to articles on the Sacred Band of Thebes and Homosexuality in ancient Greece - both which contain unsupported hypotheses on the role of pederasty in military institutions of ancient Greece. My comments on the talk page of the Sacred Band of Thebes should be useful in clarifying my argument.
Hello again, Akhilleus. This is not an 'original research' instance. In the Sacred Band article I sourced Xenophon for a definition on pederasty and I will provide the rest of my sourcing material shortly. But the problem with these articles, as I have described, is that they take information out of context and use it to support a hypothesis that fails to distinguish between pederastic and homosexual relationships. A majority of the information about pederasty is inferred, but I will make an effort to illuminate my argument in regard to that article in a few days, when I have finished writing a paper. In the meantime, if you could likewise source the information works on the Sacred Band that describe the pederastic relationship between members (as opposed to homosexual), I would appreciate it. Regards.
Nudas veritas 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That speedy deletion tag was on Alecia McKenzie because no sources were provided as to why this person is notable and without this an article is a candidate for speedy deletion, and I noticed there was still no sources added, so why was the tag removed, without the sources it still fails notability. Xtreme racer 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Progress report: Regarding the edit dispute about Missouri, I think we may have a concensus though I'll wait a few weeks to make sure that it holds up. One of the editors was listed in a SSP case and you intervened.
Separate issue: [ [9]]. Would you close this matter? Harebag is my adoptee. Harebag was disappointed that so many of his new articles were tagged for possible deletion so he created a SP to delete the tags. He admitted it and said he wouldn't do it again. Being blocked is very discouraging and can make people very mad (some of whom then create more SP in retaliation...that's human nature). Harebag's case isn't so abusive like many on the SSP board. The rules say "In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities". Please consider closing the matter without blocking Harebag. If you need a suggestion as far as language, consider "Case closed. Extent of problem not severe. User expressed remorse and will be working with adopter to improve articles". In the mean time, I will be re-writing one of Harebag's articles as an example of how to improve articles so that they are less likely to be marked for deletion. VK35 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You handled the block of a sockpuppet I had reported last week [ [10]] It went fine and all and you agreed with me. Thing is the guy seems to be nothing but persistant. I go back now and another account is making the SAME edits in the same articles as before, same style same edits. Do I open a whole new official inquire? And possibly another account which is not quite as similar but getting there but the first is mirror like in quality to the other. Ive got enough on the first it just takes quite a while to cut and paste and go back through I didn't know if I could just let you know and you take a look or what? Thanks for your time. Looking forward to your reply on my talk page. Thanks.-- Xiahou 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I ran into some real obvious evidence tonight. Ends up I seemed right the same 2 accounts you got for me earlier the guy made 2 more. I submitted it as a sockpuppet. Both new accounts have made similar and even identical edits as the old 2. Its on the open case page now. Thanks again. -- Xiahou 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway If you could give me a hand in formatting the newest sock account near the top Gibsonism. I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. -- Xiahou 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
He's baaack. I finished up a 3rd case against him. Started a new account. Made some of the same edits already. Even with same comments. Not as many yet (still new account) all the scary similar in same articles. Thanks for your time -- Xiahou 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Miaers wants to delete that dab page entirely. Since he is not getting any support, he is instead editing it in ways which seem to me to be blatant and shameless violations of the guidelines for and purposes of a disambiguation page; is this not a species of vandalism? I am getting tired of dealing with his mischief and his little nastygrams sent to everyone who challenges his take on reality. -- Orange Mike 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As you were the one who bagged User:WebmasterSD as a Lee Nysted sock/meat, I was wondering about whether User:67.186.123.21 continuing to edit would be considered block evasion? That IP has, in the past, signed its comments with WebmasterSD, as in this edit]. Not sure whether that's something to follow up on or not, but I appreciate you taking a look if you have the time. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for forgiving me of my stupidity. If I had known using another account like I did was against the rules I would not have created it in the first place. Harebag 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I find administrators here are pretty lame. What's wrong for someone to make a wrong request? You are supposed to waste your time doing nonsense administrator's job. Miaers 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At least, you should know what's inexpericen and what's ill faith. Miaers 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'll say Wikipedia doesn't specify that arbitration shouldn't be requested for content dispute. Well, according to your logic, anyone who are not aware of this is considered disruptive. Miaers 01:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with multiple anonymous users, probably socks, vandalizing
Matt Cutts. Could you have a look at the history and semi-protect this article until we solve this mystery. Sorry to trouble you. I'll be doing an RfA soon so I won't have to bother people for such matters. Thanks!
Jehochman (
talk/
contrib)
23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ben, I noticed that you still aren't convinced that WikiGnosis should be blocked. If you're still interested in the matter, please take a look at the contributions of User:Zibiki Wym, who was an acknowledged puppet of MyWikiBiz. If you still have questions after that, I'll try to answer them, since I'm the one who blocked WikiGnosis. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"One point, though: I don't see that WikiGnosis has ever claimed to live in Florida, where are you getting that from?" -- He didn't "claim" anything about where he lives. But look at his fourth and fifth contribs. -- Ben TALK/ HIST 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am complaing since you really accused me that I am Serboman what is not case. I appeal once more to investigate that better. You or somebody has made realy bad checkuser verification. I have used sockets last year when I was punished in April 2006. But not now. Please make better checking. If you find time to make additional check I will be grateful and will impose block to myself in duration of 10 days. For ten days I will not touch any article, just to make my name clear. Otherwise everybody will accuse me that I am using sockets what is not case.-- Medule 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you or anybody else make once more checkuser verification. I want to be cleared of accusation of using sockets. Since you accussed me of using sockets recently. -- Medule 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to speedy delete an article that survived afd [12], as far as I know. Chunky Rice 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
ssp}} automatically looks up the latest page, as in {{ssp|Mykungfu}}
→
WP:SSP page on "Mykungfu" --
Ben
23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten {{ rfcu}} added to the tail end of {{ user5}}, thus:
{{user5|Mykungfu}}
→
Mykungfu (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)Should I likewise add {{ ssp}} to {{ user5}}, or would it be redundant there at WP:SSP?
Also see {{ usercheck}}, as in
{{usercheck|Mykungfu}}
→
Mykungfu (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
block log ·
lu ·
rfa ·
rfb ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
socks
confirmed
suspected){{usercheck|Monicasdude}}
→
Monicasdude (
talk ·
contribs ·
count ·
logs ·
block log ·
lu ·
rfa ·
rfb ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
socks)-- Ben 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying out a conditional template {{ socks}} as an add-on to {{ ssp}}. See above, both types of socks lists, confirmed and suspected, show up as links only when those categories actually exist. Is this useful as an add-on to {{ ssp}}, or would you rather keep the {{ socks}} function entirely separate? -- Ben 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you can now use {{ ssp}} and {{ socks}} entirely separately, as you see above. On the occasion you want both, use {{ ssp|Mykungfu|list=y}}, and you'll get WP:SSP page on "Mykungfu" confirmed socks suspected socks . Note that {{ socks}} still doesn't show the user's name, and each link shows up only when the category actually exists; that is, each link disappears instead of turning red if there's no such category -- they won't even leave an empty space on the screen, so there's no waste. (The red links are disposed of in an environmentally safe fashion and in full compliance with all pertinent EPA regulations.) -- Ben 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I was the person who initiated this report. I noticed that when you closed the discussion, User:Hahahihihoho, User:Thunderman and User:Horde Zla are all indef blocked for being the disruptive troll, Hahahihihoho. But I also noticed that User:Alkalada (who is a 100% proven sock of Hahahihihoho) is not currently indef blocked as his sock. I think this is not the right decision; besides the fact that he is Hahahihihoho, User:Fred Bauder gave User:Alkalada another chance and unblocked him. But then, two days after the unblock, he was blocked again - this time for one week, for incivility, personal attacks etc. After that block expired, Alkalada was blocked yet again - this time for one month (See his block log). This latest block expired recently, and he has immediately jumped straight back into his POV editing, personal attacks and blind reverts. I believe this user will never learn from his blocks, and will never change his ways. I think it's only fair that he be indef blocked, just like all the other socks of User:Hahahihihoho. — King Ivan 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You said they were "dynamically assigned"...now does that mean they are assigned to just that person or to a group of people? (I use cable internet, so I am not sure about DSL) If they are assigned to just one person, can Verizon be notified when the next vandalism/attack occurs and the person be ID'd and then caught while online? If so, this would take care of the problem without having to block any IP addresses. - SVRTVDude ( Yell - Toil) 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the troll on my userpage. Hope things are going well with you. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try AN:I. The person in question ended his recent career in a lengthy series of direct attacks on me, and so I honestly can't set any punishment or suchlike, without my motives being called into question, and rightly so. Best I get others in. Adam Cuerden talk 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Could be, but with RJASE1's userpage saying he's in Nashville, the source of the socks, we ought to check my reading anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 19:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, please see Neil's talk page re my attempt to fix the problems with {{ user5}}. I'd removed everything I thought might have caused a problem, including every transclusion other than "rfcu" (which has nested transclusions). No "basepagename" invocations; even the little "⋅" character is given as the HTML tag "⋅", just in case that somehow affects something. The code works right on the talk page... but then so did the previous version. What happens when it's a template transcluded onto subpages which are themselves transcluded onto a main page? Since "lab testing" didn't guarantee field success last time, we can't trust this "lab testing" result either. I've fixed every potential problem I could think of, short of taking "rfcu" out altogether, but I'd like to have someone watching WP:SSP for any problems, and trying out every link in one or two actual users' tags, when we try the new update -- so if it doesn't work in actual use, it can be reverted immediately. That's the best idea I've got; if you can think of anything else, please tell me. Would you be willng to coordinate a time with Neil that he can make the change while you watch the effects at WP:SSP?
And can you tell me in a bit more detail just what the "hosing" looked like during the last update? It might help me figure out exactly what went wrong, so I know what to avoid. Thanks doubly! -- Ben 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, your explanation makes sense, although I did reload the page a couple of times before I posted the request to revert. I wonder if in the future SSP cases should subst the {{ user5}} templates. The main page takes a long time to load sometimes.
Akhilleus, the GOOD news is that WP:SSP does not appear to have been hosed up. In fact, please tell me if it is any slower-loading than before, or the reverse. And the other GOOD news is that {{subst:user5|Mykungfu}} does not lose the auto-updating feature of "rfcu"; that will continue to show new pages created after the subst'ing. Example of subst'd template:
Mykungfu (
talk •
contribs •
page moves •
block user •
block log
• rfcu)
So please recommend subst'ing if there's a slow load at WP:SSP, to reduce the transclusion overhead without losing any functionality. Yayyyy! --
Ben
02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndyCanada. If I click on "block log" for Prolancet ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) or Firstocean ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I get taken to a log for User:Prolancet.E2.80.8E or User:Prolancet.E2.80.8E. Any idea why that is? --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha, there never was a problem with Firstocean's entry, which is why checking that block log never found one. The problem was solely with Prolancet's entry, and we could both have stared at our screens forever without seeing it... because it wasn't there to be seen.
The difference between the first and second times Prolancet's name was typed was that on the first try an invisible character was put after the final T and before the first closing bracket.
Here's a cut-and-paste of that segment → Prolancet}
Go into edit mode, put your cursor just after the bracket, and backspace/delete (NOT left-arrow): first stroke, you delete the bracket; second stroke, nothing seems to happen; third stroke, you delete the final T. That second stroke deleted the invisible character.
I would guess that, in trying to type the first closing bracket, some almost-correct key combination like control or alt or fn, plus ] or }, got entered, resulting in no wrong visible character, no visible character at all. Anyone would naturally shrug and go on to type both closing brackets correctly. Everything else parsed the username without a problem, but block-log could not....
It's the "intermittent" problem that's the real headache, isn't it, like the car that squeaks except when the mechanic is there. At this point taking a sledgehammer to the car is generally a great stress-reliever, though perhaps a bit more expensive in the long term than two pints of Guinness at the local pub while grousing to the publican and your fellow drinkers. — Ben TALK/ HIST 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
... I took it and ran with it. ... Working code for tryout on the talk page. ... Commented-out copy at the bottom of this section on the actual WP:SSP main page. If everyone's happy with it, remove the comment marks and let it run!
By the way, try subst'ing {{ socksuspectnotice}} on your own talk page with no parameters, and hit Preview (don't save). Okay. Now try the same thing on User:Mykungfu, since his talk page's protected. Which evidence page gets linked? Neat trick, huh? A side benefit from {{ ssp}}! -- Ben TALK/ HIST 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, way to be bold! Thing is, the instructions are still complicated, because of the unfortunate decision someone made at the beginning of SSP to have separate pages (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) for each case on a particular user. Using the {{ ssp}} template to discover previous cases is clever, but it will be beyond the capability of some users. Is there any way to have the inputbox run a script to see if a case has already been filed on a sockmaster? Or, the other thing to do is to steal another idea from RCU and have each sockmaster get a single case page, no matter how many times they're reported. Looking at the subpages of SSP ( [2]) shows a pretty healthy number of sockmasters w/multiple cases, and there's always the danger that one of them (like Mykungfu) might get a new case filed, and then you'd have 5 Mykungfu cases, with new information getting added to the 1st case. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but I wanted the reporting system to be as simple, and elegant, as the one at RCU, and unfortunately it isn't. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ben, I think you've demonstrated that the SSP filing system won't change soon. To merge all the Mykungfu cases, just as one example, would require merging page histories--the kind of thing that has to be done manually by an admin. And there are at least 55 suspected sockmasters that have multiple SSP cases. In contrast, changing the links in the subst'd {{ socksuspect}} and {{ socksuspect}} notice cases wouldn't be that difficult--as long as you know how to code a bot. I don't.
As a stopgap, though, one of the other kinds of inputbox is a search box. Maybe we could put one on the SSP page, so one of the steps in filing a case would be a search for "Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER". Try this:
Put "Mykungfu" in there, and you find his cases; put "Akhilleus" in there, and you find that so far, I'm clean...
BTW, I'm pretty sure that the inputbox won't allow scripts to be run. Code is here. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Gahhhhh! Picture me running in tight circles in the middle of the room, bashing my head with a discarded tabletop that is rapidly splintering and beginning to shed pieces of itself along my trail. At last I slow to a stop, fling the few remaining shards away, and turn to you with a bleeding forehead, a mad gleam in my eyes, and a frighteningly calm voice with which I tell you:
Say, why doesn't {{ socksuspect}} carry with it the "suspected sockpuppet" category, the way {{ sockpuppet}} does? That'd be a list to read through.... -- Ben TALK/ HIST 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been accused of having sockpuppets here without a usercheck. I want to dispute this. Wiki Raja 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
“ | Wiki Raja, if you disagree with the blocks of those sockpuppets, you need to contact the blocking admin ( User:Nichalp), or ask for a review on WP:ANI. WP:SSP isn't a place to prove your innocence. Please note that I have no opinion whatsoever about the merits of these blocks, or whether you're a sockpuppeteer; I closed the case because I noticed someone else had blocked those accounts. I don't have the ability to block (or unblock) anyway, I'm not an admin. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Thanks for the notice, I needed a good laugh ;-). I've left a note on WP:AN/I that will hopefully get another admin to take a look. I'm leaving in the morning (7 hours from now actually) for Spring Break so hopefully somebody will get to this soon. This benjiwolf guy has reached a new level of strange with all the images... auburnpilot talk 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Page moves actually never show up on people's watchlists, which is something I've never quite understood. Maybe you could leave a note on Cretanforever's talk page. I've deleted the redirect, so you can move it back now. Khoi khoi 05:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate your attention to this article. I'm well aware that no one really wants to be involved with another article where one's efforts there seem to require a perverse amount of effort in order to stick. I wonder if you might have a wise word, or any practical information, that can help me deal with the conflict I've found there with Doug Coldwell. His edits seem in good faith, in the sense that I think he regards his contributions as factual. But, as his interests grow to embrace more and more out-of-the-way topics in late antiquity, etc., I am plagued by a vision of crackpot irrelevancies (or worse) being added all over. What's the best thing to do in one's normal capacity as an editor? Are there any Wiki-procedures appropriate to such a situation? (I imagine it's not what is called vandalism, but on the other hand, I'm sure the community has had to deal with active editors with strange convictions before.) I know you may not know better than I, but I thought it couldn't help to check with someone I know values the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient world. I just saw your note on my talk page after writing this, so I know you're friendly too. Anyway, I don't know if even our augmented numbers over there are enough, so I'd appreciate any brainstorms. Wareh 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for atleast contacting me and taking the time to discuss the issue. Look there are so many differences between the two, i'll list below if you like:
And i truely could go on if i need to. As you can see there is a number of problems with having the same article for both, and so many differences between them, Simply having a separate article which has already been created could solve all of the problems. It's the logical thing to do.
Do you now agree and see the need for separation? ( Bradleigh 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC))
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just got it. Thanks. And let me know when you do want to be an administrator, I'd be happy to nominate you (though I see several others have also offered in your archives). See you around. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked you a legitimate ethics question on your application to be an administrator. The person who nominated you and another deleted it. They are mad. The question is legitmate. See your application page or you can click here [5]
Ethics is an important issue. We uproar if someone gets special favors from congressmen. However, ethics is a part of everyone's life, you and me. Dereks1x 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
You are awarded the The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for many reasons, happy editing! Lakers 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
So what is the ancient Greek word for mop? Durova Charge! 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not totally certain about this, but I think the Greeks would have used sponges instead of mops. Will have to investigate further. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW you've gotten one oppose vote, which might not count due to the short edit history. [6] It was based upon a link I supplied rather than any of your actions or statements. I've posted an explanation to the discussion. You might wish to post to the editor's user talk and ask the person to reconsider (in case they haven't watchlisted the RFA). Durova Charge! 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a classics student and have a few issues with the section of the Atlantic article dealing with the location theories of Atlantis:
1. you gloss over the Thera (Santorini) theory as if it were just another "quack" theory, when in fact it is the only theory out there which is based on actual verifyable historical events, supported by archaeology, dendrochronology, and carbon dating.
2. Your wording seems to tacitly assume that proponents of the Thera theory believe Thera "IS" the mythical place "Atlantis." In fact, I doubt any serious Classicist actually believes "Atlantis" as described by Plato ever existed. Instead, they (and I) believe that Plato invented the story based on some popular folk-legend of a destroyed island city. This folk legend, probably very un-detailed, may have originated with a recollection - passed down for generations, of the Thera eruption. As this was a massive event which would have been felt throughout the Mediterranean, darkened the skies and cooled the Earth for decades (and helped to wipe out the Minoans) - it's not surprising that the story would have been passed down. Is it?
In conclusion - I think this theory should be treated better in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vnocito ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
After nearly unanimous support and some cajoling, you're now an admin. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure. I'm sure you'll do well, have fun using the new tools. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you doing the SSP too fast? The rules state that there is to be debated up to 10 days. Shouldn't we give the people a chance to respond? No need to respond. VK35 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't throw around accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence; it can be considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2007
This was a legitimate concern based on as much evidence as was used to justify accusing me of scok puppetry. I expect my accuser to be given a similar warning. Lojah 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you were successful. Modernist 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have responded to your optional question. Thanks for participating in my RfA! -- Hemlock Martinis 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA!
Praise, Goddess, sing the praise of Peleus' son Akhilleus,
Mopped and broomed, that caused the vandals countless blocks,
I think I'd better quit here before this gets any worse. My apologies to Homer and also to Robert Fagles. Congratulations. -- Kyok o 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I read:
3 Questions:
FYI:
I have no idea if the block was mistaken. I tend to think not, but I really do not have any facts. I just tend to trust admins' judgment, though I have no idea why I do. I believe the duration was a bit harsh and I think the approach makes it look bad, and I feel that it should have been handled differently. I feel that WP:MEAT was not a good reason in this case. Perhaps some other violation applied though. I am not in agreement with people who, simply because of an administrative judgment, impugn the integrity of admins. But I also do not think admins are flawless. -- Blue Tie 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I'll just respond here on the assumption that you're watching this page. User:Mnyakko and User:Zeeboid work together on the radio show Race to the Right. Mnyakko wrote an article on the show, and when it was put up for Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race to the Right), Zeeboid's first edit is to argue that the article should be kept ( [7]). That's a clear instance of an editor recruiting a friend/colleague to influence a discussion on a controversial topic. Zeeboid's participation in that AfD would justify an indefinite block; the fact that most of Zeeboid's edits are to back up Mnyakko in controversial discussions further strengthens the case.
Note that we have no way of telling whether Zeeboid and Mnyakko are different people, except that they say so, and according to precedent in cases where we can't tell if we're dealing with two different people supporting the same position, or one person with two accounts, we treat it as a case of sockpuppetry. Again, meatpuppets/sockpuppets should be blocked indefinitely if they're used abusively, so if anything, Durova didn't block for long enough. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, I'm not interested in having a long discussion about this. The fact that they're coworkers and they're supporting each other on AfDs and that COI/N thread justifies a block. As I've already said, this is a straightforward application of WP:MEAT, and I think if you asked just about any admin, they'd endorse Durova's action--in fact, I am an admin who often works on sockpuppet-related matters, and I think Durova's action was correct. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was an Indian name. Nevermind. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I did not have the chance to congratulate you for the successful RfA! But it was no surprise ...
Since you are a classicist, I wanted your input to this: User:Haiduc proposed some changes for Demosthenes. I was reluctant to accept them, but then I let him add a new section, which I just modified a bit. You can see the discussion here, and the recent additions in the article's recent history (Haiduc's addition and my modifications). As the main contributor of this article I cannot be as objective as I would like. Since I am not yet sure about the utility of such additions, and since we speak about a FA and the issue is serious I think that your opinion and your input (among those of other prominent classisists I've invited to the discussion) will be very useful. Please, have a look at the article and the discussion! Thanks in advance!
Cheers! And Χριστός Ανέστη (I don't know if you are a religious guy, but this is the standard greeting in Greece these days!)!-- Yannismarou 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the support of those who (by their own statement) do not understand why e might be used for η. I trust you won't mind if I carve off the half of this article which deals with Classical antiquity and give it the name I am accustomed to. ;->
On a more serious note, I see that Names of the Greeks is using Homer as a source for the history of the Bronze Age, and is therefore calling Trachis Trehine; it could, I suppose, be Trihini, which would be worse. Can this be cleaned up, or is the article hopeless? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Bless you, sir. I had forgotten about FGJ, whose pattern was also similar. I will also take a lesson from this extended (10 months, at least) episode and deal with this kind of problem-child editor better in the future... Specifically, to take it to an admin right away, and resist edit warring. Wahkeenah 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your followup note. There are at least two other things I've learned over the course of time: (1) confine the debate to the talk page, as repeatedly trying to revert a persistent vandal is futile; and (2) try to keep the debate on the subject rather than on the editor. The blocked editors in this case never learned this. The one even took personal shots in his request for reinstatement, and the admin rejected the request on that basis. It is hard for a leopard to change its spots. It is maybe worth pointing out that there was another editor, with similar attitude, called Axlalta. However, he doesn't show up very often, and may actually have other interests beside this topic. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 11:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
I, Durova award Akhilleus the Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience for consistent hard work and calm sense over a year of interactions. Keep up the good work! Durova Charge! 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
Πηληϊάδη, on your adminship. Even though we had an argument or two, I admit you have a good knowledge of ancient Greek history. Keep up with the good μῆνιν. Odysses (☜) 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
archive6, thank you very much for your support in my successful
RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, |
I have volunteered to help in informal mediation for a editing dispute involving Missouri. One side has already agreed to participate. Recently, you blocked Enorton and Enorton08. Blocking is potentially very discouraging for a user, particularly since my cursory look shows that the user is not abusive, may have logical reasons for his edit dispute, and wasn't using both users to try to make it look like there was support from multiple users for an editing position (which is what improper SP do).
Please consider switching the punishment by lifting the indefinite block from Enorton08. If you must, convert it to a 24 hour block (what left of the original 48 hour block). If you must, convert the 48 hour block on Enorton to indefinite. This is because the Enorton08 account is much older and has been used much longer. Doing this may (or maybe not) help in calming down the situation so that it can be resolved. VK35 00:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pleases do not archive talk pages in which you have no involvement, especially if discussion is still ongoing. This is very rude and only serves to endorse the strife through discouraging discussion. Please reconsider your actions. ~ UBeR 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
akhilleus is actually contributing to the reverting problem problem. dispite my appeal to stop censoring links akhilleaus in league with teadrinker and megapixie seem to be violating the three revert rules when i pointed out that megapixie was already almost doing it. you cannot violate the spirit of the three revert rule by working with three others to repeatedly censor a good link to globalboiling.com. i repectfully ask once AGAIN that people stop censoring this relevant informative link to data on global warming. 'nay logical person will clearly see globalboiling.com is a relevant and good link for the article on global warming.
Per this I would have expected admins to start taking notice of the slow escalation. Last night people got blocked on one good faith edit. Now reverts are starting without repercussion. Forcing reverters to work with other editors is probably a good thing. -- Blue Tie 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, I have a question involving image copyright. There are some American Civil War photographs I found on copyrighted websites, but generally are these pictures' copyright already expired since they are too old? Wooyi Talk, Editor review 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
The discussion on Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada is still active, and new voices have joined the discussion, so I've reverted the closing of the discussion. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For keeping Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets from its previous horrendous backlog. AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
Yeah. I am fully acquainted with the 3RR . Have to! I have been blocked twice for 3RR vio in the past 45 days ! Thanks . I understand that you intend to help me keep out of trouble and i will keep your advice in mind. Both these chaps D-boy and Bakaman are experienced users and should know better : to discuss an issue on the talk page before making or reverting any changes. especially when someone else has started a discussion on the talk page. I even wrote a detailed edit summary and I am sure Bakaman has seen that before he clicked undo, yet he went ahead. That show how much these guys believe in collaboration. Anyway I will play it safe. Thanks again. -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Akhilleus, I hope that you remember our discussion on the Rylands Papyrus article? Why was the very very specifically incorrectly worded line that I took out of the article then allowed to be put in the article on the Gospel of John? No where does any scholar state that the fragment does not whole to the form of the Gospel of John. LoveMonkey 17:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I have sent you an email with the evidence. Apart from you, Aksi great and DaGizza have seen the evidence - Nishkid64 is claiming to have seen it, but I don't know as I haven't spoken to him about this issue. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain how to move forward with this but I wanted to inform you, as a significant contributed to several articles I've come upon recently, to read the message I posted on the talk page of Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece. I will be rewriting sections several articles that I see as NPOV (see comment on talk page of linked article) in regards to the topic of pederasty.
In regards to your message I'd refer you to the article I mentioned above for a greater description of how I see that article in particular as NPOV. I'd also refer you to articles on the Sacred Band of Thebes and Homosexuality in ancient Greece - both which contain unsupported hypotheses on the role of pederasty in military institutions of ancient Greece. My comments on the talk page of the Sacred Band of Thebes should be useful in clarifying my argument.
Hello again, Akhilleus. This is not an 'original research' instance. In the Sacred Band article I sourced Xenophon for a definition on pederasty and I will provide the rest of my sourcing material shortly. But the problem with these articles, as I have described, is that they take information out of context and use it to support a hypothesis that fails to distinguish between pederastic and homosexual relationships. A majority of the information about pederasty is inferred, but I will make an effort to illuminate my argument in regard to that article in a few days, when I have finished writing a paper. In the meantime, if you could likewise source the information works on the Sacred Band that describe the pederastic relationship between members (as opposed to homosexual), I would appreciate it. Regards.
Nudas veritas 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That speedy deletion tag was on Alecia McKenzie because no sources were provided as to why this person is notable and without this an article is a candidate for speedy deletion, and I noticed there was still no sources added, so why was the tag removed, without the sources it still fails notability. Xtreme racer 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Progress report: Regarding the edit dispute about Missouri, I think we may have a concensus though I'll wait a few weeks to make sure that it holds up. One of the editors was listed in a SSP case and you intervened.
Separate issue: [ [9]]. Would you close this matter? Harebag is my adoptee. Harebag was disappointed that so many of his new articles were tagged for possible deletion so he created a SP to delete the tags. He admitted it and said he wouldn't do it again. Being blocked is very discouraging and can make people very mad (some of whom then create more SP in retaliation...that's human nature). Harebag's case isn't so abusive like many on the SSP board. The rules say "In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities". Please consider closing the matter without blocking Harebag. If you need a suggestion as far as language, consider "Case closed. Extent of problem not severe. User expressed remorse and will be working with adopter to improve articles". In the mean time, I will be re-writing one of Harebag's articles as an example of how to improve articles so that they are less likely to be marked for deletion. VK35 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You handled the block of a sockpuppet I had reported last week [ [10]] It went fine and all and you agreed with me. Thing is the guy seems to be nothing but persistant. I go back now and another account is making the SAME edits in the same articles as before, same style same edits. Do I open a whole new official inquire? And possibly another account which is not quite as similar but getting there but the first is mirror like in quality to the other. Ive got enough on the first it just takes quite a while to cut and paste and go back through I didn't know if I could just let you know and you take a look or what? Thanks for your time. Looking forward to your reply on my talk page. Thanks.-- Xiahou 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I ran into some real obvious evidence tonight. Ends up I seemed right the same 2 accounts you got for me earlier the guy made 2 more. I submitted it as a sockpuppet. Both new accounts have made similar and even identical edits as the old 2. Its on the open case page now. Thanks again. -- Xiahou 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway If you could give me a hand in formatting the newest sock account near the top Gibsonism. I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. -- Xiahou 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
He's baaack. I finished up a 3rd case against him. Started a new account. Made some of the same edits already. Even with same comments. Not as many yet (still new account) all the scary similar in same articles. Thanks for your time -- Xiahou 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Miaers wants to delete that dab page entirely. Since he is not getting any support, he is instead editing it in ways which seem to me to be blatant and shameless violations of the guidelines for and purposes of a disambiguation page; is this not a species of vandalism? I am getting tired of dealing with his mischief and his little nastygrams sent to everyone who challenges his take on reality. -- Orange Mike 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As you were the one who bagged User:WebmasterSD as a Lee Nysted sock/meat, I was wondering about whether User:67.186.123.21 continuing to edit would be considered block evasion? That IP has, in the past, signed its comments with WebmasterSD, as in this edit]. Not sure whether that's something to follow up on or not, but I appreciate you taking a look if you have the time. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for forgiving me of my stupidity. If I had known using another account like I did was against the rules I would not have created it in the first place. Harebag 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I find administrators here are pretty lame. What's wrong for someone to make a wrong request? You are supposed to waste your time doing nonsense administrator's job. Miaers 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At least, you should know what's inexpericen and what's ill faith. Miaers 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'll say Wikipedia doesn't specify that arbitration shouldn't be requested for content dispute. Well, according to your logic, anyone who are not aware of this is considered disruptive. Miaers 01:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with multiple anonymous users, probably socks, vandalizing
Matt Cutts. Could you have a look at the history and semi-protect this article until we solve this mystery. Sorry to trouble you. I'll be doing an RfA soon so I won't have to bother people for such matters. Thanks!
Jehochman (
talk/
contrib)
23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ben, I noticed that you still aren't convinced that WikiGnosis should be blocked. If you're still interested in the matter, please take a look at the contributions of User:Zibiki Wym, who was an acknowledged puppet of MyWikiBiz. If you still have questions after that, I'll try to answer them, since I'm the one who blocked WikiGnosis. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"One point, though: I don't see that WikiGnosis has ever claimed to live in Florida, where are you getting that from?" -- He didn't "claim" anything about where he lives. But look at his fourth and fifth contribs. -- Ben TALK/ HIST 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am complaing since you really accused me that I am Serboman what is not case. I appeal once more to investigate that better. You or somebody has made realy bad checkuser verification. I have used sockets last year when I was punished in April 2006. But not now. Please make better checking. If you find time to make additional check I will be grateful and will impose block to myself in duration of 10 days. For ten days I will not touch any article, just to make my name clear. Otherwise everybody will accuse me that I am using sockets what is not case.-- Medule 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you or anybody else make once more checkuser verification. I want to be cleared of accusation of using sockets. Since you accussed me of using sockets recently. -- Medule 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to speedy delete an article that survived afd [12], as far as I know. Chunky Rice 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)