User talk:Akhilleus/archive6

Also see {{usercheck}}, as in

{{usercheck|Mykungfu}}    →

arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected

)

{{usercheck|Monicasdude}} →

rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks

)

-- Ben 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —KingIvan 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I assumed you were an admin because you were the person who closed it. I'll contact Fred. Have a good day! —KingIvan 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On the other one you linked - I think I'd like an IP check to confirm Winkers and RJASE1 are the same, as the sockpuppet master claiming to be the same as the Sockpuppet reporter could just be a nasty attack that RJASE1 hasn't noticed yet. We'll take him at his word for all the other socks, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

Akhilleus, please see

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)[reply]

Ben, the problem is a bit difficult to describe. As you know, the SSP cases each have their own subpage, which are transcluded onto the main SSP page. Basically, halfway down the list of active cases, the listing went bonkers. The specific locus was in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Classicjupiter2, in the line where Protector777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was listed--instead of what you see there, there was a messed-up line that included the word "separator" as a blue link, "page move" as a red link. The following users in the list simply appeared as user, and the comments to the case didn't appear; the rest of the cases in the list didn't transclude properly, but simply appeared as links, like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Adversegecko.

The weird thing is, the case subpage for Classicjupiter2 displayed normally, and so did the rest of the cases. I don't get it. It might be some peculiarity of my local setup, I guess. But we can try to test it, and see if the anomaly happens again. I'll be available for a few hours tonight, and again tomorrow afternoon. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my eyebrows went up at the fact that the problem started halfway down the page. If it was inherent to the template, or even to how the template behaved when transcluded on a subpage that was then transcluded onto a main page -- it should have happened every single time it was used there, not work fine in the top half and break down in the bottom half. So this is a major clue that the nature of the problem is something else.

It doesn't surprise me that the subpage itself looks fine: there you're looking at a transcluded template but not on a transcluded subpage; you're seeing the page directly.

My first thought was that maybe something about that line, in the Protector 777 entry or just above it, had some odd character, extra {'s or whatever, that Wiki-parsing misinterpreted, sort of the way omitting or adding an apostrophe in the double-apostrophe italics tag early in a paragraph can screw up your italic or boldface formatting for the rest of the paragraph. So I went and looked closely at that area of that subpage... and found nothing even vaguely likely to have such a result. (Drat!)

My second thought, and my current working hypothesis, is this:

Transclusion creates a certain amount of overhead for the system. Not much for each transclusion, but it adds up. This is one of the reasons templates are no longer allowed in the signature or "nickname" of our account preferences. (Not the only reason; it would be too easy to change a signature all over Wikipedia by altering the template, both "changing history" and creating a sudden huge transclusion workload as all the signed occurences were changed.)

Well, first of all

WP:SSP

, and after that the changes weren't fully processed.

I wonder whether everything would have looked normal had you seen the page five minutes later, due to the system catching up... or whether it would have stayed stuck like that, due to some limit on how many transclusions per page will be processed at all. But I don't wonder enough to want to go back and try it again just to find out.

One of my major changes from the last attempt was to eliminate as many transclusions as I could. Except for "rfcu" (which subcontracts its work to subtemplates), all the subtemplates -- including the separator dot, {{·}} -- have been replaced by hardcodes, reducing the workload immensely. That may be all the solution that we need. I hope so, and it would make sense given what you saw on the page. -- Ben 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Probably a good idea. It would vastly reduce the transclusion workload. One side-effect would be the "rfcu" link would not update on any existing entry if a checkuser were later opened on that user, so you might miss seeing some relevant info from after the subpage's creation... but if your users are aware of that, and treat the absence of the link as "there was no rfcu report then" rather than "there is no rfcu report now", they can always check for new entries with a new rfcu request, even in preview mode and not saved. -- Ben 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... or I could drop the whole idea of rfcu being a "disappearing" link in user5 (take out the "cond=n" parameter), and just let it stay a redlink when there's no rfcu page. But this was why Ryulong reverted the change to user5 before, he found that "ugly", and the "disappearing" feature was the condition he demanded to allow the update back in. His other suggestion was the WP:SSP use a new template with rfcu in it, and leave user5 alone. So you may want to think that one over. -- Ben 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to just try and put in the new {{

(not Proto ►) 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I'm not getting that result now, and (from resolving the code by subst'ing) I don't see anything that could have caused it. The template hasn't changed... could someone have been working on the blockuser page itself, to change how a username gets parsed? ".E2.80.8E" is a character encoding, I don't know for which characters without going to look it up, but since the problem's gone I doubt it's traceable any longer. — Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

... 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)[reply]

Ben, thanks for your work on this. I'm in favor of implementing it, obviously; the only question is whether we should wait for comments. On the other hand, it seems like few people watch the SSP page, so we could reasonably claim that we two form a consensus... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted to help, and to get a chance to do a working infobox. I'd struggled to make one work for

WP:SSP

, and found you'd been five weeks ahead of me....

Wait for comments? Your original suggestion on

WT:SSP waited over a month for comments already, and nobody objected, so.... Inputbox added, and instructions substantially revamped to fit; items headlined, and put in a sensible order, like, oh, collecting evidence and opening your case before tagging the suspect accounts with links to that case. If this was silly of me, please move things around to where they should be. Enjoy! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Gahhh, what a long link to encode! Try

WP:SSP

.

I completely agree with you about the complexity of the case-filing system. I use the same simple-minded search engine, {{highrfc-loop}}, to search for RfAs, RfBs, RfArbs, RfC/Users, and SSPs, and it has to take account of not only the "_(2nd)" style of suffixes but also "_(2)", "_2", and "-2", because the different areas use different subpage-numbering formats, and sometimes more than one. I even thought about coding for Roman numerals, because some people have used those, but then I remembered actual usernames like "Giano II", and my brain began to hurt from trying to distinguish between "the second case involving 'Giano'" and "the first case involving 'Giano II'". It's bad enough that usernames might also end with "_2" or "-2", as it is.

Yes, it would be much easier all around to keep one file per username and just add to it over time, the way WP:RFCU does. Cross-indexing sockpuppet names would also be a wonderful feature to add, because right now it's not easy to find out whether someone's been investigated as a sockpuppet (rather than a puppetmaster) since the filenames don't cover puppets. You just have to hope the userpage got tagged at some point in its history.

The solution would be to adopt an RFCU-like system -- which would even allow cross-referring the cases between SSP and RFCU, as long as the two areas chose the same username to title the report on a group of IDs.

So, first step: propose the change. Second step: get it approved. Third step: revise the new-case creation system to match RFCU's, wherein a little outright theft of code seems appropriate. Fourth step, and here's the heartbreaker: go through all the existing files, and consolidate the multiples.

For investigation: Will we have to make any other changes in file format (once they're all singles) to let RFCU's system work for SSP?

My lovable and cuddlesome and bright little {{ssp}}, whom you'd take home to meet your mother, will handle either system, without changing any code. The system change would make things simpler, not harder, for templates as well as for human beings. {{rfcu}} is simpler than {{ssp}}, though I think earnestness of character counts for something too.

Now, just one more question, to make your brain hurt too: who gets to go revise all those {{

socksuspect}} and {{socksuspectnotice

}} templates that are currently linking to (2nd), (3rd), (4th), etc., cases, and redirect them to the new single files? (Since they've been subst'd, we can't just change the template code and have the posted copies all snap into shape.)

Yechh. I hope you're well-and-truly daunted by the prospect. I sure am. We need the advice of some seriously skilled and experienced gurus here. They may know ways to make this a much simpler conversion. For one thing, let's ask the people who set up RFCU for advice. It would be in their best interests, because the better SSP works, the less workload overflows into RFCU. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't answer this before: "Is there any way to have the inputbox run a script to see if a case has already been filed on a sockmaster?" I didn't see that option in the documentation, and have never seen the underlying code -- I assume it involves Javascript, but I don't really know even whether that's all it's written in. It would be a nice feature to suggest to the author, but I suspect the answer will be: "If you enter a pre-existing file name and click the button, you'll find the pre-existing file in front of you instead of the preload (unfilled-out form), and the editintro header won't be at the top of the page. Doesn't that already tell you whether a case has been filed?" -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search box for WP:SSP

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 {{

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)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier on everyone to just give the subpages link and say "go look"? It's an alphabetized list. Everyone who's ever used a telephone directory or a book index, or found their scores on a class roster, knows how to look up names in alphabetized lists. It doesn't even require typing anything: you click the link, you scroll the page. Along the way, maybe you see other names than the one you were looking up. "Him? HE does sockpuppets? I once argued with him -- and then all these new names piled in on his side! Hey, that was -- he -- they -- that was a scam!" And a little more truth comes out than from only seeing the name you asked for.... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say, did you try clicking those buttons with the text kept as is? Left-hand-button successfully finds the file I created for those who click the "Start a case" button on

WP:SSP without changing the text. Right-hand button finds nothing, and suggests trying Google instead.... oh, that doesn't look good. Wikipedia's own search engine sends customers elsewhere, and here it isn't even Christmas. (Macy's, Kris Kringle, oh, if that has to be explained then it isn't funny.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I should have taken the clue from your being five weeks ahead of me on the SPP case-creation inputbox idea, and before that from your bringing up to me the niche for templates like {{rfcu}} and {{ssp}}:

... that I function best when I listen carefully to your suggestions, and just try to figure out how to push them the last step, from design concept or prototype/mockup to fully functioning gadget.

You were right about using inputbox to search as well as create. And I even thumped on the detail that would make that idea work prettily... but didn't realize it.

Yes, Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ was the detail... or, rather, it was one little trivial fact about the "Special:" pages in general. The simplest thing.

The search mode of inputbox, with those two buttons, was just the wrong mode.

We can use the create mode instead. Just one button, which we can custom-label.

We can even use the same default you specified above:
          Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/PUPPETMASTER

"But but," you object, "we just want to read the page; we don't want to edit it."

I grin through the thin trickles of blood gently running down my face, and assure you with a tone of very possibly mad glee: that's quite all right; we can't edit "Special:" pages; if we try, we just get put into "read" mode anyway.

So here's

WP:SSP/Search, transcluded below using its full name. Enjoy! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been accused of having sockpuppets here without a usercheck. I want to dispute this. Wiki Raja 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. As for the other three that were blocked, there is no connection between and those users. Once again, this is just another tactic by this particular interest group to be used against me. They saw that they were losing in this vote to keep a particular Category, so they went on a witch hunt to try to disqualify people. Thanks anyways for your help. Wiki Raja 01:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I needed a good laugh ;-). I've left a note on

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. Khoikhoi 05:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been there either, you can see more pictures at User talk:Khoikhoi/Gallery. Khoikhoi 05:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] and [4]. Khoikhoi 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just found this:

Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Crackpot users. Wareh 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you now agree and see the need for separation? (Bradleigh 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

Added my co-nom. I sincerely hope you get it! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have blocked Dereks1x for 48 hours for wikistalking and violations of

WP:POINT. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar

		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)[reply]

Mop?

So what is the ancient Greek word for mop? Durova^Charge! 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but a broom would apparently be a sarothron. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Let me add my congratulations too! Few users can deserve them more :-) Ciao,--Aldux 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Akhilleus for your successful RFA.

Wooyi 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Congratulations on the succesful RfA. Well-deserved. - Anas ^talk? 15:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more congratulation. And to think you thought you might be controversial! At first it looked it was heading for a unanimous

WP:100... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

And from me as well. Your help at SSP has always been done well, now you've gotten roped into approved for doing more! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugcarhthria and Kalo Pasca Akhilleus. Ghini vinishi to the mop club. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well, a fellow lover of classical antiquity (as may be obvious from my user name). Btw I really appreciate your work at SSP, a page a lot of people seem to ignore. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

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) [reply]

I'm pleased that you were successful. Modernist 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

You're welcome; I was glad to support you. :) Acalamari 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the mop on your userpage and talk page, too. Hope you don't mind. Also, Congrats!

Real96 21:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Congratulations! --Bhadani (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and thanks for the thanks! Keep up the good work! MrMacMan ^Talk 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 07:43Z

Congratulations!

Talk, Editor review 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Congrats! The thanks note was really cool too, so thanks for that! :-)

eg92contribs 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Congrats! <- you've got a nice indent happening there. A bit late to the party, but well done nonetheless. James086^{Talk | Email} 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read:

UBeR, Durova blocked for a very clear violation of WP:MEAT; I suggest you read that policy, and stop Wikilawyering. It would also be a good idea to stop impugning Durova's character; I consider your comments a violation of WP:NPA and I'm placing a warning on your talk page to that effect. If you really insist that Durova's block was mistaken, take it to WP:ANI rather than extending the discussion here.

3 Questions:

• 1. What is the clear, bright-line test for Meatpuppetry
• 2. How is that distinguished from two editors who agree and work together on articles (is it the same and is that a bad thing?)
• 3. How was that clear bright-line test established in the case discussed above?

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)[reply]

Update: Having now seen the block log for the two users in question, and noticing that neither has ever had any block ever before, I believe a first block of one week without any warning is unreasonably harsh even if there was good evidence and I do not think that there was good evidence.

As an aside, I have no affiliation with either person and have not edited in concert or agreement with them or against them to my knowledge. I have no idea of their views on things or how they comport with mine. I am speaking only from a perspective of fairness and perceptions. --Blue Tie 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Let me make a couple of observations or perhaps ask a few questions too. I know that people may work together and by virtue of that, may share with each other ideas like: "Hey, I edit wikipedia and its fun, why don't you do it too?". I see no harm in this, even if they both agree with each other and support each other. But if wikipedia does not want people to come here as friends and only to become friends later... then so be it. But is that the approach -- don't be friends before you get here?

Second, I do not know how it is a "clear" instance of recruiting. I believe it could be a "suspected" case of it. But unless we see a mail or post doing this recruiting, we do not know. I also might imagine all sorts of emails going back and forth or IRC chats between people.. sometimes it seems that MUST be the case. But it might not be so and I do not know. Just suspicion on my part and a few suspect edits would be insufficient in most cases (or should be) to cause a block.

Third, this edit that you believe is offending, is months old. Isn't it a bit late to punish an edit from months ago, without at least, a warning?

Fourth, if backing up another editor, constantly, is a bad thing, there are at least scores of well respected editors (and some admins) who need to be dealt with.

Fifth, I am surprised that "if we cannot tell" we assume guilt automatically. Something about that is seriously wrong. Can you show me the cite on that?

Finally, if sockpuppets are being used abusively, they should be blocked. But perhaps not both.

Although it looks like Zeeboid and friend should be watched, I would not just assume meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry just because I did not like them. And I would not punish months later, without a warning. Something about that just seems wrong to me. But I can think of a way to evaluate whether they are the same person. --Blue Tie 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I thought that was an Indian name. Nevermind. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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) [reply]

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.

I'll second that. I think you did a very good job at analyzing the edits, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

]

User award

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! DurovaCharge! 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

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)[reply]

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, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Look here. [[8]] As I understand it, Enorton wants to remain and Enorton08 closed, which is what is being done. Enorton admits dual accounts but says no subterfuge was intended. Do what you think is right. I have to study the Missouri issue tomorrow so that I can begin trying to get everyone to agree.VK35 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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?

The picture is here, the portrait of

Talk, Editor review 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Done.

Talk, Editor review 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For keeping Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets from its previous horrendous backlog. AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I got a ton of evidence added. Linking all 4 accounts. Today though one of his got blocked for vandalism (his current one) so suddenly another account is doing the same edits (some textually identical). I tried adding it to the open case [[11]] and its not formatting right. Can you give me a hand on it. I added links to more practically and identical edits to the same articles. I don't know why this guy has it out for dead and some living celebrities. I don't think he gets NPOV and citing of articles at all. He's chalk full of controversial heresay but nothing citied its all "i read" or "I heard".

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)[reply]

thanks for resolving this. I just noticed it. So per say this comes up again how did you modify it so it showed up with the original name with (2nd) after or is that what you need to do. When putting the name in just add (Number) after the name? Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm afraid you are right; but I don't want to do something like that if I'm the only one who feels that way. --Orange Mike 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my re: on Orange Mike's page about this.

Madmaxmarchhare 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you help me with the process, Peleides? I've never done this before. --Orange Mike 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you, again, for dealing with the latest Nysted supporter at ANI. The level of promotional zeal is amazing in that group of editors, as is the annoyance of dealing with them. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Miaers, it seems you're unhappy with me, but I can't really make heads or tails of your complaint. What am I doing that's "lame", exactly? It's perfectly legitimate to open an RfC on a user's conduct; it's one of the steps suggested in the

dispute resolution procedure. At any rate, I hope you understand that a number of people find your conduct on UW-related articles disruptive, and that if you continue on your current path, it's quite likely that you'll be blocked for personal attacks and incivility. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

At least, you should know what's inexpericen and what's ill faith. Miaers 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you saying that you haven't acted in bad faith, but from inexperience? --Akhilleus (talk)!

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)[reply]

Miaers, I'm still not sure if I'm understanding you, but your disruption isn't limited to the request for arbitration. The basic problem is that you're unable or unwilling to recognize that the consensus is against your position, and instead of gracefully agreeing to disagree, you have insisted over and over again that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You've edit warred about this, including a number of 3RR violations, and you're now launching a number of strange personal attacks. I really think this would be a great time for you to step away from the computer for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chairboy, I saw that Checkuser result also, and indef blocked WikiGnosis as a result. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Things have quieted down. No need for protection. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied back from User talk:Ben#WikiGnosis)

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)[reply]

I've now read through

WP:BLP violations from articles about individuals, a number of them Japanese; he appears to be able to read Japanese. Did MyWikiBiz ever display that skill? The topics of interest to WikiGnosis and MyWikiBiz/Zibiki_Wym don't seem to overlap, nor do their styles, as far as I can see. If I'm missing something glaringly obvious, please tell me. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis

The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. The article was trimmed back to nothing by an editor who didn't think much of the article. To avoid edit warring, a couple others have committed to re-writing instead of just reverting.Chunky Rice 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]