Jump to content

User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Sean Carasov

Please could you restore this? It had references from a news article and a published book, proving its notability.--Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [1] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not about to post personal details, if that's what you mean (?). Besides, what does it matter who I am? --78.145.83.124 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What does it matter what your opinion is, then? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You have the right to ignore questions, but not so much to respond with rhetorical questions that run counter to the standard wiki-approach. (FWIW, I'm not the IP.) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, I have entirely the right to ignore anonymous opinions; they are of no value. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above statement merely restates the problem, namely that you assign no value to an opinion if 'anonymous'. As I have already pointed out, this is markedly inappropriate in an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, particularly from an account that is, to my surprise, apparently on ArbCom. Further, I think you should re-examine your somewhat contrived and artificial distinction between "anonymous" and "pseudonymous". --Relata refero (disp.) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've no problem with anonymous people editing articles; the identity of someone editing an article is irrelevant, because of Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, NPOV, and so on. The wiki-political opinions of anonymous IPs do not fall under that rubric, and there's as much reason to attend to random anonymous opinions as there is to attend to scribblings on bathroom walls. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no logic to that. On WP we are supposed to consider the quality of opinions and arguments rather than the history of the commenter, regardless of where on the project those comments are made, on article talk or in projectspace. Fortunately, one does not require a contribs history to parse simple English. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. If you want to take guidance from random unidentified and unidentifiable strangers, feel free. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I do. (For example, a good proportion of ArbCom is "unidentifiable".) And you shouldn't choose to ignore and insult them. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, hooray. Now I can die happy. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
And this would be the reason I strongly dislike our WP:SOCK policy's exemption for segregating edits to avoid harassment. I could probably block under the privatemusings ruling against segregating edits for policy debates, but seeing as he's posted to several arbs pages, and none of you have seen fit to block him, I'll just drop the matter for the time being. MBisanz talk 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of aspects of WP:SOCK I dislike; I firmly believe in one person, one account. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Does that also apply to all the parties in the current Cla68/FeloniousMonk/SlimVirgin case? Cla68 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
My position on the use of multiple accounts has always been far more restrictive than Wikipedia policy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone was wondering, I'm not a sock of anyone. I don't even have a user account, and don't see why I should be required to have one to have my opinion count. Now, would you kindly respond to my original message without making ad hominem dimissals? I am a member of the community just as much as is anyone with a user account. --89.240.112.198 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, you're not. Express your opinion in an RFA or an AFD and see how far you get. Or try to vote for ArbCom or trustees. Anonymous IPs have limited rights on Wikipedia, and as far as I'm concerned, one of the limits is that I personally don't pay attention to their non-mainspace contributions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So, as I asked, and without making ad hominem comments this time, would you kindly respond to my original message? I am just trying to make a civil good-faith request, and it is disappointing to see an arbitrator treating me this way in response. --89.240.112.198 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI: the next troll-y IP post to this page is gonna result in a rather broad, long, hard, rangeblock. Go log into your main account and edit some articles and we'll all be much happier. MBisanz talk 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but can you please assume good faith and be civil? Please don't threaten me with a block, I'm just some guy who has a question and I don't believe I've done anyhing wrong in asking politely for an answer to it. I have no main account, as I have already stated - run a checkuser on me if you don't believe me. Back to the subject at hand... --84.13.135.93 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've jumped 3 IPs on a broad range since this conversation started, so next post will be a hardblock of all of them. MBisanz talk 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh. I'm perfectly capable of ignoring him. If he's not annoying anyone else, don't worry about me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just trying to follow meatball:DefendEachOther . MBisanz talk 23:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, please stop threatening me. I don't see anything I've done that warrants a block; if you believe otherwise please explain what the problem is. Defendeachother is fine and dandy but incivility is not. Remember I am a person behind a computer, not just a string of numbers. I'm only here asking Jpgordon for a response (either positive or negative, or perhaps even mu, if "ignoring him" means that I won't be getting a response at all). --84.13.135.93 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia prides itself on its egalitarianism, meaning, that you can edit this page right now, whether you are User:Jimbo Wales or User:84.13.135.93. A natural extension of that is that administrators and others in positions of community trust should be willing to explain their decisions to User:Jimbo Wales or any other user who asks in good faith. I am not the above IP user, nor have I ever even been to the UK, but, to the extent that the letter "B" is less anonymous than someone who posts using his or her IP address, I would like to posit the IP's question on his or her behalf: what is your intention regarding the case? Arbcom made its bed by combining multiple cases together and now it needs to sleep in it. This issue isn't going to go away by ignoring it, as we learned by FM's extremely poor blocking decision this weekend and from the new Lar-SV case that is before the committee now. Could you (or any other arbiter reading this) give some insight as to what is going on behind the scenes? Do you think this is a joke? Are you carefully considering the evidence? Focused on other priorities? Waiting for football season? (My preference is that last one.) Any kind of comment would be better than nothing. --B (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

JpGordon, Would you please explain your revert of my edit? My edit merely 

  1) added party affiliation of government officials quoted.
  2) elaborated on the very vague "certain types of speech".

I've never posted here before. I don't expect Wikipedia to be balanced - it is to be ruled and controlled by those who have the vastest amounts of time to squander. So it is foolish for someone to expect it to be fair. Nevertheless, it would be nice if those who edit the WP page entitled "Fairness Doctrine" at least made the attempt.

G'day jp

I saw the current en mailing list thread about checkuser, and I think my comment will probably have been posted by now too, but there's a fair bit of heat in that discussion, and in retrospect it was probably not the most useful approach of mine to engage there.

per your comments there, could you possibly forward to me all non-confidential information about checks run on User:Petesmiles, User:Purples, and User:Privatemusings - in the UK this would cost thirty quid, and I appreciate it might take a short while - so if there's a reciprocal wiki task you'd like me to fulfill please do let me know! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

July arb stuff

I'd like to remind you that 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting (for ages) on the discretionary sanctions wording - they can be closed once voted on, sometime soon hopefully. Kirill has already posted the 3.1 version for voting on the requests page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note in case you missed it. You've done one vote arb-clarification done (Martinphi-SA and Pseudoscience), but one more to go (Diguwaren) needing your vote here. Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

holocaust denial

Why did you undo my edits? I thought they improved the objectivity of this section. My aims are not anti-semitic, but rather to improve the integrity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circuitcheckr (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added an explanation to the talk page. --[User:Circuitcheckr|Circuitcheckr]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circuitcheckr (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian guards at Nazi extermination camps

Greetings, Jp! After your response to the current query on this topic, I picked up the thread after Auschwitz and followed the trail to the Trawniki program for guards, that at one point "conscripted ... primarily young Ukrainian [civilians]." I don't know whether this will suit the OP's purpose, but you might find it informative. I, for one, appreciate your input. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your assistance. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

--203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ZZB

Well SORRY ! I was just asking. I wasn't trying to "reveal" him. SORRY! I'm not perfect. - Dominic Edward Aragon (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Weather Websites

First off Mr. Gordon I want to apologize if I caused you any stress over my placing links in areas on the WIKI that you have deemed inappropriate. I have since relocated the link the Southwestern Weather Network to the Personal weather station WIKI and have placed it under the section: Places where data collected by a personal weather station may be submitted electronically and thence shared with others worldwide via the internet: Which is exactly what our network does.

I sincerely hope that this ends this matter once and for all.

Regards Ljbl (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not any stress. You just don't get to insert links to your own website, any more than anyone else does. I've got my own weather site too; it's not as good as yours, by any means, but I don't put in Wikipedia either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

Has not had a substantive edit since 04:10, 14 July 2008. - brenneman 06:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RD boldness

You did the right thing but prepare thyself for the wrath of the inclusionists.  ;-) -hydnjo talk 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Would it not have been preferable to move the horescrap thread to the RD talk page where someone might take the time to explain to Endless Dan why his comment was unacceptable? Just a thought, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Dan knows exactly what's goin' on. Sorry for intruding on your talk but this is important. hydnjo talk 22:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Then he's a troll and all further comments should be deleted. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
...before someone responds. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AndreaTrue77

Blocked user is wondering why they were blocked. I assume it has something to do with a CU, so I figured I'd ask you to tell them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom injuctions

If I'd like a member of ArbCom to take a look at some diffs and possibly enforce an injunction, does that need to be filed at WP:AE? Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Temporary_injunction, Giano II can only be blocked by an ArbCom member, so I'd like somebody to take a look at diff 1 where Giano calls Chillum a "useless twit" and diff 2 where Giano tells MZMcBride to "stop stirring and trolling and get lost". As I understand it, the civility ruling under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC isn't officially suspended until the current case passes (though that may just be a technicality). Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei and Nick Dowling

I did not understand that it was bad form to modify my statement, but the gravamen remains the same; albeit with less words. --Tenmei (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Suite Life

Do you think i can revert it now --Cory Malik (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

My IP Address needs to be unblocked for the computer i was block on. Can u do it. (answer on talk page) --Cory Malik (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerk?

How shall I put this? Perhaps in simple terms is best.

1) Discussion pages are not for asking general questions about the content of the article. As an admin you know this, and I have no need to tell you this. As an admin,I shouldn't be telling you this. 2) I admit that my action was a bit unfair to the new user. New users are often hot-headed and demand answers, believing it to be their right. Of course no is entitled to answers, least of all at inappropriate discussion pages. You have satisfied this persons pride. 3) It is our duty as experienced users, and yours especially not to allow bad habits to emerge among new users. You have effectively endorsed the new user calling me a jerk. I won't argue whether I am a jerk or not. But in the future, this user will have to find out that this is not the way to ask, nor respond if their post gets removed. If your aim was to help the user, you have failed by encouraging them in finding information in the wrong way. 4) I do not believe I gave a wrong answer. My answer was an agnostic one; I said that Jesus was a Jew. Because of point 1), that discussion pages are not for asking general questions, then we have no duty to answer them. I don't think that constitutes being a Jerk, when one simply does their duty in wikipedia by removing irrelevant material. But then again your the admin, you should know. 5) The Jesus talk page is regularly flooded with trolling and vandalism more than the Nile gets flooded with Snail parasites. Considering this in mind, you can excuse me if I were to wrongly identify inappropriate commenting as trolling, and "bite the newcomber". I am well aware of this rule, since I was never treated according to them when I first came to wikipedia. Why someone should care that Jesus underwent Bar mitzva is beyond me, and beyond wikipedia discussion pages as well.

The fact that I am telling you this, an admin of greater experience and higher wiki-standing than me - you may take with some offense in the same manner that I take with embarrassment. I will continue to uphold wikipedia rules and delete irrelevant material on discussion pages, regardless of rude comments, or your endorsing of them.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • "Why someone should care that Jesus underwent Bar mitzva is beyond me, and beyond wikipedia discussion pages as well." Just because you can't comprehend the reason for a perfectly good question doesn't mean it's not a good question. In fact, it's a real good question. Since Jesus was Jewish, and since for modern Jewish people, a Bar Mitzvah is an important event; why the lack of mention of it? Ah, but it's actually a medieval ritual, that's why there's no mention. Your answer was wrong, and your expression of it was newbie biting. That's all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong answer? I said my answer was not trying to answer his question, so much as a response accompanying a removal of inappropriate material. It was a very good question in fact, but that doesn't its appropriate for wikipedia. Tourskin (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Your understanding of appropriateness is incorrect. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? Tell me I'm wrong if discussion pages are for improvement of the article only and not content? Note that I now realize that the user has given a second posting stating that they were wondering why it wasn't in the article. But I doubt that was his intention, or your reading of it. Tourskin (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there you go. I assumed good faith; you decided not to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The question was displayed in a truncated form with its purpose (relating to the article) difficult to decipher - I applaud your ability at doing so. Tourskin (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Asking a basic biographical question is inherently relevant to the content of a biographical article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That was not what I said; I know that it is relevant to the content. You and I know that content alone does not merit discussion, but a discussion of the article's improvement.Tourskin (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?

The article OSU School of Medicine should be renamed to The Ohio State University School of Medicine. OSU is an acronym for Oklahoma State University and a few others, but Ohio State is rarely identified with OSU. But most importantly, the school of medicine calls itself by the full formal title that I would like to use. I can't make the move, because the redirect already exists. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Fragments of Jade

I am sick and tired of that punk kid. That's the 3rd time they have referred to me as a "pervert" and I'm ready to sue their little ass more than cheesed. I don't want to see any record of that kid saying that on Wikipedia anymore. I'm so furious right now that I am going to politely ask you to forward this to where it needs to go, even though I know that I already know where to send it. Libel/slander Using that type of attack and use of words are serious issues and this kid has gone too far. I appreciate your assistance in advance BMW(drive) 22:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've been called a "psycho" and a "stalker"... She's so sweet. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are jpgordon, but if you are staff here, I would firmly advise you to look more into matters before handing out warnings. Users 88 and Bwilkins have been harassing me for well over a month now, and it is I who am sick and tired. I was off of Wiki for a long period of time after a lengthy incident where the two of them were both extremely rude and incorrigible. It's clear from their actions, 88 in particular, that they are constantly watching my contributions. Any edit I make, one of them will pop up to revert it or contest it, seemingly having no knowledge of the article's subject. I was involved in a dispute with another user, one of them appeared on my talk page to harass me over it when it was none of the business, while the other went to the page of the editor I was in a dispute with to badmouth me, before coming to my talk page and spouting off a bunch of offensive stuff, which is when I finally got fed up and called him a well-deserved name. On top of that all, 88 attempted to find out where I live and post my name and address on wiki. She thankfully mistook someone else for me, but she chased that person all over the internet and hunted down and posted a bunch of their personal info. Are you gonna tell me that is not seriously creepy and very off-putting? These two both need to grow up and stop their harassment. Look at my history-I'm never the one who comes to them first. One of them comes to me and starts something.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Other people's misbehavior doesn't justify your own. If you have complaints, air them in the appropriate forum; you know about WP:AN/I, for example. But you don't get to edit war, and you don't get to insult people, regardless. We have proper ways to deal with this sorta stuff. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The "proper ways" don't work, or else you never would have warned me and would have instead of warned them.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

88 attempted to find out where I live and post my name and address on wiki.
I was simply looking for evidence of your sock puppetry. And I found it quite easily, too.
She thankfully mistook someone else for me
I don't think so.
(and again, I'm a man, Jade...)
Look at my history-I'm never the one who comes to them first.
You accused me of racism, Jade. Several times. For no reason. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm awaiting the withdrawal of the legal threat. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I never made a legal threat, though I'd certainly have a case. And yes, 88, you made a mistake. The poor person you've been stalking all over the internet is not me. And I called you a "racist" because you made more than a few insulting comments about Americans.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you about legal threats, I was talking to 88. Fragments, do not call people by pejorative terms. No personal attacks. Period. Doesn't matter what you think your excuse is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I called you a "racist" because you made more than a few insulting comments about Americans.
Post proof (link) or retract. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See? You're completely one-sided! So, both her and Bwilkins are allowed to go wherever they want on Wiki, insulting me left and right to whomever they want, but you're only going to say something to me? I want their harassment of me dealt with. Until then, I will treat them as they treat me.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you do something to the people who started it? I shouldn't have to just sit around and let them badmouth and stalk me all over wiki.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For the Record

Just for the record, "pervert" is a serious adjective. I have - in all my attempts to assist FoJ - been patient and polite, and tried to truly help this editor become a better editor. You cannot, however, refer to someone as a "pervert" and not expect repercussions. An official complaint on this behaviour has been made, and will go to AN/I if needed. Until they referred to me as a "pervert" today, I do not believe that I have never insulted FoJ .. and happily, because everything on Wikipedia is retained ad infinitum, I have all the proof I need of that ... blanking a page does not remove the original text from the logs. Sorry that you have become the go-to person Jpgordon ... but I appreciate that you came forward when they referred to me as a "pervert" this evening. BMW(drive) 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't even go there. Patient? Polite? You've been nothing but rude from the start! You both need to grow up and quit harassing me!Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Patient? Polite? You've been nothing but rude from the start!
That's simply not true, as I've already explained there. You've got some nerve, really. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're even worse than he is, and you've now admitted to your heinous crimes. Stalking people online is illegal, you know, and it's even worse if you're a guy.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

your heinous crimes
Huh.
Stalking people online is illegal, you know
I was looking for evidence of sock puppetry. Using Google. Gasp.
and it's even worse if you're a guy.
Right... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. You both need to stop. You two are the ones coming after me, not the other way around. We have different interests and play different games, so our paths should not have crossed again after the Silent Hill situation ended. But they did, because neither of you could just leave me alone. You followed me to Threads of Fate, Wild ARMs, Mr. T's talk page, and so many other places. You're the one who keeps instigating fights.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits and dislike your attitude (bad faith, lies, baseless accusations). That's all there is to it. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be your attitude. And you're stalking me, plain and simple. You'll disgree with anything to try and get at me. It's immature and causes useless arguments. You need to stop.Fragments of Jade (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll disgree with anything to try and get at me.
That's not true. But considering the problems you've caused me and others with your bad faith and your lies (sorry, but again, the sock puppetry was confirmed... it is called a "lie"), it's true that I do check your edits, just like I keep an eye on 96.247.32.90 (a long-time vandal), for example... "Just in case". But I wouldn't disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You would and do-you're a stalker and need to get some help. You're not staff here, and you've no right to keep an eye on anyone. And there was never any sockpuppets, other than yours.Fragments of Jade (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You would
Fine. Be wrong.
You're not staff here, and you've no right to keep an eye on anyone.
I don't believe there's any rule against that?
And there was never any sockpuppets
That's a lie...
other than yours.
... and that's a baseless accusation. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Y'know, I'd never noticed any of this until I looked at an unblock request from Fragments of Jade. Looking at the history, my first thought is "you people are making all this noise over articles about video games. This is totally lame." Get off my talk page with this crap. If either of you have problems with the other, take it through channels; if that doesn't work, drop it and stay away from each other. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of sexual harrasment on my talk page

I'm unsure what basis your using to accuse me of sexual harrasment. My comment in the AfD, while of poor choice, in poor taste, and poorly worded, in no way can be construed as sexual harrasment. Sexual harrasment requires both intent, and persistent behaviour. My comment was no more sexual harrasment than your was a personal attack. However, I am deeply concerned that such an accusation and finding appears in my block log. Can you expand on your views. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Take a look at sexual harassment: "The harasser may be completely unaware that his or her behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment or may be completely unaware that his or her actions could be unlawful." Further, what makes you think it's not possible to sexually harass someone once? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Yep. I protected it for 48 hours because I assumed that you would unprotect it yourself before then, and I didn't want to do it for like 6 hours and have the vandal just wait it out. J.delanoygabsadds 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Grawp

See Wikipedia:Changing_username#Kemetstuff_.E2.86.92_Charry17. You blocked Charry17 as Grawp, so I declined this request. Is Kemetstuff Grawp too? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I knew something was up as there were too many of these right now, about 6 or so. I'll ask the requestors what they want to do. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grawp attack on CHU. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin mentorship

[2]. Avruch T 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will never forgive FT2 for what he did to me. And now that there's a concerted effort to remove some of the pseudoscience around here, especially FT2's favorite crap, I'm going to do everything to help. Sorry if that offends you Avruch. But I wasn't treated fairly, and now I get to do something above board and completely within the rules of Wikipedia to make some changes for the better. Again, sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but that posting was nothing but facts and an offer of support. And a warning that FT2 has a pattern of engaging in secret hearings to damage those who don't support his POV. Completely fair on my part. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand you have a reason to be upset, and your dismay has been validated by practically the entire community and the arbitration committee. What is wrong and inappropriate is discussing methods for destroying content written by FT2 because of your dismay, and its wrong to turn your dismay into a personal vendetta. It also conflicts with the tenor of your comments not that long ago, which is disappointing because I (and a lot of people) were impressed by them. Avruch T 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not sure that you're aware of the entire history of Peter Damian, and in particular his pursuit of FT2. Take a look at the current AN thread for some background. Avruch T 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Except if you read my contributions, you'd know I despise pseudoscientific cruft, without any reservations. I have basically done nothing to FT2, short of one passive aggressive statement, over the past month and a half since he tried to screw me. Now that I get to assist in ridding this encyclopedia of his favorite pseudoscientific cruft, well I just consider that a bonus. Yes, I think FT2 should have been run off this project. Yes, I hope this helps in some small way. Note his attempts to save his pet crap with suspect logic and poor sourcing. And yes, I know Peter Damian's background, his regular contributions to WR etc. I don't know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and this sort of rhetoric and personalization is not acceptable here. Please desist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll delete my comments there. Let me growl internally. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I heard a lot of growling so I came to peek - Avruch has summed it up. Although I was initially against the mentorship proposal, excepting this incident, I was really impressed at the positive change (and progress made). Even if there's a lot of internal growling, keep it up - mentor & mentee! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I growled publicly, which I shouldn't have done. Jpg took me back to the woodshed and gave me a right fine whippin'.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I only just noticed this discussion, and I am a trifle upset by the personalised references to me. Certainly Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks, nor for vendettas, nor for settling personal scores, nor for any kind of personalisation of issues. But by the same token we should not be treating valid, in-principle objections as personal issues. The community should be dealing with them in an open and honest way. I have a abiding concern about the proliferation of pseudo-science (and pseudo-academese) in Wikipedia. I have been fighting a (generally losing) battle with it ever since I joined in 2003. And I would have a serious concern if (note the 'if') the Wikipedia administration were systematically protecting those who are promoting pseudoscience on the project (or punishing those who are trying to fight it). I definitely have a concern that merely raising this issue, i.e. as an in-principle concern, is being treated as a personal attack, or a vendetta or whatever. Guy, with the agreement of FT2 has proposed an open discussion about the issues connected with the NLP articles. We should not be afraid of engaging in this. Peter Damian (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over the plural of 'bureau'

Given your revert of my correction of the incorrect plural 'bureaus' to the correct 'bureaux' (and your subsequent message, albeit meaningless) on the edit summary, do you not think that, given this is supposed to be an article on one of the most respected American newspapers, the correct use of French plurals would be appropriate. Especially seeming as the New York Times' House style is 'bureaux'.

Your edit profile comment was: ""bureaux"? Not in English, at least not in American English, and this is an article about an American subject.'. This made me feel horribly embarrassed for you: do you not know how to pluralize (semi) non-naturalised foreign words? I've changed it back to the correct version, but I'm sure you'll change it back. Never mind. I was going to give you some appropriate links, but actually just consult any dictionary! By the way, I notice from the 'Help: reverting' page on Wikipedia the following:

Don'ts Don't let superfluous or badly written material stand in order to avoid slighting its original author. Though your intentions may be good, doing so shirks your duty to the reader.

Clearly, you have replaced something correct with something incorrect, or 'badly written material', hence my revert.

Best wishes,


Ethanoylchloride (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:

isnt obama a Mulatto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BowlerGuy426 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

Sorry that it took so long for me to respond to your email! Please check your inbox...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My fan

[3] and [4] linking me to some edit on a Hitler family edit by an anon IP is a little over the top. I'm in Scotland on holiday at the moment, but will return to "the South" soon.(Almost said when , but that would allow this now alarming person to more easily find me).[5]. If he trots this nasty dog and pony show out of his sand box, can he be dealt with promptly? Any advise? Feel free to email me or answer here or my talk page. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, basically, he needs to put up or shut up -- which he did by blanking the page. You pretty much geo-located yourself when you accidentally edited when logged off, but it's certainly nothing a reasonable person would suggest was sockpuppetry. Why he thinks you edited Geli Raubal is beyond me -- you've no history of editing Nazi-related things that I could find; and why those edits would be considered in any way questionable is also beyond me. Of course, you know as well as I do that your username is provocative, but it's been brought before the community before and found acceptable; Viriditas has the right to bring it up again, however, and community opinion does change over time - I can't predict what the outcome would be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Doc Pomus issues

Information I have added within the past twenty-four hours to a Wiki bio of my father-in-law, with whom I was well acquainted for over 25 years, has been repeatedly altered or deleted at WIKI, based entirely on personal whim and bias. While I understand that maintaining Wiki must be very difficult and a thankless undertaking, I do not believe it appropriate that a sole administrator should be permitted to make changes without being checked by at least one or two other administrators knowledgeable in the applicable field(s) being address. Someone who may not possess adequate knowledge to address and edit the biography of a legendary songwriter Doc Pomus.

Also, I respectfully take issue with the notion of verification as being more important than truth. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to repeat bad history? The verification requirement seems avoids the catch-22 factor. How does the person who knows from whom Spiro Agnew received construction kick backs get that fact, that truth into Wikipedia. It has to appear in the New York Times first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaches5 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, you're free to disagree with the verifiability requirements, but they're a basic tenet of Wikipedia's ethos, and it's not going to be changed. Yes, it has to appear in the NYTimes first (or some reliable source); your personal memory is not a verifiable source. As far as Doc Pomus is concerned, the "first caucasian" language is peculiar, but if you can find a reliable source describing in that fashion (rather than just you pointing it out) it will have a lot better chance of getting it to stick in the article. On another note, I dislike and do not appreciate your suggesting I'm in some way biased; Doc Pomus is a huge hero of mine, as he should be of any musician, and I can't imagine what possible bias you think I'm showing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Previously, there was at least an implication that you dismissed information pertaining to Doc Pomus as the "first caucasian" given the Pioneer Award by the Rhythm & Blues Foundation as unimportant, because, according to you, it was only the second time the award was handed out. When the truth that the award actually had been handed out to seventeen 'pioneers' was brought to your attention, you claimed (above) that "'the first caucasian' language is peculiar" and insisted on keeping the fact that Doc even received the Pioneer Award out of his bio. Referencing the fact that Doc is white (do I need some DNA proof of that or a quotable remark from a publication that takes itself and not always the truth way too seriously?) and was the recipient of the R&B Foundation's highest honor is intended to indicate his significance in the history of a music that has its roots in overwhelmingly 'non-caucasian' milieux. BTW, what and where is the Blues Hall of Fame mentioned in the bio? What is the verification for that? Also, has anyone verified that the self-promoted song listed in the article was written for the reason mentioned?

I understand the difficulties of policing; but, you must allow that alone by definition your judgement is subjective and that you are using your judgement alone to label my remarks subjective. Isn't that odd? I knew the man and you did not. I also know many of the sources of the references, incidentally. If everything must be verified by The New York Times first, then, according to a Wikipedia, Watergate may not have happened really (after all it hadn't happened until the overly late reportage in the NY Times); Roosevelt did not have polio; and Iraq had atomic weapons (referred to in the NYT as WMD!!!). Anyway, this is not a hill I wish to die for, so edit away. What Wikipedia perhaps could have been is best left to promote the achievements of those with press agents abundant (and that includes songwriting teams, music producers and record company owners) and to never, never allow for what goes unprinted but really happened and continues to happen in al fields. Thank you and good luck. - Peaches5

  • Feel free to discuss your position regarding reliable sources and verifiability on the appropriate policy page -- in this case, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. There's no point in making your points here. The rest of your statement remains weird. Note that I didn't remove your re-insertion that information into the article, even though I still think "first caucasian recipient in 191 of the Rhythm & Blues Foundation's Pioneer Award" has at least a couple of problems. Now, I still want your explantion as to in what way I'm biased; it's a nasty insult, and I won't discuss anything else with you until that's either retracted or explained. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you may well be a good guy working at a labor of love, and you are not doubt very intelligence. However, regarding the bias issue, it is really one of those if-you-don't-know-then-I-can't-tell-you-situations. As for my "weird" statement, a great man once told me, "you can't hip a square and never try." & bob's your uncle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaches5 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaches5 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Voice of Cheese

Thanks for your support and help with my wiki page. --Richard Cheese lounge@richardcheese.com let me know if you want a pair of free tickets to our show at hard rock hotel this friday or sunday. RC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.69.42 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

For, info, I've nominated at good articles, kind regards Tom (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

just out of curiosity...

...is there any reason u blocked me or do u just like blocking innocent people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sub619 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block you; I just didn't unblock you. Every vandal claims to have little brothers actually responsible for the damage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

and because most vandals do it means im doing it?  Sub!  18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Probability is quite high, yes. But since you're obviously continuing to edit, it should be clear we don't believe the probability sufficiently high, at this moment, in your particular case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting... Sub!  18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian names in musical instrument template

My reasoning is that the Italian names for instruments -- especially those used in orchestras -- is important enough to be highlighted at the top of the template because traditionally, musical scores are labeled by the name of the instrument in Italian only, regardless of the origin of the piece or the location of the publisher. These days it's not exclusive any more, but it's still very likely if someone picks up a sheet of music, he or she will have to know the Italian name in order to know which instrument it's written for. Acsenray (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate

Please see the above page. Sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report. User:Ausonia is doing just that. Please help if you can. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jpgodon. I am just here to let you know that I responded on that page. ~ Troy (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I forgot about the section editing ...well, responded over there. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping out in dealing with the issue. I will fill out a full report on RFCU tommorow (I'll have to go to sleep soon). I greatly appreciate the help, and if you ever need something in return, don't hesitate to ask me. Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One last quick note for tonight: it seems that I keep finding addresses that seem to change all of the time (just now, I found 201.34.147.78's global contribs, who removed some information). It won't be easy for me to undo all of these ridiculous POV edits, but I will try my best. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, ...I should tell you this sooner rather than later... itwiki vandalism. I have looked at my earlier report and I'm barely halfway through whilst finding so many cross-wiki edits ...this guy is uber desperate. Well, anyway, I will see what I can do tommorow. ~ Troy (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to open a new section at m:Vandalism reports#Current cross wiki vandalism to get some more assistance. If you are an admin, you may join #wikimedia-admin to work with other administrators on several wikis to combat this vandal. If you're not an admin, you may get help in #wikimedia-stewards as well. If you need something else, you can email me or use my talk page at meta.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 10:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Mike.lifeguard. I have gone cross-wiki reporting before, so after I fill out an RFCU, that's the first thing I plan on doing. I'll also keep Jpgordon's advice, and hopefully I will be able to set my mind on something else eventually. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Deezer

Hey, I saw you declined the second unblock request - no issue there, I would have, also. However, as the blocking admin, I am thinking of unblocking and giving them a second chance. Any vehement opposition to that? Tan ǀ 39 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all probably moot; we either won't see this user again or he'll come back, post one spam link, and I'll reblock. I have a reputation as a bit of a hard-ass; so maybe I'm trying to prove a point that I can be forgiving ;-) Thanks for your input - I'll let you know if anything interesting happens. Tan ǀ 39 17:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I have followed your advice, but nobody seems to be paying attention.[6] Jehochman Talk 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Block log borking

Hey Josh, I stumbled across this odd block log when declining a block [7]. It seems if the block button is clicked multiple times when we are blocking this happens. It isn't an issue in this case, since this is a throwaway sock, but I imagine if this happened to a long-term user, they wouldn't be happy. Maybe worth a bugzilla or something. MBisanz talk 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have happened for Wikidemo as well, who wasn't actually effected since he had recently did a username change. From what I can tell, Wikidemo is the user who made the sockpuppet report, not one of the socks. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There should probably be another block action to put a note in the log. This could cause a lot of confusion, especially since he was recently renamed. I was sure confused when I noticed the block action on my watchlist. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is Wikidemo a known good user? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think they appear to be a good user. They were renamed User:Wikidemon a short while ago.[8] Perhaps a vandal/troll grabbed the old username somehow? If not, you should be looking at the new account if there has been socking. Jehochman Talk 03:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I plumb forgot about that possibility. Yup. You're right. Bugzilla filed for the repeated blocking problem. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that this won't happen with the regular admin block tools. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo is indeed a good user. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The original one, that is. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Figured that out pretty quickly -- was just asking to make sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sean Smith

I'm Paul Giomann, and I'm on the same computer as Sean Smith right now, because I'm a good friend, and would to like to ask on behalf of Sean Smith if you could take back the blocking you inflicted on Sean's profile just because his name is "Sean Goes Pop!" The name would be promotional only if it said, "Listen to Sean Goes Pop!" or "Check Out Sean Goes Pop!" Theres no rules aganst harmless promoting of one's music on their talk page, but Sean Goes Pop! as a name is not promotional. This was his nickname far before he chose to use it as a musical alias. If you could please unblock Sean Goes Pop!, we would be greatful. also, I have put up MANY new relible sources for the actual Sean Goes Pop! page, and if you STILL find them not up to snuff, then Sean and I are perfectly fine with you or the community to take down the Sean Goes Pop! wikipedia page. There is nothing wrong with that. We are ok if you do that. But there is no reason to block "Sean Goes Pop!" from everything just because his FANS asked him and me to create a wikipedia page. We believe that there should be one, but if you dont believe so, then that is fine with us. But blocking Sean is going too far. Its somewhat rude. PaulGIOMann (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

Why are you refusing to unblock Mooretwin. He was defending concensus on naming convention. By blocking him you are overturning a concensus which has existed for several years and which is under discussion here. The Thunderer (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with it. If the editor was defending concensus and was being tag teamed he was not the one edit warring. As a result of this the tag team were able to push their POV edit through and it's now protected. I don't feel that's right, certainly not when discussion is going on at the ROI talk page. You should familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines on Irish matters. It's not all as clear cut and simple as you might think.The Thunderer (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So find some other admin to decide these reversions were covered by one of the exceptions to 3RR. I disagree, but I'm just one of 1500 or so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree and aren't familiar with the Irish Question may I ask why you decided to refuse the editor's request for unblocking? Surely it was incumbent upon you to know these things before becoming involved? Have you checked the talk page at ROI to confirm what I've said even? The Thunderer (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Discuss this with the orignal blocking admin, not me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm discussing it with you because you turned down the unblocking request but you've now appeared to say you've done so without checking the facts or being aux fait with the discussion on ROI? It's looking like you've given the man a fair trial and a fair hanging. The Thunderer (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Hanging"? It's a 48-hour 3RR block. Get a sense of proportion; all it takes to get a 3RR block revoked is to say "I won't edit the article again and will instead work it out on the talk page as is proper." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my sense of proportion but that isn't the issue. The issue is the man was blocked for defending naming convention which was agreed by concensus and which was and is under discussion. Said discussion has not changed the concensus to allow editors to use "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin reverted such edits with the request to both other editors, as seen on the history page, to discuss the issue on the article talk page. He was tag teamed into defending Wikpedia policy and concensus and he got blocked for it. That is obviously very unjust. I'm not telling you how to apply your admin skills but I'm telling you what it looks like to me. I have no links to Mooretwin, I don't know who he/she is or what his/her politics are. I'm just sticking up for someone who seems to have been mistakenly admonished. I hope you would do the same? The Thunderer (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In an effort to get this resolved I draw your own attention to 3RR - Exceptions where is clearly states that Reverting in order to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote. This situation clearly does fit in with this as the naming concensus on Republic of Ireland is agreed and long standing. I ask you again, on the basis of this, to unblock User:Mooretwin as it was community concensus and not page consensus he was defending. The Thunderer (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He can feel free to post another unblock request, and see if another admin agrees with your evaluation of the situation. I don't. (And Gdansk is a specific exception; it's not to be generalized to all geographic nomenclature disputes.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility paroles

I'll not be supporting civility "paroles" any more, as I believe they do more harm than good. Any thoughts on a possible motion to vacate all existing "civility parole" remedies? --Random832 (contribs) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure it would get rejected; a majority of arbitrators will say that it's the only tool we have short of outright banning to impress upon chronically uncivil "valued contributors" that their behavior is unsustainable. I'm really not sure what the best solution here is, but there aren't any real good ones I can think of. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

200.215.40.3's socks

Hello Jpgordon. I'd assume that you are quite busy now (we really don't have enough checkusers to cover wikimedia—2 million articles in enwiki alone). I have filed a check user request on this page a few days ago. As the user must have been Wikistalking me for the whole time, it looks as though he/she got infuriated by the recent reverts I made and the reports I have filed. This came in the form of User:Troy is a parasite, who concerned me a little when he/she made a personal attack on my talk page the other day. I have updated the checkuser request this morning, but I'm unsure about how I should avoid sock accounts like that. I would like another checkuser to look at it, though, because it seems to be more fair if this whole issue confirmed by more than one guy (not to say that I don't trust you; good work). However, if you can help or suggest anything at all, that would great. Thanks! ~ Troy (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

Are you still mentoring Orangemarlin? I did ask him if he had a mentor, his response was to blank my question with the edit summary "go away". DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you suggest to him that accusing editors of wishing to illegally extract controlled drugs is not conducive to a constructive atmosphere? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to publicly request how to extract controlled substances in contravention with state and federal law. And my response was "go away" because not only did I make that comment but a number of other editors. Since we are not police, then we have to make the best judgement possible. And your request could be answered by taking an Organic chemistry class, if you're insisting on telling the world how to extract purified hydrocodone. But again, several other editors agreed. So, "go away" was the best response. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not ask how to extract hydrocodone from anything, i am sorry that you feel the need to lie about this. I asked what its solvents were. I appreciate that taking an organic chemistry class would probably answer my questions, but 1) I cannot afford to do so at the moment, and 2) I was under the impression that this was an encyclopædia. "Take a class" could (by your reasoning) be used to replace the entire text of every article on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I looked at this situation as it happened, and I agreed with Orangemarlin's and MastCell's perception of what was going on. DuncanHill, now would be an excellent time to stop troublemaking. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? So Orangemarlin can lie and defame editors, and deliberately disrupt the ref desk. OK, just so it's clear. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This does not need to be on my talk page, thank you all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tennesseetrumpet

Mind taking a look at this unblock request? The reason is completely useless, but the block reason I'm also confused about. I don't see anything to indicate that he's taken part in any trolling here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, his deleted articles make it clear that he was going to be doing exactly what he's done everywhere else. Me, I prefer to cut such nonsense off at the bud; nothing about his history in the net at large indicates he could ever be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User 216.235.145.178

I was hoping that, as the most (relatively) recent administrator to deal with this user, you could look into user 216.235.145.178 and see whether or not another block should be applied. Previously, a four month block was imposed in November 2007 due to several instances of spamming pages with external links to a 'Ballard Designs' business. But as soon as that block was removed in March 2008, the user began to spam a number of pages, and even contributed links to the page Ballard Designs that was created by another user.

Was it the user's attempt to make the subject more legitimate? Likely. But it stinks of advertising.

I only came across the user's violations because of a previous incident of linkspam from August 2007 that I removed just today. Granted, there aren't as many incidences of linkspam as before the Nov 07 block. However, looking at his/her most recent edits - March 2008 to August 2008 - I am inclined to believe that he/she is going slow and steady in his/her linking, as to avoid arousing suspicion. With this user's edits and Atlrshr's creation of the Ballard Designs page, I suspect this is his/her/their attempt to not only legitimize, but defend the idea that his/her links/edits aren't incidences of (business) spam, as was put forth in the previous argument over the Nov 07 block.

That said, would it also be possible to see if there is a relation between user 216.235.145.178 and user Atlrshr? I find it highly suspicious that Atlrshr creates a page and edits on a topic that was previously a point of contention.

I edit a lot but by no means am I experienced in this sort of thing. Any help that you can manage will be appreciated. Please and thank you. Ultatri (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Good find. Bring things like this up on WP:AN/I -- the community has short patience for advertisers such as this. It's pure business spam. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help! Even though Wikipedia has such a large community of likeminded people who want to forever improve it, I'm still impressed by how fast some things get done! That said, let's hope that this is the last that anyone sees of this user. One less user to deal with means more time to spend tackling other folks who edit contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Ultatri (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember

... this guy? I've been ignoring him for a while, but he's resumed his harassment and hate-mail campaigns. I'll open a formal CU if needed, but seeing as Jimbo deleted the last one along with the LTA pages, and you were the one to handle the BW case, I'd rather just ask you first. I just blocked all the sockpuppets of his I know about, and shut down the library range, but he also edits from somewhere late at night, and there's probably a whole battalion of unblocked socks out there. E-mail me if you like. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and do the formal request. Deletions of this sort are always done with the assumption that the person involved is not involving themselves with Wikipedia anymore, and it's considered a courtesy; if the person does not honor that courtesy by staying away, well, so much for the assumption. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal (talk · contribs) sockpuppets

208.101.118.33 (talk · contribs) and Soyuz113 (talk · contribs). The IP address is from Ontario Canada, and is back putting in POV edits to Chiropractic. Soyuz is maybe a bit less certain. The last time I placed an RfCU, I got slapped about the head by FT2, so I thought that I'll do this publicly and appropriately. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CorticoSpinal -- Fyslee / talk 06:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision -Alastair Haines

All items pass now - I think it's ready for a motion to close? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Done

User:Spoilydoily

Just wondering; how did you link him and Harryhighams? Ironholds 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to be sure you're aware of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Utah Wikipedia Meetup

Interested in attending a Utah Wikipedia Meetup?

If you are interested in a Utah meetup, please visit Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Utah and voice your interest.
Not in the Utah area? Check out other meetups around the world!

--Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC) via AWB

User talk:Godheval

The user removed your decline reason in an attempt to add to his unblock request. It may require a further review. Note that I initially supported the indefinite block as the user made it quite clear he had no interest in following Wikipedia practices, both on my talk page and elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Winning finding

Hi, just wanted to drop you a note that I answered your question about WP:WINNER over here. rootology (C)(T) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm. Not sure I agree with your analysis, but I'll give it some thought. I do think the "winning" aspect is a subset of the "battlefield" aspect (who goes to a battle other than to try to win?), in the same way "no personal attacks" is a subset of the general notion of civility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nine?

Ok, I'm stymied. Can you tell me who's #9? (Presuming the 8 who've voted are the rest of the 9.) - jc37 08:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on close in C68-SV-FM

Hi, was your request to hold off on closing to make time for the two principles you just added? Thanks, Jd2718 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Insinuations

"behaving politely toward fellow editors on Wikipedia, and then trashing them on Wikipedia Review, does not constitute what any reasonable person would consider civil behavior." - If you've got something to say to someone, then say it. --Random832 (contribs) 13:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that he has. Random, we seem to get along pretty well. I appreciate Jpgordon's directness, and hope that you will take this in stride. What ever has happened is done, and if we all treat other editors with respect going forward, here and elsewhere on the Internet, that will be good for Wikipedia. Treating with respect does not mean agreeing with or withholding criticism. It simply means avoiding actions or comments that would bring the project into disrepute. Jehochman Talk 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What I'm asking for is for him to say exactly who he is accusing of this instead of making such vague insinuations. It's _NOT_ "direct" when he implies that 'someone' is doing something bad without actually saying what/who he means. --Random832 (contribs) 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a general caution. I have seen multiple incidents where editors have gone to outside sites to trash other editors. This is a pattern. Rather than identify individual incidents (picking on people), why not identify the problematic pattern? Our editors are smart enough to see if their behavior fits the pattern, and then to stop doing that. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
I present this barnstar to you for working to successfully close Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. NE2 06:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Echo NE2. Thank you guys for your efforts. Everyme 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all. Is there a Dentists' Barnstar, for things as pleasant as getting teeth pulled? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
How about something like this? (Sample, not for retail sale.) Jehochman Talk 15:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Barnstar
I, Jehochman, award Jpgordon the Arbitration Barnstar for their participation in the celebrated case of C68-FM-SV. . Jehochman Talk 15:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I'm the mostly bald one in the middle! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(More of the time I feel like one emboilees.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Allknowingallseeing

I came here to inquire if you are aware of the relatively newly created identity, Allknowingallseeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I only noticed the account tonight when he made similar edits to Paul Watkins (Manson Family and Bobby Beausoleil that the various socks of User:ColScott have made. In looking at his list of articles edited, and the verbage and tone of the arguments he's made on pages such as Alan Moore, it seems very sure. Meanwhile, he created Torso (2009 film), coincidentally a film produced by Don Murphy, who was confirmed as being User:ColScott. As an aside, it's curious that when a ColScott sock turns up, this user is generally not far behind. I've seen speculation about that relationship. I brought this here because Murphy launched a personal outing campaign on me back in May, and looking back, I noted he did the same to you and I would really prefer not to stir that up again. Is this something you can deal with, or is there something else I should do? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Just to verify, is this this this account you? (the account and/or the anon)? Mr.Z-man 17:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin over there, so I don't know what was on the now-deleted page. But yeah, that was mine before SUL -- I'd forgotten about it, actually. Should be merged into jpgordon. What was the vandalism? I can almost guess. (Whoops! Edited logged out! From the Sportsmen's Lodge in Studio City, CA, no less!)--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It was some vandalism from an anon trying to impersonate you (66.162.207.31). I redirected the userpage. Just wanted to make sure the account wasn't started by the same anon. Mr.Z-man 02:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts

Josh, thank your for your last message. It is good to see that admins are actively trying to improve Wikipedia. I think you have come to a natural, yet incorrect, conclusion. Dharma6662000 and I are not the same user; we do however share the same computer: we share the same flat/apartment. I can only assume that you have discovered that both users have the same IP addresses and have come to the conclusion that we are one and the same person. This is not the case. What is true is that we cannot afford another PC, and that a friend has come to the defense of another friend. I am not sure how this can be resolved. I found your comments to be slightly too forceful. Admins are supposed to be wise and forgiving guardians of Wikipedia. You have not issued any advice, or a warning, you have simply said that you will delete/block one or both users. Isn't Wikipedia policy to issue warnings and wait for repeat offending before such heavy action is taken? We have a genuine misunderstanding here. I can see that two accounts from the same IP address may look a little suspicious, but hey, what can we do? If you're willing to buy us a second PC then I'd be more than happy to accept it. Neither account should be deleted/blocked. I'm sure that you can see the difficulty in this situation. If you have any advise as to how to resolve this problem then please let me know. I could suggest that we agree never to comment on one another's articles and/or comments. This would make any kind of misbehaviour impossible, but it would also remove some of the level of review quality from the process. What do you think?  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Dharma6662000 account was originally opened using my name. I have been less than professional in allowing that account to be adopted by another user. Whatever the explanation the bottom line is that there are two accounts registered with the same name and that represents a conflict of interest; whichever way you look at it. I would ask you to block the Dharma6662000 account. But will Raul still be able to register an account with the same IP address?  Declan Davis   (talk)  23:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got email!

Just an FYI, I sent you an email via the Wikipedia email system. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Filthy Ice Cream And Hot Chocolate Syrup

Hi, I'm wondering about your indefinite block of User:Filthy Ice Cream And Hot Chocolate Syrup as a VoA. I also noticed that no block message was left on the user's Talk page. Could the block have been an error? Of the user's 13 edits, only one could be construed as vandalism, and that looks more like a new user who misunderstood a template. The rest are pretty routine edits, and I don't see any deleted edits. I can't imagine what would warrant an indefinite block, unless this is related to an ArbCom case, SSP/checkuser investigation, or similar. --MCB (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that he's not the same person as:
  1. User:BLOCK ME PLS
  2. User:FOXY MAMA 8: THE FIERCE, THE NAUGHTY, THE WIKIPEDIAN or 8 other Foxy Mamas
  3. User:I Raped Terri Schiavo
  4. User:Naughtylittlepenguinwhore
  5. User:The Bitch You Love
  6. User:Citrus2
among the three dozen or so abusive accounts on that one IP (and matching in all other ways Checkuser can identify.) Anything's possible; at least once, I've found an entirely abusive IP with a single non-abusive editor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I figured it was something like that. Best, MCB (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

TV spot edits

I respectfully submit that my edits to the pages of members of Congress that cut TV spots for a Federally-indicted governor are relevant, neutral and well-sourced. If Republican politicians were cutting testimonials for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), that would be relevant and notable. When a sitting public official endorses the reelection of another officially accused for corruption, that is highly relevant to the reader. My edits were entirely factual, devoid of point of view and sourced by the reference to You Tube. I would request that you discuss your opposition before taking further action. Thanks. Pr4ever (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, while revisiting the edits you'd removed, I eliminated from several a few phrases that were unnecessary in communicating the facts and which could be considered less than neutral. Thanks. Pr4ever (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No need to discuss; it's obvious to any informed editor that your edits did not adhere to WP:NPOV. No idea what Stevens has to do with anything. I didn't even bother to check to whom you were referring in your copy-and-paste paragraph; no need, since the paragraph so blatantly violates NPOV and OR, besides being sneeringly unencyclopedic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, As a fellow administrator and uninvolved party, I looked at the situation discussed.

As random case I randomly choose one Congressman mentioned: Jim Oberstar. User:Pr4ever posted the following: "In September 2008 he appeared in a TV ad[1] endorsing a gubernatorial candidate who will go to trial after the November 2008 elections for a 32-count federal Grand Jury indictment for corruption, in spite of his strong anti-corruption postures."

Which should read:

"In September 2008 Oberstar appeared in a TV ad[2] endorsing Aníbal Acevedo Vilá a Puerto Rican gubernatorial candidate who will go to trial after the November 2008 elections for a 32-count federal Grand Jury indictment for corruption."

In the reference mentioned "YouTube", clearly shows us that the Congress people mentioned, including Oberstar endorsed Mr. Acevedo Vilá for governor in an advertisement, see: [9]. Therefore, to mention said fact in the articles of the subjects involved is not violating NPOV. The facts speak for themselves.

The following source proofs that Mr. Acevedo Vilá faces 19 Federal charges [10].

The ads in "YouTube" and the newspaper article in the daily "Primera Hora" are reliable verifiable sources within the policies established by Wikipedia.

There is one thing that is very important and that is we need proof of the exact month that these ads were released. Thereby, we can determine if the Congress people mentioned had any knowledge what-so-ever of Mr. Acevedo Vilá indictments before or after their endorsements. Those are my thoughts on the issues. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your thoughts. If presented appropriately, there might be no objection to the inclusion of the actual information. Anything presented as inappropriately as was done by Pr4ever gets unceremoniously removed from Wikipedia, always. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Following Tony's recommendation, I have found that the TV ads which started airing in late September were posted on the candidate's web page on October 5. See: http://anibalgobernador.com/blog/?n=129. The correct total number of counts is 24, adding the first 19 and the superceding indictment's additional 5.

Following Tony's suggested text, would it now be appropriate to insert the following text:

"During the 2008 electoral campaign[3], Oberstar appeared in a TV ad[4] endorsing the reelection of Puerto Rico Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, who will go to trial after the November 2008 elections for a 24-count federal Grand Jury indictment for corruption[5]."

Thanks. Pr4ever (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The language is certainly better, and might be suitable for some of the places where the original was removed. If this is a particularly politically charged issue, you may expect its placement to be questioned for weight and relevancy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Pr4ever (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Arbitration Filing

What do you propose we do then because discussion and survey failed, and un-decisive mediation, which we can't seem to get informally and don't meet the criteria for for the reasons I mentioned formally, won't work for obvious reasons because project editors have tried and failed trying to do the same thing. Have you read the talk page?? That article will simply stay protected forever if someone doesn't HELP. I intend to abandon it if isn't resolved or in arbitration or something like it in ernest by Monday. Thanks 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Sarah Palin protection wheel war

Having thought about, I think we're at the end of this case. 2 moves to close have been made here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Done

RFAr sig

Hi,

You might want to resign here, to make it clear that it's you voting. Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that wasn't intentional - don't resign! But thanks for re-signing! ;-) -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible Rangeblock on "Stalker"

Hello Jpgordon. On behalf of User:RepublicanJacobite, I am requesting that you check this out per the discussion between myself and RepublicanJacobite. User:Alison told R.J. that she could deal with the matter by rangeblocking, but as RJ said, we've got no idea on what she had in mind. As Alison is currently on a wikibreak, she can't help us now. We have decided that we need a checkuser to see this before taking any risks; it's more complex than I initially thought. Hopefully this isn't too vague here; if you would like me to convert the templates on RJ's subpage to {{checkip}} for more ease of use, I'll gladly do so. Ah, and please let me know if there's something I missed. Thanks. ~ Troy (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Even better: put the proposed ranges in {{checkip}}. For example:
68.18.14.0/24 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Probably won't be able to get to it until Friday day (it's about 2215 Thursday here now.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then. Actually, I have to sleep right now, so I'll do that tommorow. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so I have updated User:RepublicanJacobite/stalker and added everything I've got at this point. I should remind you that some of the ranges vary quite a bit from others. 72.154.191.0/24 is almost purely composed of IP socks reverting RJ's contributions. See for yourself if you wish. The most important thing is that these ranges get checkusered carefully, so I'm going to breathe easy and wait for the results while you can take your time to do your thing. Good luck. ~ Troy (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian

This case is going to be 2 weeks old in another couple of days. Evidence/workshop is complete, and all proposals made on the pd page have been supported by 3 arbitrators. As an arbitrator who voted to accept this case, if you could kindly hop on over to this page to vote, that'd be great. Hopefully this case will be ready to close by 29 Oct. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)  Done

There has been a move to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

IMS Associates, Inc.

Hi Josh. I've greatly expanded this article. If you have the time, take a look and let me know what you think. Please let me know if I've got anything wrong to the best of your recollection! fish&karate 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Nicely done. By the way, I'm not sure I agree with the evaluation in that Forbes article -- in particular, Imsai ended up as a company in which employees worked extremely long hours but were afraid to speak up, the slightest infraction was met by harsh discipline, and top executives lived and acted like royalty while the grunts received crumbs. Perhaps it varied from department to department, but at least in the engineering department, I never saw any "harsh discipline" nor "grunts receiving crumbs"; as a newbie fresh out of college, perhaps I didn't have a lot of perspective, and I know that the head of engineering, Glenn Ewing, protected his staff quite well from the est crapola. I was asked once if I was interested, said no, and that was it. Sales and marketing were perhaps different; est always seemed well designed for those disciplines, just as it was poorly designed for engineering disciplines. You might want to add some material to the article about the massive lawsuit Millard lost to former IMS investors. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

\piss off

yu gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.6.120 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, spelling is not a key requirement for personal attacks. I miss the good old days. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it

You should read what your former bandmate is up to here.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But it certainly drives home a point. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon Block?

Hello jpgordon. After a few days, I was a little more busy myself, so I just realized now that RepublicanJacobite's stalker has reappeared on my talk page yesterday and harrassed RJ on another page as well (Special:Contributions/72.154.191.175). Seeing as how it looks to be inevitable in the near future, I would like to see if we could try out a range block on 72.154.191.0/24 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) or any of the other ranges (as discussed on User:RepublicanJacobite/stalker; may be necessary if s/he turns up there too). That specific range from which s/he most recently was almost purely used by the same user by the looks of it, if not entirely. ~ Troy (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that to say that we should range block now, or wait? I have little idea of the IP's patterns from before this, but I would assume that there is still more than one IP that could be involved. RJ seems to be followed back and forth within the span of hours/days, and I'm not even certain if s/he's following this section now (although I could hardly care less if this wasn't a recurring incident). ~ Troy (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, how many attacks have come from that range, over what period of time? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Several; most of the edits were largely from either July or October. As for the other ranges, there's no way for me to consistently track them, so they aren't my prime concern for the moment unless there's any recent negative activity. In the range I'm talking about now, that IP (Special:Contributions/72.154.191.175) again appears to have been vandalizing a few pages like this last night after a block expired. I don't have any ideas on whether or not an individual block will be sufficient or not; it's certainly the same guy. ~ Troy (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
...Definitely the same guy. --~ Troy (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Range blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright

Hi JP, Could you please semi-protect Jeremiah Wright until after the election. The majority of the activity on the page is unsourced pov and vandalism. There was a note that this was to be the status, but I think it was overlooked. Thanks, IP75 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another IP range

Hello JP. I'm sorry about writing a new section about this, but it involves the same issue as above (a new section to reach your attention, anyway). The user has returned again as 72.146.79.148 (in 72.146.64.0/19 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), a larger range). Considering that this IP range is far larger, what should we have in mind? The rangeblock that you set today could only mean that this user is easily able to edit from other ranges. Ah, and my apologies for the consistent "drama" here; I certainly didn't see that one coming. There's a point when I guess there's nothing we can do about it, but I'm not sure about where that lies. ~ Troy (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And with that said, it's time for me to get back to work as usual ...I certainly didn't have any plans to stick around with that guy in the first place :) ~ Troy (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your reply to my question on the Yardbirds, it is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestar1991 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

request

If you were a fair man, you would use your power to at least remind Wikidemon not to remove article talk page comments. Instead, you mock people who complain. I just found out that Wikidemon has done this before (deleting comments).

Act fair, not with favortism. I will leave it at that and see if you do the right thing. I have low expectations. 74.174.46.42 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Removing article talk page comments is acceptable in some cases, and in your case it was entirely acceptable; his rationale (claiming your mentioning his name was a personal attack) was partially incorrect, but that's about it. Article talk pages aren't about making political points ("Obama's First Lie"), they're about collaborating for the improvement of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Jpgordon/Archive 4's Day!

User:Jpgordon/Archive 4 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jpgordon/Archive 4's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jpgordon/Archive 4!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Three years

Three years is starting to feel like way too long to serve as an admin, so I can only imagine that it's an eternity for an Arbitrator. I'm sorry to see you're stepping down - Arbs with front-line experience actively editing controversial articles are already an endangered and apparently non-renewable resource - but I can understand the rationale completely. Thanks again for your hard work as an editor and Arb, and enjoy the (relative) peace and quiet... :) MastCell Talk 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not like I'm going anywhere, though! What I found particularly wearying is being a judge; I'd never been in that role before, and I'm glad I've tried it once so I don't have to again. I'm going to go right ahead doing exactly what I've been doing this last couple years. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. MastCell Talk 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While I did and do consider you a voice of reason (though fairly, of several voices) at arbcomm (and elsewhere), and think that you will be missed, I'm also empathetic, and wish you well : ) - jc37 18:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this. Not good. I am concerned about the future of this group, and its moral authority on the project. There is an impression, if not outright belief, that ArbCom is anti-science and pro-fringe. There are a whole host of editors who feel that ArbCom is being used a tool to bludgeon a group of editors. I hope that it isn't true, but without you, it becomes harder to believe that ArbCom will be truly fair. Oh well, maybe we can replace you with the person who started this thread. Hmmmmmm? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much to add to the above. Sorry to see you go, but I absolutely sympathize with the burnout factor. You have been a voice of reason on arbcom, and your absence will be all the more felt because some of the current slate give cause for deep concern. Some time ago I immortalized one of your statements on my old user page -- please don't hold that against me! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

/26 rangeblock

Yes, but the sockpuppeteer, who has been very active, has already been caught trying to get the block lifted so it is working. I'd rather at this point have a handful of temporary IPexemptions than allow the sockpuppeteer back creating another 20 or so accounts at a time. Do you disagree? -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User Whereistheproof

You may already be aware of this, but Whereistheproof (talk · contribs) has shared his or her password in an internet forum and coached others on which articles to edit. Where's message includes:

"I think its time to ensure that more facts are put onto wikipedia. Every time I change something, it is changed back within a mater of hours and I need your help to keep the editors of those sites engaged."

"Please feel free to use the above account details to change or amend or engage with wiki editors regarding the following sites:" (list follows) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had a steward globally lock Whereistheproof (talk · contribs) as a vandal compromised account. MBisanz talk 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail (or will in a couple of seconds) :) MastCell Talk 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Haines

Two reverts in one day may need some action from you. See Gender of God. Abtract (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November Arb stuff - RFArb page

Motion - Tobias case

Would like to request that you vote (to oppose) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Done

Motion - Bharatveer case

Also requesting your votes here. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Done

Motion - Jack Merridew ban review

Requesting your votes on this also - the main motion needs just one more vote to pass. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize that. It was added to a few pages that completely lacked sources and so I added the links to others. Something is better than nothing. Well that's all over. No hard feelings.sarindam7 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Et tu, Brute?

Really? The arbcomm doesn't make policy. I'm disappointed that you're on board with nonsense like that. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • No, but if ArbCom makes a remedy, ArbCom can determine how the remedy is implemented. That's what's happening in this case; the policy allowing ArbCom to make remedies exists, and this is just a clarification on our expectation when we establish a remedy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, on the one hand I tend to agree that this is just a formal statement of existing best practices rather than new policy. Technically, no administrative decision should really be overturned without either the consent of the admin in question or, failing that, community support.

      On practical grounds, I'm a bit concerned: decisions made at WP:AE tend to involve extremely high levels of discretion and judgement, and to be inherently controversial. The general cluefulness of the admins who frequent WP:AE is well above the norm, but good judgement is not universal there, and giving extra weight to the first admin to pull the trigger may discourage more creative and less button-focused approaches to problem-solving there. MastCell Talk 19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We already planned to discuss AE with the Community. I see this motion as a statement of existing norms which may or may not need to be adjusted during a broader discussion about AE. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Given that the issue in this case is the perception (whether right or wrong) that certain members of the ArbCom have it in for Giano, and therefore shouldn't be taking admin action against him, it's hard to see how strengthening the ArbCom's hand against him will help.
I'd like to suggest again that the ArbCom set up a panel of uninvolved admins to enforce Giano's civility parole, and that only they be allowed to issue blocks under that provision. The admins chosen should have no prior involvement with Giano or IRC, and they should be people Giano has no objection to. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why should Giano have a veto over who can take enforcement action against him? Whatever you think of the restrictions, that makes no sense. I also don't think it makes sense to tar all admins who have ever used IRC as too 'biased' to make a fair decision. The kneejerk "OMG NO YOU DIDN"T!!!!11!!" reaction that people have based on who took an action instead of the action itself is part of the problem, and slowing the act/react/act process down to allow for some thought and discussion makes sense. Viewing this as a war, with betrayals and sharply defined sides, is a mistake that too many people are making. If it hasn't already happened, eventually no one will be Switzerland (and, as we know, even Switzerland wasn't). Avruch T 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If we set up a neutral body, we obviously have to make sure there's no one on it that either "side" would object to. I agree that it's sad that it's perceived in terms of "sides," but I've been on IRC, including in the admins channel, when Giano was discussed, and it wasn't a pleasant sight. The comments went far beyond what anyone could call reasonable criticism, and he's not the only editor who's been seriously trashed on there. Why should Giano or anyone else be expected to ignore this?
Without a neutral body, you have IRC operators who've either engaged in, or done nothing to stop, the abuse, sitting on ArbCom and handing down civility paroles and other judgments; being the ones to enforce those judgments; and now, in addition, proposing a rule that no one be allowed to undo that enforcement without their consent.
No matter what you think of individual ArbCom members, this is a power grab, pure and simple. If the community wants to hand the ArbCom that power, fine, but I don't think the ArbCom should be allowed to appropriate it for itself. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there are better places to discuss this, considering that I think civility paroles are in themselves counterproductive and that all "any admin" civility paroles should be eliminated in favor of a more collaborative approach. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the best thing would be to ditch the civility paroles altogether. The next best thing is to make sure they're enforced by people who have no dog in the fight. To imagine that IRC operators have no dog in this fight (and David and FT2 in particular as they've focused on Giano in the past), is to ignore that Giano has spent over two years campaigning against IRC misuse; that there have been ArbCom cases about it; and that all concerned, including David, were asked by ArbCom to respond to each other differently in future. And yet now ArbCom is willing to push all that aside, and pretend that blocks of Giano by David and FT2 can be regarded as neutral and uninvolved. In addition to that, the case is being used to strengthen ArbCom's hand even further. I hope that all editors of goodwill oppose it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there are better places to discuss this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and David Gerard

Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly [11]), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Any reason or just not within your remit? Giano (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No. Find someone else to annoy; I'm done with anything having to do with your sort of nonsense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that many are not finding the Arbcom's antics nonsense, What a pity you fail to realise that. Giano (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Leave me alone. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. Giano (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


You asked to be an arbitrator, Josh. Do your job.
I'm done with anything having to do with your sort of nonsense. Just out of curiosity, when your term is up will you also be done with the arbcom mailing list? I think that's half the problem; old arbs like David Gerard 'in the room' with his pack of little buddies, you know, the ones who hand out and (presumably) supervise tools like oversight. --Duk 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Josh, how do you put up with stuff like this? I'd go bonkers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking the arbitration committee to be accountable is baiting? From your contribution history, SBHB, you seem to be a sock attempting to stir up trouble. Josh, I understand that the community gave you check user authority. Could you please run a check on Short Brigade Harvester Boris. Thankyou. --Duk 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFCU is over there; if you can justify a checkuser request, I'm sure someone will be happy to execute it for you. ArbComm elections are over there; feel free to vote for whoever you support. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Josh, the vast majority of CU's are by private request, and WP:RFCU is staffed by a couple of generous souls for 'charity purposes', this according to David Gerard (the diff isn't worth digging up). So tell me, Josh, were you given the CU power by the community to serve the community, or do you now reserve it for your own little circle of friends? --Duk 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me save you some trouble, Duk. I was formerly known as User:Raymond arritt, about which there is no secret whatsoever. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
So how is asking arbcom members for accountability of our most sensitive tools baiting. --Duk 18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I just fine JPGordon to be very incivil and rude, good job I don't have such sensitive obsessions as some on that subject, can you imagine JPGordon with a huge target painted on top of his stetson? Actually I would rather not. Giano (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I say we settle this with a game of pot limit Omaha/8. Who's in? Jehochman Talk 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I only play one game, and with the hand I'm holding I would happily open 4 no trumps. Your bid JP. Giano (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Just so long as you know what "4 no trumps" means JP, I don't anticipate any future problems. Giano (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I assume you're sitting as my opponent, in which case it doesn't much matter -- if you can open 4NT, unless I have a pretty remarkable hand, you've shut me out of any bidding anyway. But I'm far more of a poker player than a bridge player anyway -- low limit live play and no-limit tournaments, mostly. Never tried pot limit Omaha/8 -- I'm not even sure it gets spread anywhere in Vegas, where I mostly play. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I am going to play with my friends in about 5 minutes. Believe it or not, I have become a rather good poker player by reading our articles on poker strategy. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I was quite amused to see your comment; I was just on my way to my weekly poker tournament (won last week, totally ate it today) when I read it. Used to play Omaha/8 tournaments on Friday, but about a year ago, the casino I play at cancelled all but two of their weekly Omaha tournaments in favor of more no-limit Texas hold'em. I find Omaha/8 a lot easier than Texas; the secret for Omaha is that most people are looking for an excuse to stay in, so you can do real well simply by superior starting hand selection. That alone usually would get me 3/4 of the way through an Omaha tournament. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Talk Page

There was a recent post on the Holocaust talk page regarding the disposal of human remains during the Holocaust. I suspect that the user who posted this is trying to spin the discussion into Holocaust denial. I could give a factual answer the query, I could ignore the post or delete it because it is an item in the bag of tricks used by Holocaust deniers. What do you suggest?--Woogie10w (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin AN/I posting

Hi Jpgordon,

Were you aware of this ANI posting involving OrangeMarlin, who I believe you are still mentoring? It's rather...intense. Or perhaps my experience with wikidrama is rather tepid. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Moronicbajebus

Re this edit. I was not the blocking admin ... that was Gwen Gale. Take it up with her. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Jpgordon, in your opinion is it allowed to delete material from talk page edits that are WP:SOAP, or that is just chat not connected to discussion -- particularly when apparently used to bury other discussion under a mass of pointless edits. I am referring particularly to this [12] (pretty much the entire content of the diff, not just the change), which I removed as harmful to the discussion in progress. In the ensuing argument, an administrator supported returning the material to the article, while not supplying any reason why it should not be returned to the talk page, beyond that doing so is upsetting the sensitive users who's chat got removed. At this time that content is back in the article. I have been trying to find the current WP guidelines on talk page chat, but can not find that. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure whether it's allowed. However, it really pisses people off, and usually causes a lot more hassle than just ignoring the garbage might. I usually suggest people not do it unless it's vandalism or deliberate disruption. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Ok. Thanks. (At least I know another way to piss people off now:) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I have gotten this warning from Gwen Gale [13]. If there is no rule, as you say, what is she going to block me for? Any how I did not remove a single word, as can be seen here [14]. The only difference is that I removed a separate heading, but kept the wording even for that. It was bizarre for PalestineRemembered to put a lengthy personal attack on Village pump (policy). My reply to him is at the bottom of the diff, and there is nothing in what I said that is uncivil.. I feel that Gwen Gale has developed a personal dislike for me, and I find it strange that she is threatening me, while PalestineRemembered's violation of WP:no personal attacks is ignored. If this is something you can not get involved in, would AN/I be a proper place to discuss it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no rule; I said I didn't know. I was right about it really pissing people off, though! Talk page refactoring might seem a good idea at the time, but except for routine cleanup, it's not a good idea if you're at all involved in the discussion. Take the warning in good faith -- Gwen's correct in principle. Her reaction to PR is irrelevant to the propriety of your refactoring. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

no need for bitchy edit

Glad that you corrected your mistake however (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Army_Faction&oldid=253813320). I assume you're not properly educated in this field, so I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism and in the future discuss politically controversial edits. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. The tone of that post is almost... what's the adjective I'm looking for? I've seen it in this thread somewhere, near the top... MastCell Talk 19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Bombastic? Jehochman Talk 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Blathering? Of course, I was amused that someone points jpgordon to the antisemitism article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for lifting the block but why was it done in the first place?--Natsubee (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

user Malik Shabazz brroke WP:3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gush_Shalom&action=history

It was its thread time during 24 hours.Oren.tal (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been no 3RR violation. I made three reverts and so did Oren. I'm sorry that he bothered you with this. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but I have not violated that law.Malik Shabazz had violated that law so I reverted his edit.You can take a look in history to see this.I have also mention to him that he should not violate this law in his talk page.You can see this as well.Oren.tal (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here; WP:AN3 exists (I only saw this by co-incidence). No-one has technically broken 3RR; both users have 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but he has first.I have only reverted his 3RR.Maybe it was still wrong but he indeed violated this.I have reverted it only because he violated and he should not have done it.Oren.tal (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
And you are bothering me about this -- why? WP:AN3, please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
because when I broke the law you gave me warning.You should give him as well.Oren.tal (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Second thing he always ignore what I write for him in the discussion and just revert.Oren.tal (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway I didn't know about WP:AN3Oren.tal (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Facilitate a move of an article

Some time ago I made a mistake of moving The Golem: It! from what it really should be It! (1966 film). Could you possibly move it back to It! (1966 film)? I'm sorry that I made this mistake. With the DVD coming out it might be nice to have it accurately presented in Wikipedia. With kindest regards for you and yours during the holidays. David--Drboisclair (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question in an edit summary

Hi JP, FWIW, the answer to your question here, is that someone had attempted this edit repeatedly. Hopefully, the refnote has served its purpose and will keep it from starting up again without having to re-add it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vuerqex

I am honored that a former trumpet player for Oingo Boingo actually told me to work something out on a talk page. Wow! Vuerqex (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible typo on Checkuser page

On the recent fulfillment of this checkuser case, you named a User:Schrampes which doesn't seem to exist. I am assuming you mean User:Shrampes? Also, the ISP that you mentioned (sdfreen.net) doesn't seem to resolve. Is that the correct name of the ISP? ←Spidern→ 02:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

Has been vandalized, I cant revert or fix--Woogie10w (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't see what you mean. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Danelkayam

Back in September, you blocked this person as a sock of Shevashalosh (talk · contribs) and he's back today, claiming innocence, and that the block was likely due to the fact that he shares his IP with many other students. I don't see an obvious behavioral pattern between the two, but I am sure you have additional evidence I am just not seeing. Could you respond on that user's talk page with more information so that I or someone else may respond intelligently to his unblock request. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing edit

Why would you remove the material I added..."In fact, the risk of this activity is nearly zero (see http://www.thebody.com/ for reputable sources)" ? The previous sentence needed a citation anyway and this information is more accurate. It is obvious that this article needs some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.98.150 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • A few reasons. Most important, though: "see some or another website for reputable sources" isn't in any way providing a verifiable reliable source. A quick look at the URL you provided just shows the top level of a very dense site (and a quite good one, it would appear). We can't ask our readers to go and read the entire site to try to figure out which particular statement backs up your assertion that "the risk of this activity is nearly zero". Now, if there there a sentence somewhere on that site asserting that there is a nearly zero risk from mutual masturbation, great -- it would provide the source that the previous sentence ("Although the risk of infection in this manner is thought to be low...") is missing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

You seem to have processed all of the relevant RFCU cases. What can you tell me about these?

Please also take a careful look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Update: Additional confirmations in COFS checkuser case. Would you agree with it?

I'd be happy to know any insight you may wish to share.

-- Cat chi? 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

pester power :-)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions - come on chaps, bums off hands please. It's not acceptable to leave this hanging, and you have a duty to make your position known. It's causing drama, and undue stress in all directions. Socks up please. Privatemusings (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

enjoy
thanks jp - it's appreciated, and Brad has responded already at the Motion. Have a swig, and reply at leisure. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFAR#Motions_2

Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)  Done

Arghhhhh! I thought I'd nagged everyone about this - it seems I missed you. :( But thank you for bringing the matter to a close. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Luckily, you can stop nagging me forever in two weeks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it's so bittersweet. :| IIRC, you were one of the first arbs that I ever nagged. :( But you were also the first arb to respond to my nudges - something that I appreciated very much both then, and now. :) I don't know if I'd stay away forever, but it will feel like a long time. If one of the older cases that you were sitting on comes up on the RFArb page, Nyb or another arb may suggest that I nudge you for input - very unlikely I'd pass up an opportunity like that. Heh. Arb emeritus privilleges aren't completely cost free, lol...j/k. :P
Anyway, while I'm here, one more motion I might as well nudge you for votes on is the Alastair Haines and/or Abtract motions. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)  Done 06:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Pity

... that you have to leave ArbCom under these conditions. I cannot imagine how one can deal with so much crap and keep one's sanity at the same time. Good luck on your wiki-endeavors (sans the dramas), and thank you for a good service to the pedia as an ArbCom member. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockofadix

Almost certainly a sock of Fadix but small chance that it is someone trying to make Fadix look bad. Given the history that wouldn't surprise me. Should be blocked and probably checkusered to see if it is Fadix. Given the history I am dropping this on your doorstep. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Given his comments and Fadix's remarks we should probably just indef block him and be done with the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to be not on right now I've left a note on ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Dealt with on ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I raised it on Wikipedia:AE#Fadix for any follow up that might be required. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I was actually hosting revelry this evening. Checkuser shows no surprises. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about Fadix...

You extended his ban to indefinite, but the usage of {{banned user}} on his userpage still says that he's banned for one year, rather than indef. The same error can be found on WP:LOBU. You're the indeffing admin; should I fix the errors? --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I guess. But he was banned by ArbCom for one year for harassment, personal attacks, and so on. Bans are routinely reset when sockpuppeteering occurs. My indef block, on the other hand, is routine administrative treatment of recidivist block evaders. Perhaps it would be best just to have one box: he's now indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Commented on it here. I guess the ArbCom ban still stands, and runs concurrently with the indefblock. Am I right? Cheers, Face 09:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. So if, for some reason, the community has an idea the indef block should be removed, the ArbCom ban still is in effect. Just a technicality; I doubt anyone will want him back. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I've seen this before. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · block log) and Anonimu (talk · contribs · block log) are community banned indefinitely, but are under ArbCom bans of 1 year; is this the same with Fadix? (On an unrelated side note, is Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · block log) indef-banned by both ArbCom and the community, or is he just indefinitely community-banned, running concurrently with 1-year ArbCom ban? I asked because Wikipedia:List of banned users#Yorkshirian and User:Yorkshirian are conflicting resources.) --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 10:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Yorkshirian is in the exact same situation as Fadix. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there something that I am missing?

The discrimination against atheists article seems made entirely of original research. It is amazing. The sources simply do not mention the said discrimination. Am I being too bold in excising the stuff that is not supported? I mean, people might put it back, but unless they bring the needed secondary sources, how can they be in the right? I still need to deal with the United States section; most of it is source directly to the texts of the state constitutions. I guess we are supposed to assume that Joe Editor is an authority suited to interpret all of these primary sources, individually and together, by virtue of his prestigious position as a volunteer editor of an encyclopedia anyone can edit?? Please let me know if I do something wrong, thank you. A baby turkey[citation needed] 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Right, we need secondary sources supporting claims of discrimination against atheists. I do think you've gone a bit overboard with the wholesale deletion rather than engaging in some dialog about it; as with most Wikipedia articles, it's not that important to make sure the article is Correct Today. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You may be right. I guess it just seems weird to me to keep anything that is obvious original research. Should I revert myself? Also, did AzureFury's duplication of responses seem quite appropriate to you? I had trouble seeing good faith in that behavior. A baby turkey[citation needed] 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • He seems to be someone who is Sure He Is Correct -- and is obviously pursuing a personal cause, which is no big deal (one expects atheists to be prominent in writing the articles about atheism.) But a few more eyes might be helpful. It's too late this evening for me to want to get into tonight; but maybe an article RFC would bring some additional attention. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Testifying in court

Please read my comments on the talk page. The article does not claim the oath is discrimination and is actually refuting that belief. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request Notification

Hello, Jpgordon! A user you have blocked, ASCIASA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hia, thanks for your note on the user's talk page. I've gone through the contribs, and I definitely agree with your block; On the other hand, I'm not having too much trouble AGFing here, and as the main problem here was ignoring warnings, and the user seems to be willing to engage on their talk page now, I've unblocked. I'll keep an eye on the user, could you do the same? If you see any further recurrences of the same problem I'm fine with a reblock. --fvw* 08:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosher Tax

Sewell seems to be on the war path. --Lute88 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet

Somebody pointed this out to me and I heard you might be familiar with this users sockpuppets. Can you take a look at this one? Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:J. P. GORDON IS TEH AWESOME ZORS!

Just want to confirm that this is your new account before I unblock you. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Urban Dictionary, it's a suffix, similar to the 'xors' in 'u suxxors.' If I interpret it correctly, it should be a verb ending, and not affixed to an adjective. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

That for once Kwanzaa has not been semi'd throughout the season. I wonder if the recent elections have had anything to do with that? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh bother. So it was earlier than usual, and that's where I missed it. Darn. Should have checked protect levels rather than hist; my mistake. I plead simple idiocy for the preceding comment, feel free to strike it. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey! No need for head-hammer! Save the hammer for the creeps that make the semi necessary! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:AndrewCrogonklol

As the one who denied the unblock — if he was already block-evading, can we speedy the two templates he created; {{Ineffcient}} and {{Ytplus}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Jpgordon, Merry Christmas!

Jpgordon,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Checkuser

Hey, was there an official CU report for this? Just wondering. Tan | 39 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice who I was talking to. Carry on. Tan | 39 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Jpgordon,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly an FYI

Hi. I approached you about this in September and then promptly forgot about it. Something came up in relation to WP:FILMS and I was reminded. I've opened a RFCU about this and thought you might like to know. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Red diaper baby

Greetings, Jpgordon. You may wish to consider reinstating the semi-protection of this article. Regards, Skomorokh 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice

Regarding your comment at the talk page of Deeceevoice (talk · contribs), have you reviewed the Special:Undelete/Talk:Stereotypes of Whites? "Wow. The possibilities are endless. Prepare to be offended. All of you." There's pretty much no way to argue that the list was in good faith when he/she comes right out and says that it is for trolling. I think a year long ban is over the top if this is the only thing it is for, but there needs to be some level of awareness that this behavior is unacceptable or, failing that, the mechanisms to prevent it from occurring. I haven't reviewed this person's contributions in depth and don't think I had ever heard of him/her prior to seeing an AN3 request about this issue, so I don't know enough to have an opinion on a long term editing ban, but I do have a very strong opinion about a topic ban. Saying that Deeceevoice's behavior was not meant as an insult really flies in the face of his/her own words. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Don't confuse "trolling" (which has no actual content other than stirring up shit) with disruption to make a point. DCV is nothing even close to a troll. She's a moderately angry person of color, previously victimized by racism on Wikipedia and hence hypersensitive to it. I'll go back and see what started all this, but I'd be willing to bet it was insensitivity directed toward her particular causes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "X is trolling" and "X is a troll". I said the former, not the latter. I have no doubt that Deeceevoice is a good faith user, but in this particular limited case, her actions were inappropriate and were for the express purpose of causing offense. This has caused substantial disruption and waste of time. In some fashion, that needs to be remedied as to reduce the likelihood of further disruption. --B (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think there's much difference in the real world between saying someone is a vandal and someone is acting like a vandal; it's a fine way to provide plausible denial for incivility. Anyway, I'm just another admin nowadays, who happens to think Deeceevoice has continually gotten a raw deal here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • "Bob vandalized my car" is a falsifiable statement that carries no moral judgment. "Bob is a vandal" is a more serious condemnation - not only did he vandalize, but that defines (at least in part) who he is. --B (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • As I said, plausible deniability for incivility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • So if I understand you correctly, there is no civil way to criticize the actions of a longstanding editor? Deeceevoice stated that her edits were for the purpose of causing offense. It's not incivil to call that behavior unacceptable and state that it needs to be remedied. --B (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
              • No, there's no civil way to refer to someone's behavior as trolling. You can, as you just had, call it unacceptable behavior that needs to be remedied without resorting to characterization. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
              • No, I didn't. I said, "Prepare to be offended." I knew (non-Black) people would take offense; they always do -- when the shoe is on the other foot. But that wasn't my purpose. I've stated -- repeatedly -- why I did what I did. deeceevoice (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Jp. :) I've thanked you on my talk page, but I thought I'd visit to say it again. Thanks.
But you're wrong. I'm not angry. Suddenly feeling really fed up with the systemic bias of the project at seeing Stereotypes of African Americans pop up on my watch list, I decided to do something about it. So far, it seems to be working at least with regard to the "Stereotypes of..." issue. And, no, I haven't been "victimized"; I'm not a victim. I've been (and continue to be) a target. There's a difference.
And I've pressed my right to enter perfectly legitimate suggestions in an article talk space without being accused of "racism" (Jews are a race?), anti-Semitism and doing "original research." If I called some White (or Jewish, or Asian) a racist on Wikipedia without cause, I'd be admonished on the talk page, then yammered at endlessly on my talk page by a succession of righteously indignant/irate administrators and editors -- and then blocked on the quick.
And you know I ain't lyin'.  ;)
Peace 2 you and yours, Jp, and good things in this new year. :) User: deeceevoice January 6, 2009.
Heya, thanks. I kinda thought you'd take a bit of exception to my characterization, but what the heck. I'm not sure how much difference there is between "fed up" and "moderately angry", but we each have our own sliding scales. "Victimized" vs "targeted" is subtle; I know some people understand "victimized" to mean accepting a role as victim, passively accepting their fate. I didn't mean it that way at all, certainly -- I've never seen you be passive about much of anything! Happy new years, friend. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Me? Passive? Heck, no. Not unless bribed with chocolate -- and lots of it. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Worldly possessions, etc

I also collect photography, and have some lovely prints by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Ruth Bernhard, Paul Caponigro, and Diane Arbus....

Not that it's any business of mine, but I wonder how. (Let's see: Some millionaire lost them to you in a card game, you got them in the 70s [?] before the "art" world went batshit, you're loaded with moolah....) The closest I get is a first edition of Brandt's Perspectives of Nudes which I found years ago amid a collection of vintage soft porn (!) in an obscure bookshop in an obscure Tokyo suburb, this before vintage porn itself became chic, so Perspectives cost peanuts. And a copy of Parr's Bad Weather that my father bought as a remainder for peanutlets; nobody had then heard of Parr and my father thought the photos were amusing (and this is still my favorite among Parr's books). Anyway, a gentleman of discernment such as yourself would be most welcome at the sleepy (I'm trying not to say moribund) "HOP". -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

Hi. As his (ex-?)mentor, you noted on RFAR after the secret hearings fiasco that, if made aware of it, you'd speak to OM about poor behaviour. Could you look into his recent contributions on Talk:Stormfront (website)? I know that you disagree with me on how things should be worded in that article, and be more inclined to support his version, but his conduct is becoming worse by the post... Sceptre (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Y'know, when you show up at a talk page you haven't been near in six months, in the middle of a heated argument involving someone you've a history of conflict with (to the point of being blocked for your own incivility toward him), you can pretty much expect to be responded to in the way you were. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    No-one else replied like that, so there's no reason why he should. It's not just me he's attacking, he's attacking Skomoroh and Franamax too (besides, I can hardly be blamed for not being active there; I took it off my watchlist, and then I was blocked...) Sceptre (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    You're engaging in hounding; I suggest you desist, as it is not helping anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

UAA/AFD incident with this user

I don't know, from the above, whether you still are actively doing this, but you might wish to take a look at first, a recent AFD where he popped off on Die4Dixie (talk · contribs), including a complaint about his username. Then he followed through on his threat to report his username. I and one of the other regular admins at UAA noted that there's little evidence that in the year and a half Die4Dixie has been editing that that name has caused problems with other editors. Then I found out what had gone on in the AfD, and as I indicated I really don't like it when people make reports to UAA as a form of payback. Just bringing this to your attention if you feel there's anything you can say to him. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Geez. Give good faith to him and not to me. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast your mind back...

...a year and a half, and have a look at this one --Stephen 05:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF and all that. I'll unblock and watch. --Stephen 06:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Joseph Stalin the right move, but

as a heads up, just seconds before you protected the page (literally the exact same minute), User:Valeofruin wiped out the edits by multiple editors AGAIN, here.

That's his sixth time in, I think, the last day. Numerous editors have reversed his massive wipeouts and I obviously took it to the ANI board (after I had warned him twice about it on the Talk page).Mosedschurte (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is more then just 1 side to this story, and before action is taken I would appreciate you at least hear them out. That is all I ask, for someone to simply lend me an ear. Valeofruin (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivez

Regarding Motivez (talk · contribs), immediately after you declined his request, BamaStangGuy (talk · contribs) showed up to revert the article. It may just be off-site canvassing, but can you check for sockpuppetry? Thanks. --B (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion, please

Hi, I thought that you approached the discrimination against atheists situation quite reasonably, so I hope that you can present a third opinion on another dispute as well.

There is disagreement at Indira Gandhi assassination over whether or not a source (by Professor Robert Hardgrave) describing the assassins as "extremist" should be included to describe the assassins as "extremist." The dispute stuck with edit summary communication at first, and eventually boiled over into the talk page. Two editors do not agree with Hardgrave's description and believed it to be "outdated." Eventually one of them claims to have contacted Professor Hardgrave by email, and posted the messages on the talk page. While I am not sure whether or not a claimed email discussion is sufficient to abrogate statements in an academic journal, I have given the other editor the benefit of the doubt and assumed that these emails were legitimate. The two editors believe that by saying that he knows of no evidence that the assassins were members of "extremist groups," Professor Hardgrave "retracted" the extremist description. I believe that this does not follow since we have no reason to assume that extremists must be members of extremist groups.

Please, if you have time, take a look at the dispute there yourself and present an opinion to help us out, because right now the discussion does not seem to be going anywhere. Thank you. A baby turkey[citation needed] 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems to me the dialogue is continuing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but people actually respect your opinion... I keep getting accused of WP:ILIKEIT, and trying to "spread confusion." Maybe I'm a pessimist, but the direction the discussion has taken is hardly encouraging. Of course you aren't obligated to present a third opinion. Maybe I'll bring it up again with the admin (Ricky81682) who originally forged a compromise, which has since been demolished. Later, A baby turkey[citation needed] 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In your experience, do RFCs really work? A baby turkey[citation needed] 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Block of AzureFury

Hi. This is to inform you that I have lifted your block of AzureFury (talk · contribs) based on that user's unblock request because I have found the block to be a clear-cut violation of the blocking policy. Specifically, you blocked the user despite being engaged in a content dispute with him, as seen at [15] and on the article's talk page, which gives rise to the impression that you blocked that user to further your own position in a content dispute. Moreover, there is no disruption in that editor's recent contribution history that I can see. Best regards,  Sandstein  16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd been looking into the situation as well, and was about to post here questioning the block, but I see Sandstein beat me to it. Sandstein, I agree that the block was questionable, but I probably would have given Jpgordon the option to lift the block himself, rather than just lifting it without giving him a chance to reply. --Elonka 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You may be right. I did not mean to be rude by not doing that, but my understanding of our unblocking rules and practice is that the opinion of the blocking administrator should always be sought, except - as here - in the case of obviously inadmissible blocks.  Sandstein  16:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll assume that you guys will be monitoring that article, then. Have fun. (You're right about unblocking, certainly; but you're wrong about the disruption.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That may well be the case. If you would like me to, I'll act as uninvolved administrator on request to evaluate whether someone's actions with respect to that article constitute blockable disruption.  Sandstein  16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've got it on my watchlist now as well, and have posted both at the talkpage and at AzureFury's talkpage. If anyone continues to edit-war to insert unsourced information, there will indeed be another block in their future. --Elonka 17:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, don't worry about being rude. I'm a big boy; if I screw up and you can righteously nail me on it like this, be my guest. Keeps me honest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Abusive User

The following user Double Fanucci has been placing a sockpuppet accusation on my user page. What can be done about this?Bluecord'sAgenda (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I was wondering if you would take another look at the lede. It seems that its use has not been "exclusively" limited to describe hostility towards Jews. This rather restrictive idea is almost a direct quote from Bernard Lewis. Exclusively would mean that it has never been used to refer to any thing else. Could the lede maybe be made a little less restrictive?Die4Dixie (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, "exclusively" is a bit much. "Almost exclusively" would be more accurate, though "exclusively" is correct if one is referring to correct usage; anyone, of course, can use a word incorrectly, but that doesn't change its meaning. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This term has now been used in academic circles and in peer reviewed literature, notably by the scholars whom I mentioned on the talkpage. This use has been used in the reliable media when reporting on this usage. I might compare it to the 'n' word. At one time its use was very restricted, while now it has a much wider meaning to include those who are marginalized or disenfranchised [[16]] (see #3). When it was first used like this, was it incorrect? I don't really know. I do know that if Wikipedia were to say that the word "exclusively" is a pejorative term to describe "members of the dark skinned races" ( as dictionaries once defined the word), Wikipedia would be wrong. I think that this is a direct parallel, and the article in this case is wrong and inaccurate. To promote the view that it is "exclusively" reserved for anti-Jewish thoughts , words or deeds is pushing a WP:NPOV violation view, IMHO. Dunno if this might change your opinion on the lede any, but there is no harm in discussing it.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The term has been inaccurately used, yes, generally to make political points. "Antisemitism" means one thing and one thing only, regardless of how it has been misused. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Words do mean different things as languages evolve. The word "cunning" doesn't mean the same thing that it did in the King James Version of the Bible. Sociologists have changed what the meaning of "minority" is to mean the member of a non dominate group, even if they are a numerical majority. Afro-centric scholars have redefined "racism" in terms of power to exclude African-Americans from the definition. These are all examples of words being redefined, and they all are of encyclopedic interest. The scholars that have written about the new anti-Semitism are far more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. On one hand I have an editor/ admin whom I respect saying one thing, and on the other I have notable experts in the field saying another. Which is a humble editor to believe? One that says that exclusive is restrictive, but accurate enough for the project, or experts in their fields who have reliably reported another use in academic/ peer reviewed papers and even a book dedicated to the subject? What to do when one expert says," Never, ever , ever, X!" , and another equally notable expert not only affirms X, but uses X? My interpretation of the policy is that the new use of anti-Semitism reaches the threshold of notable, although a minority view. When the majority view says that the minority view doesn't exist( as we have seen it does indeed do) we need to a tribute directly to those who make the statement that the minority view doesn't exist, lest it appear that it is WIkipedia that errs in saying that the view/ usage doesn't. Then we incorporate the material in a balanced way as not to give it undue weight, but allowing enough space to cover the minority view.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Shrug. It's not Wikipedia's job to extend neologism, or to promote the political re-definition of well-known words. Anyway, this discussion is suited for the article talk page, not here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. You know this isn't adversarial on my part, I hope.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

In your post about spelling, your first comment was right on the mark, but I'm not sure its meaning was fully understood.

We DO have a definitive spelling of anti-Semitism and, if I read the archives correctly, it was changed to the WRONG spelling, according to OED, Websters, AHED, and every other English dictionary. (I posted a list of 20 references further up the page.)

Would you mind stepping into the fray? I've ignored a couple of not-too-bad personal comments and I'm not being combative, but to me it's embarrassing Wikipedia is going up against venerable dictionaries and encyclopedias with a neologist (possibly German) spelling.

Thanks for taking a look. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Redux

I copied the above conversation to the talkpage. If I did it the wrong way and it needs some qualification, I mean well and if you would tell me how to do it right or show me, I'd be happy to do it. I also made an edit there changing ' exclusively" to "traditionally". Orange Marlin objected, so i have reverted. I think either attributing " exclusively" to Lewis or changing to the less restrictive "traditionally" would make me happier than a pig in shit. I think they are reasonable compromises. I had noted the change on the talkpage, so my comments here have'nt excluded the other editors.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm wary of "tradition", but that's only because it bothers me to think of something relatively recently invented as being any sort of tradition. (For example, the Pho article refers to it as a traditional Vietnamese dish, but darn it, it's only about a hundred years old, and traditional Vietnamese food is quite different.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
JP, I have a Wiki essay to write before I go too much further about my views on Palestine and the Israeli-Arab conflict, as one editor has expressed a concern slyly. Not one of the editors involved in the discussion now. I'll write it over the next day and post it before I actively edit in peripherally related articles. Thanks, and I'll be back soon.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Chosen (Chaim Potok)

Hi... didn't mean to cramp your style if I did; I was actually trying to revert the page to your last good version. I get so tired of seeing this article vandalized EVERY flipping week. (Or seems like it is, anyway.) I have to wonder what draws so much attention to it. Zephyrad (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, no problem. I just went a bit further back than you did. It does get vandalized pretty regularly, but not enough to warrant protection; besides, I play pretty close attention to it - my Dad wrote the screenplay of the movie - so it rarely stays broken for long. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That's cool... and at least you're not putting an OR spin on it. ;-) I read the book and saw the movie in high school, and admired both. (The DVD's in my collection now, and the book's in storage.) My dad had Jewish friends in his youth, around this same time period, and it's nice to get a glimpse into the world they knew. Zephyrad (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ssp

This ip is going around adding a sock template to random pages related to "blucord". I blocked the ip. fyi, anything need cleaning up? Keeper | 76 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

stomping on toes

Looks like I stomped on someone's toes.

You shot down some "anti-semitic" and "anti-zionist" statements someone wanted included in amy goodman's article. However, one of the older users put it in, 2 years after the argument.

Now, I'm pretty new to this, but an argument that's 2 years old and has been thoroughly discredited by an "authority" (ya, I'm going to saddle you with that) - including it seems to be pretty daft.

No idea what sort of feedback may be involved. I put an analysis justifying why I ripped it out, and only afterwards realized you'd addressed THAT EXACT ISSUE in 5/2006! Care to loosen your machete in it's sheath, in case they try to resurrect the vampire you staked oh so long ago? Puhleez? LimeyBugger (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to ask this of you, but can you pull out your machete? It's still on talk, but the discussion is rapidly degrading, heading towards a flame war if I'm any judge. An authoritative comment would head things off. LimeyBugger (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Much happiness! Cheers LimeyBugger (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sniff sniff.... that's what you get for getting the attention of the powers that be... "suggested" name change. You're all a bunch of meanies! :) GrizzledOldMan (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

can i be a wikipedia sysop

or a higher user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinjajames (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2009

Highness is a state of mind. Chillum 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
...or a condition brought on by funny agriculture. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reso uke

I had one, an Ashbury, last year and used it for some open-mics and such. Then sold it since the area where I was living (Newfoundland) didn't have any and I thought it'd be fun to "introduce" it to the local area. Haven't replaced it yet, since shortly thereafter I bought a Meles 8-string tenor and really love it, so it's my main uke now. 8-strings are great, definitely worth messing with. Not as good for melodic work, but really rich chords. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You have

mail. Thanks. Die4Dixie (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Lead

Thanks for grasping the nettle, I couldn't agree more and will certainly support you when the shit hits the fan...The problem is while Niewyk admits that the position that the Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews is the "commonly defined" one, he strangely decides a larger definition by including the handicapped and the Gypsies. I have already indicated some objective reasons for the narrower definition in the talk page: [17]

--Joel Mc (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you make any sense of this?[18]

I'm not asking you to intervene. I just want answers. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment. Thanks, JP. As near as I can tell, Harrison's got his jaws tight over me challenging his, IMO (and an opinion shared by others), precipitous lockdown of the article and this.[19] Absent any attempt at explanation, my guess is he's trying to throw his weight around and prove that, since he's an admin, he can do anything he pleases. deeceevoice (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

JP, I haven't taken the time to read the stuff on Harrison's page; I just can't. I'm in the middle of a terrible deadline crunch, exacerbated by the time I've already spent here today. But I wanted to drop by to say thanks. You did more than I asked.

From a quick glance at the comments, it looks as though the ban may have grounds, technically -- even though those of us involved in all of this know it is wholly unjustified. But *chuckling* you win some, you lose some. ;) Even if it's the case that the ban sticks, I'm not in the least nonplussed.

I'm cool.

All things considered, Wikipedia is a minuscule part of my life -- a place to go to kill time when I need a break from a tedious work project. If the ban sticks, then I'll be less likely to be under the gun -- as I am now -- from having wasted far too much time here.

And that's a good thing. The project's not going anywhere -- (an unintended double entendre!) -- and no one editor is indispensable.

Thanks for taking the time.

Stay well. Peace! deeceevoice (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You too. Always good to see you here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, that silly ban was overturned.  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock confirmation question

Hi, I notice that you changed this sock from suspected to confirmed, here. I'm trying to run down other socks of the same puppeteer, I was wondering if this was from a CU or from other evidence? From direct evidence, I believe there are several others that are definitely socks of the same, I'd like to find something more definitive. Any help or suggestions nailing these down would be appreciated. FWIW, my notes on some of these can be found here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Also, please check out User talk:Nightscream#Asgardian. On this last, it's a past discussion, and I'm only noting it for previous context. As an aside, I'd be interested in your thoughts in how you feel I acted/reacted, and whether appropriately. - jc37 12:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks just fine by me. I only stuck my nose in because I saw an unblock request, and looked at the cited examples of incivility, and was distressed by the broad definition of incivility being used as a bludgeon. I didn't factor any of the history in, because this particular incivility complaint was on its face invalid. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to allow holocaust denial

hello mr gordon im new to the world of wiki peadians so pls excuse my ignorance to my lack of protocol regarding wikipedia. i must stress that i am not a person who is prejudice to any subject even though i have my own views, but you seem to be ABSOLUTELY prejudice to anyone who QUESTIONS the shoa, let alone deny!. on my research in your DENIAL FORUM ,YOU AND MANY ADMINISTRATORS ...... ban and censor at the slightest question of the shoa. on reading your home page i share a lot of your interests,you seem rather interesting,though i ? your openmindedness .

i will be making my free speech regarding "MY REVISION" on the holocaust , so pls allow people thier forum, soapbox,banner,flyer,pamphlet,etc.... before labelling them "ANTI-SEMITIC,NAZI,ET AL"

FOR THE RECORD I DONT DENY THE ATROCITIES METE OUT BY THE NAZIS ,DURING THE WAR. REMEMBER WAR ITSELF IS A CRIME .

THERE WERE NO GASSINGS THERE WAS NO! EXTERMINATION PLAN FOR THE JEWS,HOMOS ,GYPSIES,FREE MASONS ETC AS I WILL DUELLY PROVE! SO PLS ALLOW PEOPLE THEIR FORUM .

DO NOT BAN OR LABEL PEOPLE!.....

YOU HAVE A NICE YEAR NOW12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) --Hejeb (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You have a nice year too. There is no "free speech" on Wikipedia; nor is Wikipedia a "forum"; nor is there any tolerance for holocaust deniers. Insert any of this garbage into Wikipedia and it will be removed immediately. Bye. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont understand what you mean about my intent being in question. i have a lot of questions about the Holocaust because to me it just doesnt add up. i learned about it from watching many documentaries on PBS and other TV outlets. but i dont think, for many reasons, that anywhere near 6,000,000 Jewish victims were gassed or even died during the German occupation of Europe. that doesnt make me anything except a free thinker. Statesboropow (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read a book on the matter. Those published by university presses are usually worth reading. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A sleeper sock

This user Magwayen (talk · contribs · logs) started editing again shortly after all of User:Richard Relucio known socks were blocked, having been dormant since July of 2008. Same articles, same pattern (lots and lots of minor edits). Enough evidence to file a checkuser? OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, I was about to bring this up here, too. I've been watching this editor, and the edits do fit the pattern. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 Likely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a Racist

I'm simply calling you out. Improve thyself. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above comment and that editor's history of incivility, I have blocked User:Pietru il-Boqli for 1 week. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 07:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am kinda curious why said editor thinks I'm a racist or an anti-semite; certainly a large amount of my editing here on Wikipedia has been anti-racist and neutral if not downright philosemitic. I don't think I've ever had any interaction with this editor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LAShTAL.com

Hi Josh,

There's been a bit of what I think is pettifogging over at Talk:Aleister_Crowley#Aleister_Crowley_Society_Link concerning a site link, and the person disputing it has also put the site up for blacklisting. I noticed you've edited the Aleister Crowley page quite a bit in the past and are an admin, and since it doesn't look like the parties concerned are going to reach a consensus anytime soon, I thought you might be able to help us settle it. I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, but I trust it's OK to approach you like this. Ian Rons (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, unfortunately it fell on a technicality. Ian Rons (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A Little Request

I wonder if you would have a look at the article on the Lodz Ghetto, please. I hope you don't mind me imposing on you. Norvo (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Sorry I didn't leave a link. Norvo (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IP Unblock

Hello, Josh. I anonblocked the IP that was harassing you, and it is now requesting an unblock. As you were the target of the abuse, do you want to say anything? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A91.108.219.174&diff=273479436&oldid=273478739. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock, but if he starts again, apply a longer block. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me; I guess good faith requires accepting someone recognizing themselves behaving poorly and promising to knock it off. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Took around 90 minutes to get reblocked. No harrassment, but creating articles reading "ahahahaha" or whatnot. Well, I tried :) -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rousas John Rushdoony

Regarding the reference I provided, the full text of the journal article is accessible, for free, through the page that is linked. It is in a PDF document; I'd like to find a direct link but I haven't yet. I wouldn't have used it if it were not freely available. I think as a scholarly paper it is a high quality reference. - EronTalk 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

List of converts to Judaism

How can I resolve this situation? Thanks. Divamia (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. It's like talking to a brick wall. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Should I try mediation? People have commented on an RFC before but the other users have not listened. Divamia (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Might work, but mediation requires both parties agree to take part in it. Perhaps going the RFC route again might be helpful. Last one veered off somewhat. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tigeroo

He has resurfaced to request unblock, professing penitence, after seven months. I put it on hold pending comment from you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He made his promise and I unblocked. Let's see what happens next. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Raquel666

Her username, not her signature, is the problem. She's got a history of using her account to spam for her website, 666ismoney, and for no more constructive purpose than that. She's got a bad case of The Truth. Read her defiant talk page: "to "publish my own ideas" is absurd & irrational, should I get someone else to publish them, Truth is Truth, publish the Truth." --Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Cristina Schultz

I'm hoping to get more discussion about a proposal to delete Cristina Schultz. I'm giving this message to all registered users who have contributed to Cristina Schultz or its talk page, except for some with no WP contributions in the last four months, and one WP:SPA with no talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks

I forgot to check back to the entertainment reference desk and didn't have a chance to thank you and the others for contributing and helping me with this. So, here you go, my thanks! Good to know there's some other guitar players on here who I can always run to for help ;)

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!



—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Chosen (Chaim Potok)

Hi... I noticed you haven't been de-crapping this article lately, and wondered if you were still active. Hope you're well... and I hate patrolling alone; makes it look like I think I own the thing. ;-) Zephyrad (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm active! I guess I haven't noticed any crap on my watch; has it been getting a lot? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just the usual... other'n someone injected a particularly Jewish POV line, this week ("creating this state would be superceding the authourity of G-d"), and couldn't spell, on top of it. (I notice now it's back, in an amended form: "Rebbe feels that...") Oy gevult. Zephyrad (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm? That's not a POV; that's the reason the Rebbe opposed the creation of Israel. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the storyline (or the reasoning); I'm talking about the phrasing ("Rebbe" and "G-d"). Someone not familiar with Jewish culture would likely read that and go "Huh?", and not in a positive way. NPOV/"worldwide view" or a similar principle would apply, I believe. Zephyrad (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

jeffhardy28 why did you block him

To JPGordon, The person who made Jeffhardy28 password was figured out by his friend David the dogman now it says he is abusing multiple accounts and he is blocked can you please unblock jeffhardy28's account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fake28 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:24.73.17.181

Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires. If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP address, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption. §hawnhath 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Users Adatapost, Mr. moose

Just had an odd experience, maybe you can explain it. I use a Google search to find new (Google's 24 hour time limit) pages with the word "Software". This morning Category:Computer Education popped up, with one categorized page - User:Adatapost. Adatapost had only the history of creating the category - I nowiki'd the categorization of the user page, with the edit comment Nowiki'd category. See Wikipedia:Categorization guideline#User pages.

Almost immediately I received the message User talk:69.106.242.20#March 2009 that my test on that user page worked so it had been reverted. Message signed Mr. moose. Curious, I looked at the User talk:Adatapost - it's full of speedy deletion flags. That got me to look at User talk:Mr. moose where I found your recent, and curious, entry.

So - what I have stepped into? Is there an explanation for all of this? Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's odd. I thought it might be because it blanked the page, but no; and someone else removed the category, but then someone else reverted it. Weird. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

hi

how do you report a user of suspicion? AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand how "suspicion" would be anything to report. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

how do you report a user? AgentSpy101 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Report a user for what? At any rate, perhaps you should concentrate on helping us put together an encyclopedia, rather than goofing around with user talk pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

for vandalism, suspected sockpuppetry, ect. thats what I think he means. MusicMan4444 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

yes! yes! thats exacly what I mean! AgentSpy101 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for suspected sockpuppetry, you go to WP:SPI. For vandalism, WP:AIV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anne Teedham

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Jpgordon, Great catch!

The sockpuppets of User Anne Teedham have created quite a mess of multiple pages within wikipedia, those of us involved in things surrounding those pages-Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto, Wackenhut, Peter Videnieks, Earl Brian, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Political scandals of the United States, Robert Hanssen, Prosecutor's Management Information System, October surprise conspiracy theory, United States Office of the Independent Counsel, Ted Gunderson, and more are wondering if there's a way to revert all of the edits this person has done? If you look at the talk pages related to Inslaw and Michael Riconosciuto you'll see where this person has been quite biased in their editing and promoting misinformation throughout these articles. Any help you can give would be great. Again, thanks for catching this.    desertfae    —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Hm. I know someone knows how to do that, but I don't. Ask around. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Will do, thanks again! Desertfae (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

List of converts to Judaism

I've had no luck with the RFC. How should I proceed now? Divamia (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Request mediation; if that fails (and it probably will, since the one person doesn't think there's anything wrong at all with his position), you'll need to go to arbitration. Or just shrug and say "what a crock" and walk away from it; that's what I did. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dædαlus Contribs 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits?

I've recently started looking over the Recent Changes page and reverting some obvious vandalism. I came across these [20], [21] and I don't know enough about the subject(s) to know whether they are good faith edits. I'm hoping you could take a look and either revert or ignore. Thanks for your time. Tiderolls 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:69.194.137.183

Do you think the user who made the legal threat has moved on to a new IP yet? (Blocked since 2006) –xeno (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

cheers, –xeno (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Mutation

Deletion Mutation has requested that you discuss his block/checkuser results at his talk page, and has asked for someone to notify both the blocking administrator and the closing checkuser. Thanks, — neuro(talk)(review) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Octotweak.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


hi

who do you think was the most confusing, sly, vandalizing sockpuppets you ever delt of, or heard of? Rick Tryker (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, by the way, im not trying to set a record. see on my talk

Multiple accounts

Hi Jpgordon. I've noticed you go round blocking people for "abusing multiple accounts". I have several accounts that I use to edit with, but it's not to evade blocks or anything like that, it's just so I can voice my opinions a bit stronger. I wasn't aware that there was a policy against using more than one account until now, so I just wanted to find out from you if this was ok, or if I'm going to end up banned? 91.108.208.101 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • "Voice my opinions a bit stronger" is exactly what you may not use multiple accounts for; we call it "evading scrutiny". The best thing to do is either stick to exactly one account or stay completely away from any policy areas. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh christ! Who knows how many other policies I've violated! :S 91.108.208.101 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (and...)

sockpuppetry|socking]]. Another admin shut down their IP address after they did 7 vandalisms today. Peace and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I need your help about a false sock puppet acussation

Dear administrator. My now blocked name is RodolfoMita or RodolfMita. We have a long discussion with Oli_Filth because he discriminates the Latin America people in scientific and technical matters. Please se Audio amplifier talk page the comment about his discrimination to Professor Bonello. The Oli_Filth reply to my accusation was to block me (and other university teachers) . The real true is as follows. As a resulto of a goog work of the AudioEngineering Society, New York in Latin America, giving conferences, Recording studios visits, etc. A rising interest in Acoustics and Audio Engineering can be noted in universities of South America (mainly Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile) Then many professors at universities (including myself) are interested in improving the students participation. One thing we noted is that Wikipedia, frequently consulted by students, has a poor documented articles in this field. Sometimes with personal opinions with no scientific based concepts. All professors usually communicates among us using the Educational News Report, received by e-mail. We did a good work, that lasts about 10 months with the agreement of many editors… But at this point Oli_Filth starts erasing our work because (he said) the name of Professor Bonello is “promotion” Please note that Bonello is a FELLOW member of AES New York (www.aes.org) . Then I ask myself; why several young editors that teaches at universities are now for Wikipedia like a gang of gangsters ? Why our work scientifically documented is continuously erased and never discussed at talk pages ? List of erased articles (previously accepted by others editors) are

MP3 Audio amplifiers Audio signal processing Room acoustic (erased by Oli_Filth but now restored by other editors) FM Broadcasting Tephone Hybrids An so on…

Please what we must do ? Regards User:RodolfMita (now blocked) --200.61.154.31 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I feel it do not solve my problem. I will try to be more clear:

a) When you said: "But it does look quite evident that User:RodolfMita, User:Binksternek, User:RobertTanzi, and User:Albert-Kraft are the same person" I do not understand your proof. They are at different countries (you can test it using IP address) They are different persons with the same purpose That is edit acoustical articles to improve it (please see again my comments at the beginin of this text) Then, Oli_Filth has bloked me with no evidence. What is the next step ? Since you are an Administrator; can you unblock me ?

b) item a) can be solved in my case or not because hundred of professors and doctorate students in Latin America probably wishes to come into Wiki to add Acoustics articles, please let me know what to do with the people discrimination problem ? If Oli_Filth (or others) still discriminates me and all the other editors (including new editors) that writes references to resarch work did in Latin America. What we must do ? Plese remembre that to block editors is a punishment measure used to improve an illegal situation of People Discrimination (First step: erasure, Second step: block Latin American editors) Please let me know exactly what to do. Can you help me to solve this problem? Or I must use another Wikipedia path to stop people discrimination ? In this case what I must do ?

Best regards RodolfMita--200.61.154.177 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. But the main question is item b. How the Latin American editors can avoid discrimination ? There is not sense in asking for be unblocked if Oli_Filth or another people can discriminate me (or others) again and block me again? Please this issue is not a joke. Can you give me a detailed explanation about what to do into Wikipedia to solve this problem ? Or we must presente a case for discrimination at the USA Embassy in Colombia, Chile or Buenos Aires ? (recently it happens with Facebook) What do you recommend me ? Regards RodolfMita--200.61.154.114 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I recommend you not edit while you are blocked; I will not answer any more of your questions here. --

jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jpgordon: I have the same problem that RodolfMita about Discrimination Of course I am not blocked. I am editor about Acoustics I had a couple of discussions with Oli_Filth. Please give me information about how to proceed:

    • Does Wikipedia have an internal procedure to avoid Discrimination ?
    • Must I presente the case outside Wiki (USA Embassy, Local discriminations comitee, etc ) ?

Regards --BetoVinci (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously and verifiably the same person. I've blocked this account also. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gordon I wish to read your opinion about the main issue: Discrimination regards MarkAlonso --174.34.141.37 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is you should stop attempting to edit when you are blocked, from any account, or in any way. Your allegations of discrimination are without basis; since Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and a neutral point of view, as opposed to any concern with the personal background, beliefs, or opinions of our editors, it doesn't matter at all where the editor comes from. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


I follow this discussion with interest. Why do you think that in all cases are the same person ? I see different IPs RGDS--94.76.196.61 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just part of my responsibilities. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Gordon; I am very new in Wiki. You mention earlier to use reliable sources Please let me know if in the technical field a paper published for a peer reviewed Journal is accepted as reliable. Regards Mark Spencer --174.34.141.35 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BtZkdpAkgc
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BtZkdpAkgc
  3. ^ http://anibalgobernador.com/blog/?n=129
  4. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BtZkdpAkgc
  5. ^ http://www.primerahora.com/noticia/otras/noticias/libre_sin_fianza_anibal_acevedo_vila/173083]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_4&oldid=1142470368"