Jump to content

User talk:Jpgordon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 8 September 2007 (→Thanks and a question.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for blocking that rude user who always vandalizes Wikipedia it was greatly appreciated! bobsmith319 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--bobsmith319 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC) This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.[reply]

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives:

  1. /Archive 1

It's just a coincidence

Actually, i was just logging on after a four day vacation to Florida, and discovered I couldn't edit. The whole thing was just a coincidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connell66 (talk • contribs) 01:34, July 22, 2007 (UTC)

Stale

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds While looking through the conflicts others have had on here, I noticed this WP:RFCU where you mentioned two of the suspected socks being stale. How much time is involved before accounts become stale for the purposes of RFCU? Anynobody 04:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that vagueness because it sort of depends on the circumstances surrounding the request? Or just because you (senior editors like bureaucrats) don't want people to game the system by knowing exact figures? (Which I totally understand the logic of witholding) Anynobody 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last question; yes meaning both? Don't get me wrong; I think there is a lot of unnecessary vagueness regarding important policies and guidelines (WP:3RR etc.), but there are some things that should not be known by all.

Also, to reassure you, I'm not planning to actually submit what might be a stale WP:RFCU and this is purely out of curiosity. I really appreciate your time and prompter than expected responses considering how busy you probably are. Anynobody 22:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Anynobody 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info necessary for filing a request

I gave another editor some advice, and want to double check with you. I responded to a WP:WQA thread concerning sock puppetry. The editor I was talking to responded on my talk page with more info about his problem, specifically that he didn't know the puppet master.

Based on conversations we've had I'd guess that to not necessarily be a deal breaker as far as submitting a WP:RFCU, but a detail of the suspected activity and pages it occurred on would be much more important (so as to discourage fishing I'd expect; if editors could just submit articles and one user by saying "I think there's sock puppetry afoot related to this user" the amount of requests would greatly increase.)

If I'm wrong, then I'll simply refer him to Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser, I just realized my advice could have been bullshit and want to double check. Anynobody 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, when I submitted the COFS case I remember thinking the standards for that code must be a bit higher than the others (as an understatement). I don't know all the information the editor has, but hypothetically if it's extremely compelling could checkuser reveal sock puppetry without the editor knowing the master account involved? Or at least other socks. (Bear in mind possible does not mean probable so I'm not going to give any guarantees.) I forgot about SSP so that would be a better option if his evidence isn't really stellar. (I'm guessing a lot of the self requested checkuser cases are from people found to be socks at SSP though.) Anynobody 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not really necessary to know the "master account"; if sockpuppeting is happening, the "master" and the "slaves" often get treated identically, though we'll sometimes keep exactly one of them unblocked if the offenses aren't too egregious, or if we're caught in a charitable mood. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your help!
Anynobody 05:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phral

Hi Josh There is a case for checkuser pending at Wikipedia:Requests for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650. I recall you handled the case User_talk:The_Behnam#FYI..., I have also opened a report incidents notice board. Muntuwandi 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Phral has been blocked, I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a return. I don't know how he does it. Muntuwandi 06:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's baaack! User:Phral von Phralstadt. - Jeeny Talk 08:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need checkuser for these, of course. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not as obvious, at least in name. User:Waffen Wiki. Use of the word "Negro" on Talk:White people - Jeeny Talk 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from the same IP:
  1. Uniquely Phral (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Leibstandarte Phral Phralter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Phralsgemeinschaft (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Nova Wikia (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
What fun. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can this continue to happen? This is so disruptive I find it very difficult to contributing productivly on this encyclopedia. sigh. Can't you block him, he's all over the place. - Jeeny Talk 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feed him. Disengage. It won't be fun for him if you're not there to play with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those last three are not yet blocked - it wouldn't be improper to request their block, would it? The Behnam 05:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iasson case

With your rejection, and only eight active arbitrators left, I don't think this has any chance of acceptance any longer. Can you just remove the request now?

I put the case up as a goodwill gesture, but a few days ago I received an e-mail from Iasson stating that I ought to be the one banned for abusing his account, and blocking an innocent, leaving me without any shred of belief any longer that he is willing to return in a constructive manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Specialjane

Dear JP - the WP:AN on User:Specialjane at [2] says "Please don't unblock without hearing from User:Voice of All." Is it normal to keep people blocked even if the evidence suggests there was never any reason for it? The admin doing the blocking was notified some 12 hours ago, has edited since then and apparently hasn't responded, so the block cannot be lifted. Is this normal? Is it normal for people offering "mentorship" to suffer such attacks on their participation - would you recommend people volunteer for this apparently onerous duty? PalestineRemembered 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Specialjane is a checkuser-verified sockpuppet of the prolific abusive sockpuppeteer User:Dereks1x. That's all there is to it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Rougela

Whom is he a sockpuppet/sockpuppetmaster of? –Animum 19:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whitmorewolveyr

I am minded to take this to CSN. What thinkest thou? --Dweller 11:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Username

I reported User:Jpgordon needs to get a life since he is a cuckoomaker for violation of username policy, just to let you know. -FlubecaTalk 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC) He has been banned 2 minutes after account creation see here[reply]

User:GHouck

I have been blocked, and it says it is due to my username being offensive. My username is simply my first initial (G, as in Greg), and my last name (Houck). May I ask how "GHouck" is offensive? 65.74.122.29 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing. Ghouck (your account, your IP address or a range of addresses) was blocked by Jpgordon for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information). I am confused, since I can log in as GHouck, howcan it be that there is no GHouck?65.74.122.29 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Please don't feed Fourdee. He is trolling. He seems to like these kinds of arguments and by engaging in discussion with him will only result in another "evil" response. Take care. :) - Jeeny Talk 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess I shouldn't have said anything. I'm sorry. You're probably better at this than I am anyway. Cheers. :) - Jeeny Talk 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. (I do try to avoid the term "troll"; it totally disrespects the opinions of even utter idiots.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol. So should I use "idiot" instead of "troll" next time? j/k :) - Jeeny Talk 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, come on, you chastise me and then do this? No feed! No feed! Walk away! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a commie hypocrite. I'm sorry. :( - Jeeny Talk 06:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sockpuppetry block with solid evidence here in which you did the previous checkuser (unrelated). My understanding is it's possible to fool checkuser, but I don't understand if "unrelated" = exonerated or what. Anyway, you're comment could be helpful if there's something you can add besides telling me what unrelated means in the context of RFCU. Thanks and cheers.--Chaser - T 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkuser can't prove innocence; it's very easy for someone to come into Wikipedia from unrelated IPs. For example, I could very easily, without any fancy tricks, simultaneously be running browsers on totally unrelated IPs in San Francisco and New York. So "Unrelated" is just shorthand for "checkuser can't detect any relationship between these editors' IPs in the last several months." I often add "If there is sockpuppetry occurring, it will need to be detected by behavior, not by IP usage." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:84.45.219.185

Hi, any chance you can take away the {{helpme}} template on User talk:84.45.219.185 that you have recently blocked indefinitely after CheckUser? The constant notice on IRC and CAT:HELP is a bit annoying for those of us that keeps track. Thanks. KTC 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Rick Santorum

Hello. I just came onto Wikipedia today to find I had new messages - apparently somebody from this IP vandalized the Rick Santorum article. You should know that this IP belongs to a mac in one of the computer labs at the University of San Francisco, and that blocking this IP would block many different students and possibly many different computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.150.84 (talk) 02:45, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

RE: Inaccuracies on eBay

Hi there! I received your message. Sorry about the inaccuracy I've made. I didn't recognize that the firearms and ammunition were included in the Prohibited or Restricted Items section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpark3909 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

explanation on arb Liancourt Rocks

Could you explain why this could be a content dispute? It's more than content, that's just a side story. Didn't you read? (Wikimachine 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Of course I don't have to. I could mobilize all the ppl who I'm sure would be offended by the current revision & then set a specific date to participate in a revert war & then do that instead. But I'm not.
Sir, they will not listen & it's never consensus, did you read? They agreed amongst themselves - it's us vs "they" - "they" in collective term. This has been so for 2 years. Don't you feel that you have to fix something about this? It's my honest opinion that the 2 sides have never been able to build consensus or make compromises. (Wikimachine 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Huanwei motion

Regarding your question in the comment, see Jdforrester's this edit. I asked to the arbcom-l because "abstain" affects majority-- in which case your vote would affect the majority. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey

It seems I have annoyed you. One of many I have annoyed. Perhaps you would like to add your negative comments here[3]. Or you could block me from participating. I passed the point of caring months ago. It is not as though I enjoy the company. Kwork 00:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't do the work any more, I was a sign painter for twenty years. It is difficult not to think in terms of making your copy stand out after getting paid to do that for so many years.
Maybe I could still do something bad enough to get you to block me from editing. I can't leave because I consider that I have a responsibility, but getting sent into Wikipedia exile would leave me free to spend this time on things I would rather do. Kwork 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not take a voluntary break, then? Sounds like you're obsessing a bit. Go enjoy the rest of the summer (or the winter, if you're on the other side of the Equator; never mind if you're in a tropical area!), read more books, play more games, whatever brings you joy and/or pleasure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not obsessed with it, quite the contrary. I do back out a little on occasion, but once I made the decision that this is doing the right thing, there followed also a responsibility to never give up. Kwork 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the talk page:

The Gershom one is tough; it's a self-published work not in the mainstream (as far as I can tell) of Gershom's expertise, so even if it's right we probably can't include it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This had been discussed and (I thought) settled by another administrator involved with the RfC. Rabbi Gershom is in no way outside the mainstream on the issue of antisemitism, which is an issue widely agreed apon in the entire Jewish community. He is a published author, and respected.

One of the most disheartening aspects of this long controversy is that the same group of editors keep taking us through the same arguments, again and again. Kwork 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't say Gershom is outside the mainstream on the issue of antisemitism. Read WP:RS carefully; and then notice that I questioned if the Bailey issue is in the mainstream of his own research. If the answer is "yes", that's all that's needed. Sorry if fresh eyes on the issue annoy you, but I'm here, I'll ask the questions I want the answers to, and I think I have the right to do this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a student of matters esoteric, as well as the consequences of antisemitism, and other related matters. What more, exactly, would you want to see? A problem with editing this article is that nothing of a scholarly nature has been written about Bailey, a point that I frequently makes me doubt her notability. Kwork 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, his article only talks about his research and writing about the Holocaust, reincarnation, and nonviolence; I don't see anything about his research into early 20th-C neo-theosophists, or early-to-mid 20th century philosophical currents, or anything like that. (And why does Yonassan Gershom list the Bailey article about being about anti-Zionism, I wonder?) Anyway, this discussion is for the article talk page, not here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it should be discussed on the talk page. But, unless the torrent of discussion is slowed, it is pointless. There is so much put on the talk page every day that I have given up trying to read it all. Everything put on the talk page disappears into the rush of words with out any proper discussion or consideration. If you have a solution to that let me know. Kwork 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

you have just been blocked indefinitely on nl: as a sockpuppet [4]. Oscar van Dillen 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May we have a temporary injunction?

... against Anynobody harassing Justanother? I suggest it here in the workshop. I don't think AN has yet grasped that using Justanother as an "example" of this, that, and the other is exactly what he's supposed to not do. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Unclean hands

I don't know if you have followed the discussion there but the point is that no editor should be allowed to report violations of the 3RR on a page where said editor has violated the very same rule and not receive some kind of corrective action going forward. (The system broke in this case because it should have been revealed that <<censored>> also violated the rule. Am I right or wrong on that?)

I've realized the problem isn't so much with the unclean hands of a reporting editor as it was the admin's mistake not to look at the history. I'm assuming that's why the article is placed there with a {{Article}}, but I'm left to assume since the only specific instructions to an admin are:

Administrators: once you have dealt with a report please make a note so that other administrators don't waste time responding to it.

I'm going to propose specific instructions be written that administrators should do some research themselves and not solely depend on the reporting editor to get the situation. Then I'll never mention the reason why I proposed it ever again, should I mention this on the arbcom case? Anynobody 06:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Kwork.

All Kwork needs a break from is the bad faith attacks that have been perpetrated and perpetuated upon him by some of the other editors editing the Bailey articles. His remarks on your page seem to betray a distrust of your sudden appearence at the Bailey article. I do not share that distrust but I do understand it. From my persepective you are in fact just another editor just as you say you are. I will trust you until I am given good reason not to.

Personally I believe that the dispute will not be resolved until it goes through the complete dispute process and the arbitration committee agrees to hear it and makes a binding decision. We shall all see what happens. Meanwhile it seems rather obvious to me that Kwork is being villified and harassed by some of the Bailey supporters, It is not the kind of harassment that gets people blocked or banned from wikipedia but it is the kind that makes me want to drop everything and join the struggle.

Oh yes and thanks for your involvement thus far. Albion moonlight 22:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment

You may wish to read this for further information Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Njyoder.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_continues_personal_attacks. Including a previous arbcom ruling against this individual for similar behaviour.--Crossmr 04:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thing is, someone else besides you or me needs to get him clued regarding our attribution requirements.. That whole section he's introducing now has the problem of being simultaneously true and unsourceable; it's a classic Wikipedia problem. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitmorewolveyr

I was hitching my britches waiting for his return, when I noticed an odd discrepancy between his block log and talk page ([5]) shows 1 week from 28th Aug, talk page 1 week from 26th. --Dweller 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re holocaust denial talk page

That user World Anarchy blanked the whole Bias section. I restored it but I thought you should take a look at it. It may have been an attempt to retract his legal threat. : Albion moonlight 08:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a question.

Does the arb.com.ever hear cases involving meat puppetry. I was just getting ready to launch a formal complaint when the dispute was settled. I do not intend to do it now but if the dispute starts up again I just may do so. Your presence and verbal interjections did the trick.

Anyway thanks for the info on the 11 year old anarchist and for everything else. Feel free to ignore my question if you are too busy...... Albion moonlight 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&oldid=156519806"