User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jpgordon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Unblock my Accounts

I don't see how we sockpuppeted. If you agree, can you please unblock my accounts? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Shot yourself in the foot there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not "shot yourselves in your feet"?—Kww(talk) 16:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Shot yourself in the feet, and shot yourselves in the foot, would do too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reguarding the ban of Rob-Oblong

Hello,this is Robert Parrish,for some reason ive been accused of using "multiple accounts",not sure why My accountUser:Rob-Oblong was banned,because that was my only account up until i made this one to inquire why the first was banned,seeing as didnt sign up an email address because i wasnt expecting to be randomly targeted and attacked).seeing as really havn't made any edits,there was another issue as well everytime ive logged on it says my ip is blocked for vandalism? I've never vandalized anything and resent this greatly,and now my account is blatantly being bannned for no reason,it seems like wikipedia is being run by a bunch of loose cannons with an itchy ban button finger who are making it quite complicated for the average joe to use wikipedia. You see, i dont have a problem,it would just be much appreciated if you unbanned my account ,thanks. RobP1989 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please use an {{unblock}} request on the blocked account's talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:CantorFriedman

I'm not sure, but I think this User:TomasCantorFriedman might be a sockpuppet for the above.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Tomas Cantor Friedman. Please unblock my account! I have not done anything wrong! Whats a sockpuppet? In any case i'm really not any puppet!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And you're also User:Arn Cantor, User:Tosses and User:CantorFriedman; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have an explanation for that, even if it sounds kind of corny. I had a account named Tosses but I realized that "Toss" or something like that is a sexual behaviour, something &#%#%#. So I created the account Arn Cantor because I'm related to Arn, a figure like Beowulf(believe it or not). Anyway, I forgot my password and had not linked the account to any mailadress. So I created the account CantorFriedman, which is my name. Then that account was blocked indefinitely. So I created the account TomasCantorFriedman = also blocked for obvious reasons. But please, 3 of the accounts are named almost the same. Arn Cantor, CantorFriedman, TomasCantorFriedman. This just because I did not want to deceive anyone. Is there any way I can clear this and start over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This would be a lot more believable if you hadn't been alternating between the Tosses and CantorFriedman accounts on the same articles at the same time. I imagine the account User:Cantor is your as well? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No I can't remind me of creating a account named Cantor! I only altered between Tosses and CantorFriedman when I got a angry hate message(or what you call it) on my talk page. I don't recall altering on any other site except when I stopped using the Tosses account and started writing with my CantorFriedman account. Is there a way to start over or am I forever banned from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You should appeal your block at User talk:Tosses, while logged in as Tosses. You'll have some explaining to do, because we really really don't like it when people use multiple accounts abusively. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But I don't want the account Tosses because of, you know. And secondly, I can't edit my talk page while logged in because the account are blocked indefinitely! So that means I can't appeal my block!! Moment 22! Have you got some other advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see, if I appeal the block at Tosses(and hoping for the best), is it possible to change the username afterwords? PS. Thank you for just not ignoring me! DS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The appeal is mailed to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from logging in as User:Tosses and appealing from User talk:Tosses; blocked users can generally edit their talk pages to make appeals. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't edit anything when logged in as Tosse, I had to mail the appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Saeedrags (talk · contribs) left an odd note at my talk page (and some others)...I know it's hardly standard operating procedure to run a check on an account at that account's out-of-the-blue request. Frankly, I'd like to know why and have asked as such. I just wonder what you might think of the situation... Thanks, — Scientizzle 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a recurring pestilence. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, that's what I figured...Thanks for your help. — Scientizzle 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC Michael Collins

I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't this crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I am Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for lifting of restriction

Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Banned editor ptmccain at it again

My good fellow editor and helpful administrator: Please look at the Book of Concord page. Banned editor Mccain is again attempting to edit it. I think we need to make the article protected from editing by anonymous editors unless someone wants to lift the indefinite ban. I for one would not be in favor of lifting the ban. His latest sock puppet is the IP address: 75.8.92.141[2]----Drboisclair (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note suggestion

Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarist

You stole my block summary without attribution. Are those covered under the GFDL? I guess it's cool, though, since I'm your sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I appear to be talking to myself again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 188.225.180.251

Hi Jpgordon, IP 188.225.180.251 continues to vandalize Rawabi even after being warned and blocked (on multiple accounts) several times. I don't know how else to convince him to stop with these disruptive edits. Breein1007 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like vandalism to me; seems like a good-faith content dispute regarding the nomenclature, and some tendentious POV-pushing as well. Anyway, the usual thing to do would be to bring it up on WP:ANI, or alternately to request page protection at WP:RFPP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I called it vandalism and brought it to your attention was because he was previously blocked by you for doing the exact same thing. My bad, Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine I'm feeling lazier today than I was previously! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm awake. Blocked again for sockpuppetry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Josh,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your long experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page and download the file with the questions. This would take around 20 of your time. Thanks! Aresj (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Haplogroup mtDNA K

Why are you locking the page from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because you're a banned editor; therefore, you shouldn't be editing it at all, much less edit-warring over it. Pleased stop editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More User:Brunodam

Hello JP, I hope you are well. Bruno has opened a couple more accounts recently - User:Olvenetian, User:2Lauderdale (apparently retired) - as well as the IP address 12.185.127.9. Once again I'll open an SPI case if you would prefer me to do so. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done for the accounts; the IP seems rather different, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

207.69.137.27 and Special:Contributions/209.215.160.106 are also clearly the same user, judging by their edits to Sub-Roman Britain.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your attention once again JP. It earned me something of a rebuke on my talk page though [3]. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratel

Re: [4]: interesting. A quick skim of that page didn't show any struck-out edits; is there a sock-puppet investigations page for the details? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It was a private request, and it was just a couple of the snowballed "keeps". I'm not even sure why he bothered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What were the other accounts and have they also been blocked? Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That was User:Unit 5; there weren't any others. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Re: comment at Circumcision

Please accept my apology about "put up or shut up", but I hadn't appreciated you were an uninvolved editor nor involved in the investigation about the user concerned. It came soon after a similar comment by an involved editor on the page, who when challenged for making a similar statement had not substantiated his comment. I have had no contact with the user who has now been blocked before a request to contribute to the discussion a week or so ago. What concerns me is that this request cam from an IP within the range that have been identified, but looking at the contributions of that user, the only overlap is with the circumcision article, and there are two IPs where these requests for input come from, so one can reasonably assume they are one and the same user:

172.190.204.241
172.191.234.191

However, what strikes me as odd is that this IP user also included the user he is supposed to be the sock of in the list of people he requested to contribute. If you look at the user's comment on his own block, he seems completely oblivious of his being blocked for using IPs - but talks about an association with some other user who was not even included in the alleged sockpuppetry. I would be concerned if this user was subject to an investigation without being informed of this. I was not aware of it, and I can find no discussion of this recent investigation on his talk page, so am left wondering by the lack of response to the accusations, which if he was not aware of the procedure, how he could have responded? I have to bow to your experience in these matters, but I am left wondering how far we can be sure all of this is the same user as the one who has been blocked, and not a new user with a similar perspective? During the discussions I did not get the impression that these IP edits were the same individual as the blocked user - but I guess I wasn't looking for that at that time. Mish (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I'm not that thin-skinned; "put up or shut up" is only bothersome when the target has nothing to put up. I explained over on the Circumcision talk page that we're deliberately quite vague about what technical information is available through checkuser. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I was a UNIX systems admin for ten years, and I was intrigued as to how one could pin a DHCP assigned address to a particular user without having access to the system that assigned the IP address. It would be theoretically possible if you had access to the MAC address of the network card on the PC being used, but that information is not available via WHOIS. So, I was unclear how it could be established. However, I looked into User:Yris edits, and initially they seem to be completely independent of the editing history of the user in question, until the last edit made, which seems to follow on from the requests from the IP addresses I detailed above. So, I guess this could be a different user who began editing anonymously, then created an account - or... it was who you say it was, concerned he would be blocked again, and setting himself up with a new account to try and get round the block. My feeling at the moment is that given it started with circumcision and ended there - you may well be right; I am disappointed with the user if that is the case - one thing I have learned about these policies is that they do tend to curb the worst of our potential behaviours. But, part of me also hopes we haven't just blocked a new editor who was starting go about things the wrong way. Not my problem. maybe one day Wikipedia will entrust me with some of its secrets, but the libertarian-anarchist within doubts it.

I do have another question, unrelated to this topic: out of interest and for future reference, if one finds oneself in editorial conflict with an administrator, and they respond with profanity and incivility - what is the correct procedure to follow? Mish (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the best place for complaints of that sort, I think. As far as the "secrets", they're not really secrets; the trick is in interpreting the data. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ted Gunderson

I appreciate your balanced observations and hope you will weigh in on this. User DougHill has been inserting a conspiracy theorist category onto this page for retired FBI SAC Ted Gunderson. I'd like to clean this page up and get rid of the unreferenced material, but I think it will be an uphill climb when another editor is insisting that Mr. Gunderson's only notability is as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks! Winksatfriend (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend

Unprotection

Can you please unprotect User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang? Sorry. I am sorry if what I said in User talk:Bowei Huang was inappropriate. I promise that I will never say anything inappropriate there again. I promise that I will never make any more requests for unblock there again. I promise that I will either leave User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang blank or redirected if you unprotect them. So can you please simply unprotect User talk:Bowei Huang now? Can you please simply unprotect User:Bowei Huang too?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Please stop bothering me. If you want the page unprotected, go to WP:RFPP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DeeKay64

Thanks so much for unblocking me! ;-) Can you tell me what I have to do now to get my 1541 Ultimate article back, which was deleted without any discussion whatsoever? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to go through WP:DRV for that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just did that! ;-) -- DeeKay64 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ResearchEditor sockpuppet

[5] Not really worth a sock check, it's already thrown away. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeahbut, he often creates them in bunches (like this time.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bunches? I only found this one but more might turn up tomorrow (the search function seems to be delayed by a day or so - you probably know more about it than me). I did a couple searches and checked the history of some likely page but that's the only one I've seen so far. If I see more, I'll let you know. Thanks for the block. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More Brunodam

Hello JP, Bruno's back, with this tomfoolery [6], and as User:Old1980s, whose user page bears an uncanny resemblence to his old sock User:DuilioM, and whose editing interest bears an uncanny resemblence to Bruno. Thanks for your attention as always, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(Comment from banned user removed) Yup, got that one and a few more. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, as always. Seems to have been a stick into a hornets' nest, that one. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

SheffieldSteel 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}}!

Thank you for your efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

You did unblock 1 party in the edit-war, but I had declined the other one ... you're welcome to balance things out, if you wish (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Union (supermarket)

So it seems that one day after the semiprotection you put on this article expired, the same anon editor keeps attempting to add te same unencyclopedic list of former locations. In short, I think either the anon needs a block or the page needs an extension of semiprotection. oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's no fun. I did block the most recent IP; perhaps that will deter him for a bit. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When BLP meets NPOV

Thanks for the considered comments earlier. I still think I was right, but you made me think a lot about it, so maybe I would take a slightly more lenient line the next time. Unlike a football referee, I am obliged to explain my administrative decisions promptly and honestly. I especially enjoyed the booger-eating salt monkeys comment. Incidentally, I noticed your user page states that you are against "ironically", "interestingly" and "it should be noted that". I share this aversion, and another one I have noticed increasingly since I started looking is "however" used as connective tissue in flabby writing.

X was born in Footown, Ruritania; however, he spent his formative years in Fulchester, Unified Stations, ...

Take care, and thanks again for your thoughtful comments. --John (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; these days, I've got something of a bug up my ass about people who should be blocked being blocked for the wrong reasons. Makes us look more arbitrary than need be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. I think the right outcome was reached in the end though, unless there are nuances I have missed to the case I think you are talking about. --John (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Klangranger

Did you intend to block Klangranger indefinitely? I'm only asking because you tagged Klangranger as indefinitely blocked but the account hasn't been blocked yet. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! forgot. I'll do it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks :D

Thanks again for your help. Btw, did I ever share this one with you? I came across it on recent changes patrol. It's my favorite vandal thing: Look at the title of the article.[7]. Malke 2010 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Fyodor7

Hey Jpgordon, Arunvroy (talk · contribs) is suspicious as well. The account hadn't made an edit in over two years but showed up today at Talk:Ahatallah advancing exactly the same opinion as the recently blocked Fyodor and his socks.[8] Cheers, --Cúchullain ^t/c 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI on GregJackP

Could you clarify your comments on the other accounts per my last comment at the SPI? I freely admit to the account dealing with the crazy/scarey people, but haven't created any other accounts and don't understand what you are referring to. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. GregJackP Boomer! 01:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Could you possibly delete this GA review from the sock puppet you recently blocked? The review was incomplete, and even if it wasn't, I'd rather have a fresh one from an honest, credible reviewer. -- James26 (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure why. There's nothing even conceivably dishonest or incredible about asking for link fixes and a reference, considering he was correct; all it needs is for someone to review the prose, and that's also not troublesome. Am I missing something? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose my initial thinking was that it would bring undue attention to the page/review -- which wasn't something I wanted under these circumstances. But having rethought things, you may have a point. Perhaps it's not such a big deal, as it doesn't seem to have made a difference. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your suggestion. The unblock request was approved. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Most of the time, when working with the unblock requests, I have to say "no no no". I'm so glad to occasionally be able to do something else. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Impressive work

Nice Martin BTW, Koa? 71.108.127.244 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Blackson

Not mine -- I was just restoring the image that had somehow been removed. My main Martin uke is a 1940 or so T-1, all mahogany, less photogenic. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Lovegames

{{tb|Fastily}} S/he says to go for it (unblocking). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Simulation12 socks

One of those socks created by Checker Fred wasn't this was it? --AussieLegend 14:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there were seven new socks there, now blocked and tagged. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

CullVernon's block review

I noticed that you restored the content of CullVernon's talk page, so he couldn't impede the unblock review. Well, he blanked it again... 76.123.241.114 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's no unblock request, I don't care if its talk page is blanked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

KERO-TV

Just wanted to let you know, that I'm having an issue with this one guy User:Deconstructhis. Thought should fix the former staff page on KERO, before he goes on there and changes it. There is something on WP:TVS on this issue, if you would like to chime in on the issue. I changed it for KERO, because the user I mentioned has been changing KGET-TV former air staff to how I have KERO-TV for example. Should leave KERO-TV like that for now, until the issue is resolved. Just wanted to clue you in, in case you go on KERO-TV and wonder what happened to all the names on there. Once the issue is resolved, we'll get them on there. (JoeCool950 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Actually, I don't think they really belong there; on the other hand, my wife is on the KERO list, so I guess that makes me neutral by way of conflicting biases! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam613

He's suddenly come out and requested unblock after almost two years. I can't the similarities to the alleged sock or puppeteer in the editing history. But since this is a direct block, was Checkuser involved? Is there something I can't see? Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is, I sure can't see it either. And it doesn't make much sense; that account hadn't made an edit in almost a year before that block, so there can't have been any checkuser data leading to it (and, indeed, the log comes up blank.) I imagine I had a reason, but I've sure got nothing to support that reason now. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request (User iaaasi)

Hello

My original account (User:iaaasi) is completely blocked, consequently I cannot make a request from there. I have a dynamic IP (79.117.xxx.xxx).

A more detailed motivation for my request would be here [9]... The main reason why I had recourse to sock accounts was that I was falsely accused to be User:Bonaparte (maybe without that accusation the problem would have been simpler)... I regret a lot that I chose that way...

Please give me a new chance at User:iaaasi and I promise I will not create problems. User:Rokarudi from WikiProject Hungary can confirm that I am a good faith editor and I am not against Hungarians

I am ready to be supervised by you or another admin and my edits to be under a strict control if you think it is necessary.

I will be grateful if you will help me(79.117.150.47 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Not me. You'll need to go through ArbCom for this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Six month block of 98.223.95.42

Hi Jpgordon, I got an email from a user claiming to represent this IP, asking whether we could lift the block. I looked at the sockpuppetry discussion for the user, and I do think that a six month block is a bit heavy. I think a shorter block of say one month would be sufficient time to see if the user cools off and graduates from their current position to a become a better contributor. What do you think? --Zippy (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The block on the IP is to prevent the indefinitely blocked TVFAN24 from continuing to create block evading sock puppets. The only reason it isn't indefinitely blocked is that we try to avoid doing that to IPs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I got an email similar to Zippy's. I don't see the reason for the indefinite ban on her account, yes she created some socks but the socks should be blocked, she should be warned not to use them any more and then a timed block on her main account. To me it just looked like sock was shouted and everything she had was banned. Also if you look at the edits that originated this dispute it appears to me that the person who was edit warring with her pulled a wheel war and got her blocked in the first place, that led to the socks. I don't mean to second guess you I can see why she would frustrate you just trying to give it some fresh eyes. I was going to get to notifying you when I got your message. --Wgfinley (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, late to the party here. Thank you for bringing me up to speed. Why is TVFAN24 indefinitely blocked, rather than blocked for a limited period? --Zippy (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This user used multiple accounts to feign consensus and lied repeatedly about doing so. This followed by this is worthy of an indefinite block without any other misbehavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I see now. Naughty. What's the primary account for TVFAN24? --Zippy (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TVFAN24 is the primary account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a temporary (month+) block on the primary. The user's most egregious behavior is sock puppetry, and I think that with the sock puppets banned and the IP address blocked from creating new accounts, it would be reasonable to put a definite rather than indefinite block on the primary. I realize WP:SOCK gives us the flexibility to perma-block the primary, but I'm generally in favor of giving users additional lengthening blocks on bad behavior to give them an opportunity to reverse their ways. What do you think? --Zippy (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I do believe the user has other strikes against them - canvassing against a ban and probably not owning up to sock puppetry too. So I'm just speaking about general discipline issues in this case, rather than with much knowledge of the specific case, aside from what I've read over the past day or two. --Zippy (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's add to it "creating new sock accounts while appealing an existing block for socking." The user's most egregious behavior isn't socking; it's using socks to feign consensus. That's a slap in the face, a gross insult to the community. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working with her and, let's just call it an experience. At this point I told her if I saw some changes I would be willing to give her credit for "time served" and end it at month end but this far she's been very enthusiastic to get back at it and "fix" things. I'm going to keep at it and see where we get at I'm hopeful I can work with her but it's tough going at present for certain. --Wgfinley (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock

Shortly after Sandstein blocked the user, an autoblock appeared in the IPBlocklist. Would it make sense to run a check to see if any light may be shed on this? –xeno^talk 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the first thing I did. Nothing of interest. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to double-check. –xeno^talk 17:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Mind if I tag those sockpuppets? --Bsadowski1 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but who's the sockmaster? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More likely it's User:AtlanticDeep. Same username patterns. --Bsadowski1 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop

Hi there. This user whom you blocked has requested unblock and he may have a point, in that you said he had posted the same edits twice which he appears not to have done. Would you lok at it? And if I am wrong, please accept my apologies? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block him. I just didn't unblock him. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi there, thank you for reversing the decision to block my account because of my nephew. I can assure you he's been given a good hiding and he's gone home now anyway so it certainly won't be happening again. Next time he comes here he will find my modem power cable missing unless he learns how to behave and use my computer appropriately. Thank you again. Crazy-dancing (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's now?

Thank you for running this thing: [10], but what should be done now?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine one of the CU clerks will review, tag and block as appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin

Hi, is it possible for you to perform the CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin as they seem to have recieved a lot of attacks in the past two hours? Thanks. Kevin Dorwin (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article unblock request

Hello, Josh, I believe that the problem with Book of Concord has ceased, so if you would and are able, please remove the semiblock. I leave it to your discretion. I hope all is well with you in your beautiful environment.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, Josh, but I think that ArbCom will be the poorer without your guiding hand. That is if I haven't misunderstood what you have resigned from a year early.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That was a year and a half ago! I'd be done now anyway. It was a task I wasn't cut out for at all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Jcarleo

Maybe User:Lizardlocker should make the list as well--please see their contributions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I didn't redact this impotent personal attack because I felt you'd be indifferent to it. If I was wrong, I apologize. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring the swipe. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. "Horrible little man" -- how sweet! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh...I'm 5'6" so the "little" made me wince. I got over it. Tiderolls 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm 5'5" -- I got over it a long time ago. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

changing block setting for User:Office of Fair Trading

Perhaps you were not aware of this [11] admission from NW that talk page access was revoked by mistake. It's somewhat less likely that you were not aware that our blocking policy states that "This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page," and it's a virtual certainty that you are aware that undoing an admin's reversal of another admin's actions constitutes wheel warring. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this or anything, but I was a bit alarmed when I went over there to re-instate the mistakenly revoked talk page privileges to see that it had already been done and then reversed, meaning that if I turned them back on I would be wheel warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it this way. The "don't block by default" is a good rule, and I stick to it quite firmly; except in the case of clearly abusive editors. This was a clearly abusive editor, not here in any way to help build an encyclopedia, and obviously both spamming and trolling. There was no need to assume good faith with this editor. The softening of the block, with the comment "Allowing them to edit own talk page so that we can answer any questions they have about why they were blocked", seemed totally naive, based on the contribution history of the editor. Perhaps I have less tolerance for horsecrap than others? Dunno. I'll take your point regarding wheel warring under consideration; so far, any time I've noticed you talking about policy issues, you've been right, so you're probably right here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I admit I saw the exact reasoning given for the restoration of the talk page in the same light. "Restoring accidently removed talk page access" would have been my log entry. And if they posted anything other than a unblock request that specifically addressed the reasons for their block I probably would have taken it away again. While it probably was technically wheel warring, I never thought there was a malicious or disruptive intent to it, just pointing it out. Maybe it's just me, but I try to be very careful to avoid even the appearance of wheel warring because it can get soooo ugly when it is done during a dispute between two admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspected puppetry

Dear Mr. Gordon

I'm so sorry for troubling you, so please accept my apologies in advance. I have two cases of suspected sock-puppetry to report. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is my "E-mail this user" link broken? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please accept the apologies of a techno-peasant, who has trouble with modern technology, and thank you again for your time.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Jpgordon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running a check on my account, because my edits keep being reverted as socks, but I'm not! I don't know what else to do because nobody seems to be listening. I just want to show them that I'm legit. Thank you Grignard4120 (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not. Kthxbai. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User issues

There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals.76.177.47.225 (talk)

"Accuse" implies a suggestion that one is guilty of some wrongdoing. Since I think most people agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you might want to rethink your wording. However, you are correct that the statement does not belong in the article unless it is germane and verifiable per the notions contained in WP:BLP. x-posted to User talk:76.177.47.225. Taroaldo (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being gay and that wasn't my intent. I love the show and they have made many hints that they are a homosexual couple. I will wait till a source presents itself before editing that page again. But if we want to talk about being uncivil. Take a look at his comments to me on User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers and comments he's left on his own talk page User_talk:76.177.47.225. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd rather edit by IP than user name. I picked that IP up the day that this started. I did not make those other comments. Second, it is accuse since he is saying they are something they that have not verified as being. Frank has mentioned his girlfriend in several episodes, has been photographed hosting wet t-shirt contests, and both are life long friends since childhood. When you say that they are a homosexual couple without proof you are being accusatory. Why? Because this has everything to do with their careers. This has nothing to do with gay being a bad word as Taroaldo implies. If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements. Third, your snarky attitude is what has started this. I simply ask you not to do this and you come back with a smart ass answer. I ask you to stop again and I get accused of this and that and another smart ass comment. The proof is on your page. I am getting closer to believing that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to hook somebody into a disagreement with you. I have notice intently how you seem to choose your words carefully, snare someone, then double back and make yourself look like gold. I am also starting to wonder if you and Taroaldo are sockpuppets.76.177.47.225 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you review my comment, you will note that I support your position that the material should be exlcuded. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. Bye. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is the one starting the argument? I really don't care what an "IP" thinks. Get a username and then we could tell if those were your comments or not. And if History dropped their show because they were gay, they would sue the History channel for discrimination and win big dollars. Especially if they used Wikipedia as their source. Every 2nd grader should know not to source Wiki. So please, just scram. I have a great history of edits. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

98.195.149.177 sock?

Hi, Josh. I noticed at User_talk:98.195.149.177 that you said this disruptive IP editor was a sock of a blocked user. I was wondering if it would be possible to identify which blocked user this is, so the fact can be mentioned on the IP address's user page. Apologies for my ignorance if there's some reason why this would not in fact be appropriate or helpful. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend not to put such notices on IP user pages, since they are so transient. In this case, it's User:Antwerping (as well as User:Iwannadrawmohammed). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Vermont libraries guy

Hi,

You blocked a long-term troll with an anon IP (159.105.80.141), resolving to Vermont, back in May (see Talk:David_Irving/Archive_6), and the same person is back on a slightly different IP: Special:Contributions/159.105.80.122, with the same abuse of talk pages and the same fringe views on familiar subjects. Can you block this one too? It's more of the same pointless trolling. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is the same Vermont Library Guy, he's done something I've never seen before: edited a mainspace article. I'm not inclined to block, yet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't noticed the mainspace edit. The writing style is very distinctive and I'm pretty sure its the same guy, though. I've got my hat-condiments ready in case he becomes a productive editor. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

Hello. I was referred to you by User:PeterSymonds regarding my SPI case. I'm being completely honest with everyone. I used to frequently edit at a library down the street from me, but I recently obtained a laptop from my grandfather on Saturday, and I've been using that to edit ever since. I honestly don't know what else to do. I'm at a loss. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years, and I don't want to see that all go to waste just because of some coincidence. Please, understand. I haven't done anything wrong, and I'm not the owner of a sockpuppet. Thank you. WereWolf (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What are we supposed to think? User:AcrossTheOcean was created at 20:07 on August 1. You commented User talk:AcrossTheOcean three minutes later, from the same IP, apparently on the same computer. You really need to be able to explain this. Put yourself in my shoes; what would you think happened? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I know. This is a massive coincidence. I'm freaked out about it, too. I can't explain this because I don't know what's going on. I know this seems extremely suspicious, I can't argue with that. Please, just understand that this is a huge misunderstanding... WereWolf (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I just can't believe it. Answer me this: how did you know User:AcrossTheOcean had created an account for you to post a welcome message to? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newusers. Why won't you believe me? This is just a mistake, and really bad faith on your part! WereWolf (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts:

You've never put a welcome message on a new user's page.
This user was on the same IP as you
This user has all the same technical characteristics as you (from Checkuser)
This user's first edit, a minute after you posted the welcome, was to support your featured list candidate

That's why I won't believe you. Feel free to request another checkuser evaluate this; I'm standing by my conclusions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Sugar

Thank you for notifying me on the actual problem and solving the issue. I appreciate it. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Tosses

Hello, one of the IPs you have blocked as sockpuppets of Tosses is activ again. Mostly on Talk:Great Divergence, editwarring with User:Teeninvestor, which is also not easy to handle. The subject is ... dingdong ... China. Additionally is a new IP involved from the same range [12]. Maybe you can have a look on this. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone else got the new one. I've re-blocked the old one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There's now another one (81.226.72.209) from the same range editing in the same way. Kanguole 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How boring. Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Philip.marshall

This editor, whose history goes back several years, appears to be repeatedly suffering from collateral damage from anti-sock rangeblocks; or else he is socking. You unblocked him recently, and Jayron32 re-unblocked him shortly afterwards. I am well able to give IP exemption, but am a little uneasy at doing so. Could you take a look? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like bwilkins did the IPBE thing, which is fine with me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Request

I don't understand what was wrong with my requests and then for you to remove my talk page rights as well. User:FTP1690 --Rangers GSTQ (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BigBodBad

BigBodBad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You recently indef blocked this user for being a sock. Who were they a sock of? I want to know so I can tag the pages appropriately.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Block of WolfKeeper by SarekOfVulcan. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
Message added 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at WikiSRW's talk page.
Message added 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could you also clarify "as required above" tidbit. Because I don't see it either. Phearson (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I was misremembering seeing a usual username block notice, which would have had all those links. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pastorwayne is back

User:Charlesdolphharding. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Gone. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also suspicious of User:Willthacheerleader18. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears

Unrelated. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:WikiSRW

Related thread: Wikipedia:ANI#User requested clarification / WikiSRW.

I'm a little confused about the decline reason here. Where was it spelled out? Was there something in particular wrong with the present account name? –xeno^talk 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm not sure my brain was operating properly that day. I seem to have assumed there was a username block in place. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There doesn't appear to be any reason to keep the block in place, so I lifted it. Cheers, –xeno^talk 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine

Have it your way, then. It was just a test edit, anyways; now I know about the sandbox, so I'll mess around with code there from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Enemies Within (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

TY

Thank You for adding your editing expertise on the Vernon article. Nader's POV was a bit over the top, on second look. Glad to make your acquaintance. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I've tightened it up a bit more. Vernon is one of my favorite peculiar topics, for some reason or another. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Back! Vernon has many fascinating aspects, many yet unexplored. ( See note on talk page.) I "tightened" as much as I could. Any more suggestions? Read the "dynasty" story and tell me what you think. As we are 2 of the 3-4 people LOL interested in Vernon, I look forward to your remarks. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment on my Talk Page

Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being listed as an "Admin willing to make difficult blocks," and would hope that you can warn him off, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on that list also, that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Already handled. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock template

I see what the problem is, but it is lodged somewhere in the template itself, as the sandbox version doeds not exibit any problems. I will try and find out what it causing it. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Lemme know what you figure out. Happy sleuthing! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, "you're not supposed to use : anyway" was pretty much off-point; it really doesn't matter if people are not supposed to use : when they're entirely accustomed to using : on a talk page and other than in that one context it had no bad effects. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

More Brunodam

Hello Jp, warm greetings to you. I hope you are well. It's been quiet for a while, but Bruno's now operating a couple of new accounts (as far as I can tell that is, as a seasoned observer). I am certain beyond fear of contradiction that User:Everyreason1 and User:Consilinario are both naked clone alteregos of our banned former co-worker. Once again, if you think an SPI would be appropriate, please let me know, and I will gladly do the business, but I believe they may both be sent on their way without further ado. Many thanks for your attention, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That you took a few moments or minutes of your time to attend to this is genuinely much appreciated. Those such as you that take on these tasks expose themselves to abuse and consequent burnout and so on and get little decent feedback, so I would like to take a moment to genuinely thank you for your time and trouble. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you in return. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank for unblocking me! ^-^ Ora Stendar 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

At WP ANI, there is a discussion in which you may have an interest

Hello Jpgordon,

I would like to impart to you that user:Iaaasi, who has been blocked for indefinite time and some of whose sockpuppets were blocked by you like these for instance:[13][14], wants to request to be unblocked here:Proposed_unblock_of_User:Iaaasi.Regards--Nmate (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember ...

This nasty little anti-Semite? He's come up here. I notice he edits every day, either from 188.23.0.0/16 or 93.82.0.0/20 (pretty sure about that /20). I'm considering rangeblocking them, studying collateral damage. What do you think? Should we file an SPI, or can you take a quick look for any sockpuppets or an other IP ranges we might be missing? His daily edits are typical pro-terrorist, 9/11-conspiracy, "Wikipedia-is-Zionist", anti-Semitic crud, with occasional good edits mixed in. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one for SPI. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone already opened a case; I mentioned this note there briefly, since you may be someone who remembers this user. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, when the same IP and username turn up at de:wiki [15] doing the same type of thing and using the same Commons image on their upages, do we have any protocol? Every wiki gets to make its own decisions, so maybe we should just leave other wikis alone? I've never come across this before... Franamax (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much on the cross-wiki stuff, but there are those frequenting SPI that will know what to do better than me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Why are you specializing Japanese war crimes and deleting other countries?[16] Japanese policy was anti holocost, Japanese war crimes were no relavence to holocost.--Bukubku (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The article talk page works well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Same fool at Grand Union (supermarket)

Yep, that anon who keeps adding the list of former locations is back, having waited out the most recent page protection. I've already reverted him twice today, and will again in a moment (as 3RR doesn't apply), but it certainly could be usefull to either extend PP again and/or block this fool. Your thoughts?

Semipro again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ten month old SPI case

Hi, Jpgordon. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51? You were the primary blocking admin back in December, and you've been referenced in this new case. This editor claims he was only blocked because he "played a joke on a friend", but after seeing this, it appears the block was for more extensive reasons. He admits creating another account after being blocked (a "new start" he calls it), and he admits he still edits from several IPs (he frequently "forgets to log in" he says), so proving the multiple account usage isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he is doing anything wrong; I was hoping you'd be able to offer some insight. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI -- potential SPI case

[Since your block notice is on the page of the UserID... and he can't seem to go 24hrs without writing something on WP!]— DennisDallas (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Democrat Party (phrase)

Hello,

I see you left some comments on the talk page of an article where I and some other editors had a dispute about the subject of the article. I have been putting together a formal review of the article, and clearly outlining its many problems. I intend, once completed, to again raise the issues with the editors. If they refuse to address them, and refuse a fourth request that they submit to mediation, I intend to seek administrator intervention to resolve the policy violations. I was curious if you might look at my analysis and tell me what you think. It is here User talk:Charles Edward/sandbox. I am heading to my library to obtain a couple of the books used as sources to farther check the article. If you are too busy, or averse to conflict (as I generally am) then I understand!

Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your failure as an administrator

I would like to bring Chaser's help to your attention so you can see what you should have done. Further explanation is all I asked for, but you failed at that. Administrator's like Chaser are why Wikipedia is as good as it is. Administrator's like you are why Wikipedia will never be that good. I bring this to your attention so that you can strive to meet Chaser's example. Thank you, and have a nice day. 128.104.truth (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bite me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Barry Bonds to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

For the time you spent on my unblocking. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hello JG, now that you've CU and blocked indef User:HupHollandHup as the sockpuppet of User:NoCal100, I just want to say this: "Great catch!". Well, you might be wondering why I said that... reason being I (as an established editor) got my rollback rights revoked because of him (whom I had strong suspicions of being the sock of a unknown editor when making some controversial edits but I had no way of proving it then) by an Admin who didn't accept my apology and explanation for misclicking/mislabelling an edit of HupHollandHup as vandalism. Question now is: what would it take to have rollback rights restored for me, not that it matter to me but it does make things easier when I revert vandalism. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, it indeed was a content dispute, regardless of whether it was NoCal100 or not. Why did you simply ignore (and delete from your talk page) PhilKnight's offer back in August? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing he made it sound so bloody conditional despite my contrite apology for being too quick on the draw. Secondly, because for that particular rollback I was using TWINKLE to do it and not my rollback rights as what he had assume/thought. So, technically speaking... that means that I really didn't abuse that WP function, which I've always reserved for blatant vandals only; you may go ahead and check to see how many such cases I've reverted and reported to AIV/ARV in the past 12 months, plus I'm not like that HupHollandHup, which is bleedingly obvious that it is a Single-Purpose-Account. No matter what, I leave the choice of restoring to you because we're all adults, I can live without it... just makes reverting blatant vandalism more tedious, that's all. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I kinda thought your answer would be simpler: "Because I was pissed off." I sure would have been. Restored. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was indeed very much pissed off but I'd figured that since I've erred in the very first place, I should apologise which I did. FYI, I'm an aerospace engineer by trade, that means I fix problems and if it can't be fix then I'll just have to move on but if it was some pre-pub/adolescent young punks, they would've just blast it in your face. Seriously, I'm too old for that kind of shit. So anyway, best and thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." That's all I have to say about them sockers... JP, you just keep up the good work of weeding them out from WP. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me

About trying to edit MuffinMan999's talk page, im MuffinMan999, im just blocked and i tried to contest my block because ive finally realised my mistakes and i just wanted another shot at wikipedia in which i would become a succesful contributor. I mean, sockpuppeting is very bad and can get you blocked should you abuse it. Please convey this message to Favonian and see what he makes of it, please.--89.241.166.137 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're blocked. Do not edit here again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ha ha just edited!--89.241.166.137 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gegen Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jawohl~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Guter Gebrauch des Schiller Kostenvoranschlags. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by User talk:216.162.23.68

Would you please look at this page and some further action. In spite of level 4 warmings, these people keep on vandalizing. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Schoolblocked again. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"New users" on my pages and JamesBWatson's.

Any idea who this guy might be? HalfShadow 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Someone in London. About 7 accounts on one IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May I see the names, please? Perhaps I'll recognize one. HalfShadow 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jameswhatson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vandtrenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Harrisrdavidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DAVEHARTLAY1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Crandranttk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rchandler1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dhameld1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we know who it is now; he started as 86.14.128.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) HalfShadow 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:85.89.170.22

Looks like I shouldn't have waded in on this one – all I did was spot the content revert through Special:RecentChanges. I gave a 3 month block, but feel free to review this (I've posted the same to User:Materialscientist as they did the original block). You two seem to have been involved with this longer than I have, so go ahead and do whatever you think is best! Regards, matt (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block

Hello, ResearchEditor has been sockpuppeting again, please check the accounts I've tagged with "sockpuppet" in my recent contributions (Nov 9th/10th depending on your timezone). Could you block 'em for me, or should I take it up elsewhere? RFCU probably isn't a good choice since this was a month ago. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RFCU would have been fine for these -- but this was easy. You missed a couple, too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Based on Wikipedia:RFCU#When not to request CheckUser I thought I'd be turned down; last couple times I did this I ended up getting declined based on "stale" even though it was only a couple days old rather than a month. Learned something new today. Thanks for the block and the info! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Shout out for Volunteers:

I noticed you served here, would you be willing to repeat the performance this year?. I ask because there's a call for help at the election talk page, and because you have the tools we need. Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rcvd, thanks. I've no interest in getting anywhere near anything having to do with that case, other than providing checkuser assistance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding Sockpuppeteering Machn

I know that word doesn't exist, but anyhow here goes. I lost my user when my computer crashed and was not able to login back in, so I created a new account and wanted to know if you would please allow me to continue to contribute to wikipedia. As I have made thousands of positive edits to wikipedia. Can I please continue to be allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Machnnn (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

After your racist comments on User talk:Machnn and your lying at User talk:Potzeey, you'll need to hunt elsewhere for a sympathetic admin. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Does sprotting on LF make sense here? Thanks for your work on this, BTW. IronDuke 04:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sprotting"? "LF"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Running

Sooo... Any chance to convince you to try for arbcom (again)? - jc37 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I was neither happy nor effective on ArbCom; it turned a hobby into a chore. Thanks for asking, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

All too often, the ones who would be best suited/most responsible, are those who know the responsibility and work to do something "right", and so typically decline.

Oh and personally, I might dispute the "effective" part. There is a line from q:Ronin (film), that applies: "Either you're part of the problem or you're part of the solution or you're just part of the landscape."

I definitely think you were/are part of the solution.

Anyway, please let me know if you decide to change your mind. : ) - jc37 05:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

Would you mind clarifying if this user was using a residential or a business address? I think this does not violate the privacy policy and would help determine the next steps. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The account was created on a corporate-owned /24 subnet, though all of the edits other than the account creation happened at another IP in the same geographic region. There's really no ambiguity here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

I've just realised that when you reviewed the unblock request made by user:LouisPhilippeCharles you forgot to sign it. Please could you do so or otherwise it may look to someone who glances at the page that I inappropriately made the review -- PBS (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)

Fyi. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't even remember the situation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I came to ask about the same thing. They seems a bit lost and clueless about what their user and talk pages are for, but I don't see anything that really sticks out as vandalism. Seeing as you have already stated you don't recall I hope you don't mind if /i just hand them the WP:ROPE and see what they do with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Josh, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unban request by (part of?) User:The abominable Wiki troll

Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards, Sandstein 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I wonder if you would mind commenting on the puzzlement several of us have in this section of ANI: [17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:99.101.128.39

Why don't you also take away 99.101.128.39's talk page privileges? WAYNESLAM 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Maltese (dog), you may be blocked from editing. BLGM5 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. "Bite me"? No, that's not polite. Regarding politeness, Don't template the regulars. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank article

You have been involved with the sock puppet blocks on this article. FYI, I have made a request for page protection due to recent edits by three different IPs that have made edits identical to the puppets. Anything else you can think of would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably the right thing. Pity. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We may have another winner: [18]. IronDuke 02:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet another puppet arises -- see [19]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved yet?

Regarding this edit of yours, I was wondering if the issue in question has been resolved yet. I was thinking about trying to understand the issue, but if it's been definitively resolved to your satisfaction then I won't bother.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. I walked away; I've little use for people who would rather argue than edit. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be nice if nothing happened at Wikipedia except for editing articles. I'm not suggesting that the individual in question was or was not being a jerk. But it does seem like there was a legitimate issue about copyrights and templates, that is yet to be resolved. Maybe I'll look into it. It's probably not best to resolve a legitimate issue by obliterating the minority and then forgetting about it. :-).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody ever responded to my question about just how that particular template was deprecated; I wasn't dealing with the actual copyright issue, just the mystery of the template. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, maybe I'll look into it, if no one beats me to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent> I've looked into it, and have succeeded in changing the extremely dumb policy that was the main reason for this block.[20] However, the blocking admin no longer has a "Sysop flag", and in any event still demands an apology which will almost certainly not be forthcoming. The block seems punitive at this point, because the policy now addresses the blocked user's concern. Since you previously offered to unblock the user, would you please review the situation and again consider unblocking? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd how this user is unusually persistent in attempting to have Zsero unblocked six months after an incident. Why, I had to review the entire discussion before I could argue back! I hate to assume bad faith, but just throwing it out there - quack quack? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you insinuating? As I explained at your talk page, considering that it may turn into a lifetime ban, I don't understand your reluctance to review the situation every once in a long while, particularly on the same day that the cause of the whole controversy disappeared (i.e. today Wikipedia stopped claiming that images are copyrighted when actually we don't know that).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Take this elsewhere, please. My sole involvement was the unblock request; I made a suggestion; it was essentially brushed off, and I thus lost interest in the discussion; and I have not regained it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do, sorry to bother you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Malcolm Schosha

Hi, there is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork that is in part about your deletion of User talk:Malcolm Schosha. Like others commenting there, I think that user talk page should not have been deleted, both on the merits (in view of the RFC about this issue) and also as a matter of procedure (because WP:CSD#U1, invoked by you, explicitly rules out deleting user talk pages). I appreciate the arguments raised on ANI about possible lawsuits, but as I commented there I believe that any deletions required to avoid lawsuits should be made by Foundation staff, not us. Could you please restore the page and, if you think it should be deleted, submit it to MfD? Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's particularly appropriate to delete user pages for users that use their real name and wish not to be associated with Wikipedia any more. The only reason non-process-related reason to insist on keeping such things is essentially vengeance against an unpopular user. I understand policy is otherwise; I tend to err on the side of decency when it conflicts with policy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a reasonable argument. But people can in good faith disagree about what decency requires. That's why deletion policy mandates that deletion decisions must be made by community consensus if they are not covered by the criteria for speedy deletion. I am requesting a deletion review of that page. Sandstein 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"First of all, do no harm". I'm surely not going to make a fuss one way or another about this, but if a courtesy deletion will help an unpopular editor stay away, it does seem to be the sensible thing to do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but per WP:RTV, the decision to delete a user talk page is reserved to the renaming bureaucrat, which you are not. You could have asked that bureaucrat instead of deleting the page yourself. I've raised this matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12#User talk:Malcolm Schosha. Sandstein 23:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't care. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with User:Rouxsd

Hi, you helped block a sockpuppet today, now this person is back with yet another name, at least judging from targetted topics and attitude. User:Rouxsd. This IP address might be the source of several sockpuppets, I suspect. I also left this note for another editor Glen something, that maybe you can address:

User:Zxoxm's article William Marcus

Thank you. For some reason, water fluoridation really upsets people; there is an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia's articles in this area. User:Zxoxm created an article that should probably be nixed: William Marcus, the article advances User:Zxoxm's agenda of antifluoridation. I assume that articles created by sockpuppets are removed automatically, but am not sure.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks--Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it. For future reference, you could have put {{db-g5}} on the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ublock

Well, I know we've had the discussion in the past about changing the language of the template, or coming up with a different one, to reflect situations where a user has a combined COI and username problem but has not really violated any other policy. Where did that go? I reserve {{uw-spamublock}} for users whose behavior more clearly comes under WP:SPAM (i.e., they post xlinks, or add mentions of their company, with a matching username to other articles). Similarly, I find {{uw-softerblock}} to be appropriate only for those accounts whose name indicates clear role usage, which to me an organizational name alone does not ("Consolidated Amalgamated Marketing Dept.", for instance, vs. "Consolidated Amalgamated").

As inadequate as the language of ublock probably is to its current use, I still find that it preserves the assumption of good faith for a user who may have just skipped past all the other policies and started posting an article about their company or organization. By saying "Your username is the only reason for this block", we're saying that we think you could be a productive editor, just not with this username. Some of those editors, actually, we'd have no problem with their edits if they were under different usernames. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll just stop reviewing unblock requests, then, when you're the blocker. Thanks for your consideration. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Or you could work with me on rewording the template, or coming up with one that more adequately fits the situation. Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is that...sorry for the snark. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're on my Christmas list now ... I will design a new template, or at least wording for one, prior to the 25th. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thisbites

User:Thisbites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With regard to the declined unblock for this user, I was puzzled by the reference to checkuser results as there may be confusion from when this user legitimately change account name in November. Is there an SPI case that this block relates to? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No SPI case. Reeked of sockitude, so I checked it. Found a number of socks; hopefully the user will notice from my notice and stop doing it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Query, out of the blue

Guess you've heard by now that Don (Captain Beefheart) died yesterday. Anyway, I'm curious to know if you ever met him? (Your brother posted a nice eulogy, which is how I made the connection.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I never met him; Peter's three years older than me, so at age 17, had no interest in having his 14-year-old brother tagging along while he was doing Cool Things. Some odd symmetry, though: Beefheart married Jan Jenkins, whose family settled in, and was quite beloved by the residents of, the tiny town of Kernville which I now call home...Peter's eulogy was quite wonderful. I didn't know about a lot of his teenage activity, of course. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just thought I'd ask. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Kary247

While they were warned previously, the first warning wasn't really appropriate as WP:BLANKING doesn't prevent a user from removing block notices from their own page (although, it does stipulate against removing the unblock request which they did later).

As the duration was left the same, I don't have any intent to change the block. But, I am wondering if the revoking could be viewed as a bit harsh given it was a result of what was technically their first violation of WP:BLANKING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea that an active block notice may be removed but a denied unblock request may not is rather peculiar. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you ... but, that's how it's written. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll pretend it isn't until someone provides a reason besides "that's how it's written". Expired block notices are another issue, but active block notices are an appropriate badge. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I can understand some of the reasoning based on how I've seen it explained in the past ... blocks have system generated notices when you try to edit the talk page of a blocked user or try viewing their edit history ... while unblock notices, SPI notices, community bans, etc have no system generated notices - making a potential that a user could try hiding those to game the system ... but even if you remove a block notice, the system generated one still exists, so gaming is not possible.

I've also seen the argument that reverting the removal of a block simply agitates the blocked user, potentially getting them angrier and thus less likely to move-on after the block expires.

Block notices are also primarily intended to notify the user of the block, so by removing it, they've acknowledged having seen it - while past unblock attempts have a value to other admins in seeing prior requests.

The place where I think the last argument fails is on block notices to IPs ... a dynamic IP could be picked up by someone else, who wouldn't know anything about why their account was blocked ... so requiring that block messages remain is clearly of value in that case. There are also other community benefits in my mind, in that it allows others who may be engaged in discussions with the user to be aware of the block (not everyone is going to see the system generated notices, as those only appear if you try editing the page or view contribution history). So, in my mind, it's best to require leaving them ... but, the existing guideline is to allow their removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

ResearchEditor sock

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

One would think that RE would figure out that inserting the identical material over and over again wasn't going to work, even with new accounts.... Ah well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about requesting pending changes level 2 be re-applied to the page, any advice or comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really up on the various pending changes levels, but if that's a proper way to deal with an article that's under long-term attack from a single person, go for it; it's more friendly than full or semi-protection. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help on this item and all the other socks! I'll start digging. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lordalpha1

Hello, i'm lordalpha1, and I'm here to testify for my banning.

Let me explain. My Wifi Network (NOT my account) was hacked a few days ago, and my ip was blocked. so, i put up a unblock request on my talk page, not my ip's. So after I realized that my network folders were missing, I checked all of my accounts (eg email, wikipedia, deviantart, dropbox, etc...) to see if they were hacked. This took me about 1 and a half minutes. However, I accidentally put the unblock request on my talk page, not my IP's, so sorry if that was a mistake of mine. However, I got permanently banned, NOT my IP. I'm sorry if I put the template in the wrong place.

I hope you understand my situation.

Regards,

lordalpha1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.182.114 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to take this up with someone else; from a technical point of view (and checkuser analysis), your story is improbable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Onalgape

Hello. I noticed that you recently blocked User:Onalgape for abusing multiple accounts. He/she left a message on my talk page prior to being blocked asking that I add a question of his/hers to my ongoing RfA. Could you let me know the background behind this block? I'm trying to determine if the request is legitimate. –Grondemar 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Basic troll. Another of his accounts was User:Analgape. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF?

"Then you're either a liar or insane; in either way, you're not needed here." I like it :) I do really like it. Peridon (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The recent block

Hi Jpgordon,

My user name k247 appears to be listed on wiki - project spam for some reason with a report about the block you put in place because I blanked my user page (sorry I thought this was okay after reading the message). Is there some connection with being blocked for edit warring/page blanking and this? I am not sure why this editor has listed my user name the link at rare groove that I was trying to use to upload an audio file and my article that I am trying to develop postmodern religion here? This is the log link at wikispam next to my user name http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log/?page=User:Kary247%E2%80%8E --Kary247 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the notice you received on your talk page, and then deleted, explains sufficiently. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am just not clear as to why my article on postmodern religion and my user name have been listed at wikispam? So when you look at what links here for postmodern religion and my kary247 user account the wiki spam link comes up. I did place a link for discussion at rare groove but I did put this up on the discussion board there and I did revert the editor and was subsequently blocked for edit warring. Does this really warrant my user name being and the article I am working really hard postmodern religion on being listed at wikispam? It seems a bit harsh?--Kary247 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is suggested at WT:WPSPAM#raregroove2mp3.com that you have some sort of relationships with the websites listed there; is that incorrect? You're probably better off complaining about it there, not here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could talk to the editor about removing the wikispam report because I did put the suggested commercial link on the discussion page at rare groove - I was blocked for reverting too often on the 22 Dec. because I didn't quite understand the revert process. On that same day my user name has been listed at wikispam on that same day on the 22 Dec. by this editor. It seems a bit harsh because i was trying to reach a consensus and talk to the editor using the discussion page at rare groove about the fact that a commercial site might be good because an audio file could then be uploaded. The editor was warned by another administrator Bayek(or similar?) that he might have been engaging in edit warring also, but I was the one blocked. Now all of my work and my user page is coming up with 'links to wikispam'. It is a bit unfair because I am new to wiki and I did use the discussion page at rare groove? The reason I wanted a commercial link is because I did hope to upload an audio file, like bird does. I have written that the consensus was no commercial audio file on the discussion page, so I was hoping that someone could talk to the editor about removing the wikispam report because it does seem a bit harsh?--Kary247 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You're probably better off complaining about it there, not here. I'm not sure why you're making me repeat myself. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I was asking if you could speak to the editor because when I was blocked by you he has listed me for spam which is a bit unfair. As you blocked me I thought that you may be able to talk to the editor. I have also placed the following as you suggested over at the wiki spam noticeboard.
I placed a suggested external link on the rare groove discussion page. I was reverted and blocked for edit warring with Yworo when I attempted to reinstate the external link. On this same day, 22 December, Yworo listed me here for spam - my user name and an article I am working on, postmodern religion, have 'links to wikispam' - why is my user name and my article for postmodern religion being listed here on wiki spam? This article, postmodern religion has no external links so I am not sure how the comments below are relevant or valid. --Kary247 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably better off complaining about it there, not here. Why should I talk to the editor? I strengthened your edit warring block because you kept clearing block notices, etc. from your talk page; none of the rest of this is my doing or my concern, nor am I going to make it so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you were right it was the right thing and faster to simply discuss the issue over there - it is resolved now thanks for guiding me in the right direction. Would you mind if I deleted the links here to my article or postmodern religion - or this discussion? Thanks--Kary247 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather you didn't (and wish you'd not be so quick to delete stuff on your own user page also.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. You should know much much better. Elvey (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you and whatever are you talking about? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article PayPal, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please refamiliarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. More specifically, I [warned you about your CoI editing and you reverted that edit. I'm a user whose edit you reverted after I noted and reverted your CoI edit. You have a CoI with respect to eBay/PayPal. Are you willing to confirm or deny that? If so, I ask that you do so here and now. --Elvey (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit removed content that you claimed was at an oblique reference, and yet in fact was not at that referenced page. Specifically, you referenced a "list of processors" as containing the information you removed. There was no "list of processors", and while there was a " List of on-line payment service providers", it, as I had pointed out in fact did NOT include the competitors, eCache, and Google , that you had removed. Removing competitors from a company where there is a CoI certainly at least creates the strong appearance of bias and should not be the action of a user such as yourself who has extraordinary powers on the wiki. I ask that you undo your removal of eCache, and Google forthwith. (The discussion described above took place in edit summaries; see [21] 1,2 and 9 January 2011 ) --Elvey (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no COI. As I've explained in the past, I worked for eBay until 2002; I never had any connection with PayPal other than being a customer; and I have no remaining connection to either company. I still hold a trivial amount of eBay stock, all of which is earmarked for charity. If you wish to have a discussion about content, I'm sure, seeing how long you've been here, you know how to use the article talk page, where other editors will get involved. If you wish to accuse me of COI, we have a noticeboard for that, where other editors will get involved. Stop putting irrelevant templates on my page, please. I'm also a bit surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself is confusing "editing Elvey doesn't agree with" for "censorship". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop beating your wife, as they say. In other words, I don't think the templates I put on your page are irrelevant. You have a financial interest in PayPal because eBay owns it, and you own a piece of eBay; IMO you have a CoI, but hey, you were an ArbCom member, so Maybe I'm missing something. Assuming there's a noticiceboard for such things that's more appropriate, let's continue the discusion there, not here. I won't take further action for a few hours, at least. I find that eCache, and Google aren't on the page you claimed they were on, and you haven't addressed that. When someone with great power prevents disclosure of information likely to harm their position, I call that censorship. YMMV. Reasonable minds may disagree. --Elvey (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So go ahead and put eCache and Google in that article. That's what it's for. Wikipedia is not a web directory; we don't put a list of every company's competitors in their articles. Ford Motor Company doesn't list Mercedes or BMW; Martin Guitars doesn't list Gibson or Taylor; etc. If you insist I have a conflict of interest, take it to WP:COIN; if you're accusing me of vandalism, take it to WP:ANI, because an administrator who is vandalizing is a very bad thing. In fact, do all that now and we can stop wasting each other's time. Well, mine at least. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please continue the COI discussion at WP:COIN#PayPal. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and Blavatsky

Dear Josh Gordon,

I am not sure, that I am posting at the right place. If I am in error please let me know. I got the following from you jpgordon: "Current revision as of 16:27, 9 January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Aryan race appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)"

I would like to ask why you found my alterations with regard to the page "Aryan race" non-neutral and why the present version is more neutral?

Is the following not just as neutral as the present versions? I was in fact quoting the point of view of the author mentioned, namely H. P. Blavatsky. Why have you deleted the below paragraph, which i posted on the page Aryan race?

I posted H. P. Blavatsky's words om Aryan or Arya from the Theosophical Glossary, 1892: "Ârya (Sk.) Lit., “the holy”; originally the title of Rishis, those who had mastered the “Âryasatyâni” (q.v.) and entered the Âryanimârga path to Nirvâna or Moksha, the great “four-fold” path. But now the name has become the epithet of a race, and our Orientalists, depriving the Hindu Brahmans of their birth-right, have made Aryans of all Europeans. In esotericism, as the four paths, or stages, can be entered only owing to great spiritual development and “growth in holiness ”, they are called the “four fruits”. The degrees of Arhatship, called respectively Srotâpatti, Sakridâgamin, Anâgâmin, and Arhat, or the four classes of Âryas, correspond to these four paths and truths."

--Khidr7 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Once you started putting in things like "But only few people will call Samael Aun Weor a theosophist", with no sourcing, you were putting your own opinion into articles, thus violating NPOV. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Allright Josh. I can agree with you on this. But those who claims that Samael Aun Weor is a theosophist and therefore aught to be mentioned in that paragrah on the subject "Theosophy" aught at least to - by documentation - make it clear why they consider him to be a theosophist, and one of least some importance when compared to the founders of The Theosphical Society.

Do you not think so?

I do not mind that people mention Samael Aun Weor on the page, but I find it wrong to place him in the paragraph on the subject "Theosophy", when he clearly deals with tantric yoga, - a teaching which is not the same as the most wellknown theosophical teachings given by any of the founders. It is in fact stated by the founders of the Theosophical Society that they opposed this teaching in many respects. (See Blavatsky views on the issue in The Theosophist, 1887 + 1888 and the articles by Rama Prasad - or - Blavatsky's Collected Writings, vol. XII p. 604, 611, 612-13, 621. Here she warns aganist the Tantra Yoga teachings). The word "tantra" is almost only mentioned positively when we talk about some very special Gelugpa Buddhist teachings given in some even today unknown edtions of a work called the Kalachakra Tantra. But this is not called trantra Yoga in any manner what so ever. If you call Samael Aun Weor a theosopbhist, then we aught also to call William Butler Yeats a theosophist as far as I am concerned. They spent just about the same amount of time on theosophical teachings and The Theosophical Society. But real real representatives of theosophical teachings or the Theosophical Society they were not.

I understand it, that i can post the above paragraph on Arya or Aryan by Blavatsky without you deleting it again? --Khidr7 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Smartse - I understand it, that I without problems can post the above paragraph on Arya or Aryan by Blavatsky without anyone deleting it again?

Who are the admin of the page Aryan Race? --Khidr7 (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles don't have admins; all pages are the shared responsibility of all editors of Wikipedia. (Including you.) Please discuss the rest of these issues on the article talk pages, not here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to bother you, but...

The vandal is back at Grand Union (supermarket). Any chance we can block him this time?oknazevad (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

86.177.219.167

Who the hell was this, again?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't remember. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tentative Italian colonization of the Americas

Hi, just to let you know I'm starting the process of deletion of this article created by old1980s, a Brunodams sockpuppet, and to ask if you know of a speedier deletion procedure. Thanks, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic alphabet

So you think that missleading information is better than too many clutters?! There are 15 republics in former USSR and only 6 of them uses cyrillic alphabet - that's 40% which is not "Allmost all of." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.100.149 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

People interested in the matter can click on the provided link, or read the article. Alternately, correct the language in the infobox so it's not misleading. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Templar98

I thank you for your work at SPI. I would like to ask though that you mark cases as checked when you have done a check so clerks know that checkusers have looked into it. Thank you! -- DQ (t) (e) 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On cases like this, there's no need; the case was waiting for clerk review, and the reviewing clerk was sure to notice I'd been there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have a question on this case. PalestineRemembered hasn't edited since the end of 2009, so the data on that account is quite stale. How were you able to connect it to TomRawlinson? And is it a definite link, so that we can block the other accounts that are the same as TomRawlinson? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's as certain as CU can be; I've got checkuser data from 2008 identifying PR, TomRawlinson, and User:Saladin106 as the same person. I dropped a ball not blocking back then. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted to double check. I've blocked them all and closed the case. Thanks for the clarification. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Canvassing.

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which areindiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. What was this if not canvassing based upon opinions about PayPal?Elvey (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elvey, please use my name, so I will be aware of whether you are talking to me or to Josh. Allright?

Do you have some evidence to provide for your accusation? As far as i am aware, i have never done such a thing knowingly (That is, your accussation: It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote). This last sentence is a false assertion, unless someone have hacked into my account on wikipedia. What is it actually you claim that I have been doing? - Where do I post in the future, so to avoid a one-sided debate? (In fact I asked Josh about whether this was the right place for such a debate in my first posting in the above.) --Khidr7 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Elvey was giving that template to Josh, judging by the diff they linked. SmartSE (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct; the warning is directed at Josh; I added it using a template/tool that seems to have failed to include the proper heading. --Elvey (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Guillaume Sur Roues

I assume there would be no objection, but putting it here just in case: I reblocked this user with talk page access disabled and email disabled. They put up another unblock, deleting all previous text, saying 'nice try what?'. Not that I think anyone would unblock under those conditions, but I don't expect the user will suddenly begin making non-frivolous requests. Syrthiss (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi5

Hello!

I wanted you to know my addition of those links to the Hi5 article wasn't so random... Hi5 is referenced in the articles of those services or has had partnerships with them. Perhaps I could have included that detail in the notes!?

Thanks, A. Ward (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I kinda think so; what I'm mostly trying to avoid is articles about businesses having a list of their competitors in every article. Perhaps a reciprocal mention would make sense rather than a "see also" (for example, "Hi5 has partnerships with Xxxx" and a reference? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:BrekekekexKoaxKoax

User Breke did not post a fake signature on his/her talk page. S/he transfered a portion of an earlier comment I had made in response to my giving some friendly advice. (I've since done a ~~strikeout~~ of that advice on user's talk page.) If you blocked user for the purported and incorrect allegation of a fake signature, please unblock user Breke from editing his/her talk page. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I misread then. On the other hand, he's pretty much going to shoot himself in the foot no matter what I do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably so. But with a 3 month block, s/he may give up permanently. My bet is s/he won't even notice the talk page is open! Thanks again.--S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess not...he's sure being a time waster. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bavaria

Just to let you know, Bavaria is not a nation, but a state in Germany. Could you please list all the states you have been to in the USA in alphabetical order (and by date), just so I can make sense of your error. I would offer, but my dog (not my life partner 'Ann Brown', don't worry!!) has problems with his glands, his anal glands. Thanks for your co-operation --TradePlusEnterprise (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi. Since the time that you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request (where there was some messy brainstorming about what terms are necessary for an unblock), a specific proposal has been made by Doc James about the restrictions/conditions that will come into effect upon the user being unblocked. Your comments/views on this proposal are welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor question

Hey, thanks for the unblock. I will make good on my promise to refrain from editing that article for the next week (may be more, to be healthy about it) but I did want to continue to contribute to the productive discussions that are taking place on the talk page. You wouldn't view that as unseemly, would you? - Haymaker (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. Rather the opposite -- that's where you should have been working out your differences in the first place. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Video game to computer game

I noticed that you seem to be changing many links from <gamename> (video game) to <gamename> (computer game), even though in each case the actual article is <gamename> (video game), while the <gamename> (computer game) is a redirect. Is there a reason for this? -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, probably because the editor I was reverting was making huge blanket changes from "computer game" to "video game" in articles, without responding to discussion or queries. Maybe I should have looked closer? Feel free to revert (and I have to go away for the rest of the day...) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll try to revert with care. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have even reverted when it was an interwiki with the io version. Can you think before you act? 204.174.87.29 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good, you're talking. That's a good change. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Angel Flight block

I couldn't find the SPI page containing the evidence to support blocking this account. If it doesn't exist, could you please present evidence at the ANI thread supporting the block rationale that this account is a sockpuppet of a banned user? Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Theosophical Society dispute

Hello Jpgordon. I just noticed "All that I have repeated before, and I'll keep repeating for as long as it takes. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)" at Talk:Theosophical Society#"Semi-protected" ???. I think there has been enough abuse to justify a long-term block of this IP for edit warring. Would you have a comment on that idea? EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I'd hope there would be some chance of his listening to reason... But I seem to be in an optimistic phase this morning. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate having my talk page semi-protected from this IP. At this point, he seems to be just trolling. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you repeatedly ask someone (IP or not) to not post to your talk page, and they continue to do so, is that not actionable? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Often, yeah. But some uninvolved admin will need to stick their nose in for that. The guy's crusing for multiple bruisings, between personal attacks, refusal to assume good faith, tendentious editing, and general obnoxiousness. It would be more annoying if the material he was adding wasn't mostly good stuff; my only solid argument with him is about the sourcing of the claims about the society. Which are probably quite valid. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, in particular the last one. However, it should be easy for him, who has said he has a background with the topic, to find proper sourcing. I do wonder if he isn't playing good hand, bad hand with the two IPs posting on the topic to the Talk page (both in NY, one the library, the other a residence). JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE_by_IP_68.198.135.130 . Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And this fine threat to continue WP:TE at Theosophical Society: [22]. Shouldn't trolls be blocked at some point? Seems like low-volume WP:WIKIHOUNDING and threats to edit war. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your Ipanema edit!

That section's been driving me crazy for a long time, but I thought I was the only one, so I never dumped it. You made my day! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Any time I see "So-and-so was mentioned in so-and-so" in an article, I get out my paring knife (or in this case, my machete). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130

You've been mentioned at User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 - the IP user has a long complaint there that now mentions you: [23] JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

re: mysterious glitch

I'm sure it's the truth, but you do realize that what you added will no doubt convince the IP that a dev manipulated the database to add Bold text to his revision.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what a dev would do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that, and you know that, but it's like the line in dumb and dumber[24]:

Lloyd: The least you could do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean like one out of a hundred?
Mary: More like one out of a million.

Lloyd: So you're tellin' me there's a chance.

Just preparing you for the next IP post where he wants someone to track down the person who "altered his edit"--Cube lurker (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My motto, translated into English, is Schiller's "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to steal that one sometime.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

IvoryMeerkat & Joshua P. Schroeder

Hi, you blocked User:IvoryMeerkat as a sockpuppet of User:Joshua P. Schroeder. Was there an SPI case? (I couldn't find it.) Was it a WP:DUCK situation? (How so?) I'm just trying to understand the logistics of what happened here. LadyofShalott 18:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My intuition told me "sock", so I checked, and not only was it a sock, it was that of a user with quite the history of socking. But no, there was neither an SPI nor an informal request, just my own gut feeling. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense - thanks. LadyofShalott 04:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As an informal and related request, what do you think about this user? OKIsItJustMe (talk · contribs) Haunts similar articles and seems to be pretty knowledgeable about moving around the 'Pedia and seems to have become more active right after IvoryMeerkat dropped off. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you could make this request on SPI; let the clerks make the content analysis and see if it goes beyond the "fishing" stage. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I need help

Hi I am trying to login to my account because I just created it but the site wont let me. help! the accounts username is grizzlybear. --71.104.184.11 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Grizzlybear was created in 2005, and has only one edit; perhaps you created it under a slightly different name? Capitalization counts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --71.104.184.11 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC) account creation successful. --Crazymonkey1123 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I love you

After reading this, I find that I have fallen wildly in love with you. I need you to have my electronic babies. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hee. I seem to be finding a lot of use for that line these days. (See above.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI

Hello Jpgordon,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your review of unblock request for User:Monster Rancher the Great

Hey,

Recently you reviewed a block request for User:Monster Rancher the Great, declining the request on the grounds that because of the activity on his last account that he as a person was blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask that you please review this decision and not treat Monster Rancher with as little disregard as it superfluously seems he deserves. Monster Rancher has indeed made a number of harmful edits under his previous account, but under his current account, he has made nothing but good faith contributions and it seems he is attempting to redeem his previous action. While I agree that Monster Rancher does not maintain his cool very well and is not very in-tune with Wikipedia policies, he's reversed his previous bad faith behaviors and has done nothing but try and help improve articles, especially those related to the Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject. The problem is he doesn't entirely know what's right or wrong, thus you cannot persecute him when he doesn't even know what rules he's supposed to be playing by. Rather than leaving him blocked, wouldn't it be more beneficial to maybe give him a second chance? Multiple account are allowed on Wikipedia when making a fresh start, and this case, while not a perfect example of such conditions, in my opinion applies to that situation.

Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible IP sock of a banned editor

218.250.143.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello JPGordon, could I trouble you to take a look at the aforementioned IP editor, keeps reverting without an actual explanation of what is wrong on the page of Parliamentary republic and we have strong suspicion to believe that this might be the IP sock of a banned editor (User:LS C HIST aka User:Scania N113). Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Londonlibraryofmusic

I concede my error in discussing this users usename block, and have done so on his talk page. I note your unblock, which is clearly correct, while pointing out that the block was not mine. But, to be fair and to support my (incorrect) appraisal of his name-change request, why would it occur to anyone to check on the existence of an apparently extant library? Some days you just cannot win ! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did say so in his first unblock request (or thereabouts) -- that's the only reason I knew. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Long time, no speak

Hey jp....I noticed that you've had an issue with Moulton. I've tried reverting some vandalism on User talk:FeloniousMonk here. I don't think FM is around much these days, but I don't think Moulton should be posting private information about FM. I figured you know who Moulton is, and his background, so you might be able to protect FM's page. I haven't been around in 2 years, and Moulton seems to be obsessed with certain people. Anyways, hope all is well, and you're keeping dry up there in the mountains. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mdvanii

What evidence do you have that says one person was abusing multiple accounts? CTJF83 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called "checkuser". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Did your response have to sound like an attitude? CTJF83 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

How professional of an admin CTJF83 21:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Blanderàmort wants you to review his block...CTJF83 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Another checkuser will need to review my findings and possibly come to another conclusion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you wanna tell them that or not...I just told them I'd pass it on....CTJF83 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to "pass it on", the best way would be to post an unblock request for them (for some reason, Blanderamort doesn't seem able to edit his talk page.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Stvnmn unblock

I thank you for your careful consideration in my case. I was just wondering, can I remove the denied unblock request templates from my talk page? Can I also remove the Sock puppet case from my user page, or do these things need to stay there? Stevenman (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can remove them. (The rule with the unblock requests is that they not be removed while the block is still in place.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at WP:OP.
Message added 00:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

anti-semitism question

I started a protracted thread on Noleander at AN/I - I do not recall your participating;[25] the whole case has been moved to ArbCom.[26] I regret this because I never wanted this to be a personal conflict between Noleander and myself. I did wish to get the community to discuss how to recognize and address anti-Semitic editing. I think you have made good contributions to the anti-Semitism article in the past. If you have any suggestions about how one can recognize anti-Semitic texts - in this context, how to distinguish between adding text at WP that is about anti-Semitism, or that is simply poorly-written information about Jews, and actual anti-Semitic writing, I would really appreciate your input. I think this is an issue the community has had a lot of trouble confronting, and I find it hard sometimes to explain effectively. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always had a lot of trouble dealing with polite Jew-hatred. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too but now the dilemma facing me is what kind of evidence to present to ArbCom, especially since I do not see any specific dispute between myself and Noleander. Any advice or ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'd had any idea of what to bring forward regarding Noleander, I'd have done it long ago. Seems to me Slim's done a pretty good example of a complaint without a specific dispute. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks (do you think the idea of a policy called "No Impersonal Attacks" would help/gain community support?) Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Not really. Civility should suffice in all cases. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to check the sock drawer?

Hi. User:Vrghs jacob, who vowed to sock if not unblocked, has evidently followed up on that. On very clear behavioral evidence which I can detail via e-mail if needed, I've blocked User:Chindia (China-India). Considering that he never stopped editing as an IP, I'm wondering if you can do a check to see if he has any others in the drawer. I suspect that this is going to turn into a recurring issue. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly Vrghs jacob. But the range he's editing from has a lot of non-abusive editors, so nothing useful there; he's mostly just editing as an IP. Doesn't seem to care much about letting us know, either: in fact, he seems to brag about it. Not sure what I can do here; whack-a-mole seems to be the order of the day. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oi. :) Well, at least that gives us a point to work from. Thanks for looking! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ukulele - Father and Son Reunion

Hi JP

I was ging back on some old edits of mine and see you deleted a section that I created on the ukulele page, Father and Son Reunion, citing that it was advertising. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ukulele&oldid=390192664 This is an event that took place 13 years ago, no-one is making money of of this it was done for historial/ musical heritage reasons - how can you call this advertising? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I imagine I looked at the website, but I can't get to that website now -- can you? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can access the website. There is indeed a link to a page to order a CD of the recording of the event which was originally not there. I'll track down a different source. I'll keep you posted. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about Checkuser

You blocked User:Burgas00 back in 2008, diff. I have a reasonable suspicion that he returned with various sock puppets since and has continued to cause disruption. Does checkuser work on a case that old? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know what his new identity his, he is still disruptive but has changed tactics (WP:CPUSH) and has a clean block record now. Would it be possible to link the accounts? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not with checkuser, no. 2008 is far too long ago. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Vermont Public Library enthusiast

Hi Jpgordon,

I'd like your opinion on something...You blocked 159.105.80.141 (talk · contribs) for a year on 27 May 2010. The IP, one of a set that trace to the Vermont Department of Libraries, had a long history of HIV, Holocaust and global warming denialism edits (among other interests), with activities focused almost exclusively on confrontational WP:TALK violations. The individual has never really given up, though. I blocked 159.105.80.221 (talk · contribs) on 20 July 2010 for the same thing; 159.105.80.220 (talk · contribs) has been going steady since December 2010 (e.g., [27][28][29] since 2011 started). In fact, if you look at the contributions from the entire 159.105.80.0/24 range here, it's difficult to find anything that doesn't fit in this general pattern over the better part of a decade with almost no unambiguously useful mainspace edits since 2007. I think this editor is broadly disruptive and the editing patters are highly suggestive of only a single person utilizing this editing range...Would a 1-year rangeblock (anon-only, account creation allowed) be overstepping here? — Scientizzle 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach to Vermont Library Guy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I left an {{anonblock}} on the latest IP and also put a broader explanation for the rengeblock at User talk:159.105.80.0/24. — Scientizzle 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser data

Hi. :) I just wanted to see if you by chance kept any information on this fella. I come to it via an OTRS complaint. There may be some kind of game afoot, given that evidently this person is the same as that one. (Ticket:2011040910015734) I've sent a letter to the bureaucrat's mailing list about renaming some of the socks in that list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. In general, I don't retain any data. Don't give TAWT more than the two seconds of consideration it deserves. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Hello Jpgordon, I would like to let you know that Iaaasi again cropped up in an edit war at the article John Hunyadi as User:79.117.174.32 [30] and then even brazenly asked for a semi protection to that article[31]. Afterwards the user appeared at the talk page of one another Romanian user, who too takes part in the edit war and left a message on her/his talk page in Romanian [32].--Nmate (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Iaaasi. I'm not sure why the range block I applied was lifted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just checking

I don't see a sock puppet investigation request anywhere regarding [this result]. I'm assuming that means Tentontunic also mapped back to the two IPs in the latest round of edit warring with Igny. If so, should those addresses be redacted as you're confirming his IP(s)? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I usually don't bother. These were one-offs, and I suspect deliberately so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued, did you just decide to do a checkuser out of the blue, or did someone alert you off-wiki via email or something like that? --Martin (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw User:Igny's unblock request (which suggested an SPI for the other parties in the edit war), and checked the history of the article in question, which raised suspicion sufficiently to warrant a check. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If they were one-offs I'm assuming they still matched other IP addresses "on file." Thanks for the clarification. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of them was a now-closed proxy, so, no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic isn't known for strident Baltic advocacy, so socking over an article tag is out of character, to say the least. I've continued the discussion here if you care to comment. --Martin (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So as it turns out, Tentontunic was noted to be a sock of another banned or blocked user, so the IPs were irrelevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Letting you know that I mentioned your name in this ArbCom request. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Talkback|JamesBWatson|Message from Snthakur (April 2011)}} JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Overturning a block

Hi Jpgordan,

At User:Bbcesq, the user had been blocked for a username violation. He had previously created a page about an organization that he's involved with, and when he requested an unblock (saying that the username was his initials plus "esq" as he's a lawyer) you declined the unblock, telling him not to create pages about orgs that he was involved with. Since the block was indef, and the user only created the page a single time, and never had the opportunity to demonstrate his good faith to us, I've overturned the block. As you previously declined to unblock, I'm letting you (and the blocking admin) know. It seems to me that the guy has explained his username, and I see no violation there. In addition, he's been informed not to create pages based on his conflict of interest. With those things in mind, I do not believe there to be any reason to sustain an indef block. I know you do an incredible amount of work, and thank you for it. I'm not in any way questioning your judgment - we do the best we can with the information we have at the time - and you get a massive number of calls right. This is just one with which I disagree. I discussed it with a couple of admins as well, to be sure I wasn't off base. Please, if you disagree, let me know so that we can work it out. Thanks for everything you do. - Philippe 02:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the name wasn't the problem there, and he shouldn't have been blocked for that. I hope he understands why his now-deleted article was unacceptable advertising. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Theredchief

Hi, could you please tag Theredchief (talk · contribs) with who their other accounts were? I think I can guess, but CU confirmation is always great. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who the master account is; your suggestion that it's User:Premier seems accurate, given other account names such as User:Premierstate and User:FSA opposition as well as their editing patterns. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tht Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

173.245.64.0/19

Hi Jpgordon. I'm thinking the 173.245.64.0/19 range is full of anonymisers, but I'm also seeing some unusual results. The 173.245.64/24 and 173.245.85/24 ranges are very active but I'm inclined to block throughout. See http://173.245.64.221 or http://173.245.73.63/ or http://173.245.80.10/ or http://173.245.85.171/ for example. I'd appreciate if a checkuser could cast an eye over the whole range to see if there's much abuse or collateral, or any opinion on the matter. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of abuse there, and a lot of apparently OK users. Perhaps WP:OP would be helpful? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DeathSlay

Hi, you blocked DeathSlay (talk · contribs), an account with no contributions, on 8 March, but it's not evident from the context what sock case he is related to. He now has an unblock request up. Could you clarify? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aawjgnekr --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

As you were the reviewing admin for U-Mos's block today, this is a courtesy notice of an ANI thread about that. WP:ANI#3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?; I don't mention you by name but you are involved to some degree. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please renew the Ip range block of Iaaasi?

Hello Jpgordon,

I wrote something at WP ANI ,to which I would like to bring your attention: [33] Could this be amount to a renewed Ip range block?--Nmate (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, this is a bad joke right?

I just noticed that you granted an unblock request from User:Jacob Peters because, apparently you believe that "three years is a long time"... did you actually ASK anyone familiar with this guy's activities before making that decision? Did you bother to review the case in detail? Did you actually ask any of the blocking administrators for input? Let's see:

As late as June 2010, the user was caught using multiple sockpuppets which were ban hammered by User:Alison - might want to ask her about it. Here's the account and the block log [34]. Note the block description: with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: A rather obvious single-purpose account used for 'outting'). How did he get caught that time? By posting people's personal information to harass and out them (hence the oversighted edits at Sandstein's talk page). And along with that account several more got busted [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. So just at that one point in time he was running a sock farm of at least six socks - and that's just the ones that got caught at that point. "Three years" my ass. He's had been sock puppeting in a disruptive way as recently as less than a year ago. And I'd be willing to bet he has been doing since then.

Hell, people used to GIVE BARNSTARS for catching sock puppets of this guy - not just because he was sock puppeting so much but because his activities were so extremely damaging to the encyclopedia. [41]

Or you could've actually asked someone who's familiar with this guy's activities, like User:Moreschi [42]. Or User:Alex Bakharev. Here's another sock farm the guy had [43], from May 2009 (do a search for Jacob Peters).

Or you could've clicked on the "confirmed sockpuppets" link from his user page [44] which lists thirty freakin three sockpuppets of this guy. or the "suspected sockpuppets" link, which has more sockpuppets than I can count.

Did you really buy the regret my behavior from 2006-07 that led to my being banned, (how about his behavior from 2007-2010????) line. Did you just not bother reading the message right above the unblock request which very clearly states:

As a banned vandal, you are not entitled to regular unblock consideration. This page has been protected for six months due to your abuse of the unblock template. If you believe your ban was inappropriate, you can contest it by emailing a person on WP:ARBCOM. Given your long history of abuse, it is extremely unlikely that the ban would be overturned. You have exhausted Wikipedia's patience and are no longer welcome here. Wikipedia's invitation for anyone to edit does not apply to you.

which is pretty explicit about the fact that only ArbCom can overturn the block?

This is one of the most notorious sockpuppeteers and abusive users to have ever gotten banned from Wikipedia, and I'm not just engaging in hyperbole. And this is one of the most misguided unblocks I have ever seen.

And guess, what, as soon as you ublocked him he jumped right into controversy, editing at the notorious battleground of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.

Since you had no authority to unblock this user, how about reblocking him and letting ArbCom decide? It's gonna wind up with them anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I had authority -- the same authority that Yamla had almost four years ago to decree him beyond the pale of normal unblock requests. As I said, the microscope will be upon him; one bit of bad behavior and bye bye. And, yes, I did buy the "regret my behavior". I did plenty of obnoxious stuff in my teens that just two or three years later seemed abominable. Luckily for me, they weren't recorded on the Internet. Anyway, that was my thinking. It might have been a bad call, but it certainly wasn't outside of my "authority". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And the fact that all of this had not happened "three years ago" but has continued into the recent past, that JP misrepresented the situation when he said "oh this was just some silliness from 2006-07", the extensive nature of the disruption over the years that I point out above, the sheer magnitude of it, the fact that he has jumped right back into controversy, that this guy is one of the most notorious banned users on Wikipedia (if you don't want to take my word for it, ask Moreschi, or any of the others who had to deal with him over the years)... none of that makes you wanna change your mind? (and I seriously doubt that JP is in his teen years, though I'm just guessing).

Even if "according to the letter of the law" you did have the authority to unblock here, this isn't your run-of-the-mill unblock - it IS something you ask the ArbCom, or at least bring up on ANI or somewhere first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I'm seriously concerned about this, too. A long-standing banned editor who was known for his unabashed POV-pushing and his, well, drawer of socks doesn't really go far enough; it's more like a complete dresser set of them being unblocked with no discussion at all? Something like this should at least get some other eyes at ANI or something instead of a quick unblock. I'm rather strongly considering bringing this to ANI for review myself. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not being able to edit Wikipedia in a normal way since 2007, for nearly 4 years, is punishment enough. And I have not used an alternate account since 2009. The only reason why I was banned permanently back in 2007 was that I did not understand the rules about edit warring and the creation of alternate accounts. I find it extraordinary that Volunteer Marek is devoting so much time in making appeals to moderators just to get me banned. Since you've never met me, I'll assume that it's because of my alleged points of view why I should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia? Jacob Peters (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the accusations that Volunteer Marek is making against me surely constitute a breach in civility? It is extremely disrespectful how he is aggressively appealing to administrators to get me blocked and second-guessing a decision made by jpgordan.Jacob Peters (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You were socking abusively as recently as June 2010, when you posted my real life name and work information to Sandstein's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Refer to what Paul Siebert said: stories that happened two or more years ago do not cast a shadow on the users, and that is equally applied to everyone, including ex-sockpuppeters, ex-tag team members, ex-off-Wiki coordinators, in other words, to everyone. If you want others to assume your good faith, please, behave accordingly. Jacob Peters (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Folks, this is simple enough. Volunteer Marek -- if, indeed, he attempted to out you on Sandstein's talk page in 2010, give a link and it's over. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already provided it above. Here it is again, though it's been oversighted: [45] [46] [47] (funny how he accused ME of sock puppetry). Btw, I am NOT referring to the edit summary or him providing the IP address, but rather to the contents which were removed. Ask User:Alison for details (also check her logs for June 2010 where she banned several other of his sock puppets, in addition to Raxmet that got caught because of this incident.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not my user name. And it would be pretty hard for me to reveal your identity when I've never met you and don't know who you are.

Let's recall the behavior of Volunteer Marek during the EEML plots. Should you be banned for abuse of civility, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, tag-teaming, etc?

Yesterday a member of a closed e-mail list named "Wikipediametric" forwarded me their archive asking me to do something about it. Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. Among the suggested methods were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. So far I have not found a single discussion or even kudos for creating noncontroversial wiki content but long series of joy on every block for the people listed as their enemies, particular Russavia. They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies. Among the most active members are User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo, User:Radeksz. The emails are almost certainly genuine. It looks like for at list half a year Russavia was a target of constant coordinated attacks by a group of active wikipedians quite skillful in the art of achieving victory by banning their opponents. I am not sure he was aware of this particular group but the editing history of articles touched by Russavia is quite telling by itself. I do not think it is in the project best interest to let them succeed. Jacob Peters (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jpgordon, this is just to let you know I've requested review of this unblock here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reblocked this user, he was obviously lying in his unblock request. If you feel that he should be unblocked anyway and given another chance, I would urge you to start a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI about this first. Fram (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The lesson learned here is "Be way careful when doing admin stuff on Wikipedia while jacked up on Vicodin after a root canal..." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Josh, your punishment for this incident is you have to serve out the year that was left on your ArbCom term. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll make sure to become a Vicodin addict, in that case. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, that will make you a brilliant, brilliant man. NW (Talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I dunno about vicodin; I prefer codeine, myself. Takes the edge off the day. HalfShadow 20:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like you picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue... MastCell ^Talk 06:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, and a load of sockpuppets

Hiyas there Jp,

I noticed you just did a CU request on user talk:Vintageceilingfans, which hopefully means you have a spare minite for another one (You seem to be the only checkuser around this evening.). The problem page is Jimbo's user talk, which has been targeted by multiple vandalism account before i protected it - It seems this has happened before as well. Do you happen to have a minute to run a CU on the accounts to see if there is some range / sleepers about? Thanks in advance! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The range is 131072 IPs. It's a very busy range. There's not really anything we can do about it. Thank you for the report though, I may have found something interesting. And there's always more checkusers around than you think there are, you just need to know where to look... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AN report

Several of us appear to have been accused of an abuse of power, at WP:AN#Abuse of powers?, without being notified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi again...

Hello Jpgordon,

Iaaasi is back:[48] --Nmate (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Boring. Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Omer123hussain

I think the duration of this block needs to be reconsidered. If you look at the users "sockpuppets" only two of them, User:Woodenmetal, and User:Mujahid Ahmad have done any harm. Then there is also the recent case of User:BabbaQ who was found (checkuser confirmed) to be using sockpuppets to influence content going up on the main page and they only got a one week block for that. In comparison to the BabbaQ case an indefinite block for User:Omer123hussain seems very excessive - moreso than admin discretion should reasonably allow.

Can the block term be reconsidered please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure some other admin will consider an unblock request. I just provided the technical information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> User:Anthony Bradbury said to bring it up here on my talk page. Fair enough I guess :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block of User:Omer123hussain.The discussion is about the topic User:Omer123hussain. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity

Hi Josh. A discussion has arisen regarding Jewish ethnicity at Talk:Ed Miliband#Ethnicity in infobox. I thought you might be able to provide some insight. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ResearchEditor socking again

Thought you'd be interested, thus. It, not surprisingly, coincided with a period of low editing activity by yours truly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about my talk page

How is Posting Block or Addition Removed Due to Posting Copyrighted Materials Without Permission a blantent lies? MBGuyCasey (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The blatant lie was claiming you'd been on Wikipedia since 2001. By the way, now that your block expired, you can remove the block and unblock notices if you choose. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm using a the code below in my userboxes and it says I been a member for 5 years, 5 months, and 2 days. MBGuyCasey (talk)

{Template:User Wikipedian for}}

But that's also not true. You've only been a member since February 7, 2011. Meanwhile, what I deleted said {User Wikipedian for|year=2001|month=1|day=15}}, which is even more not true. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why it's not true, but I removed the code or any code relating to how long I been a member since it is causing problems. MBGuyCasey (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't know why saying you've been a Wikipedian since 2001/01/15 is not true? Really? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant I don't know why it (the code) is saying I have been Wikipedian since 2001/01/15 as I don't remember when I even joined Wikipedia. MBGuyCasey (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Remember this guy User talk:KakMassoudMustHang ? You blocked him in March[49]. It looks like he's back (Special:Contributions/93.91.196.124) editing via NEWROZ Telecom in Iraqi Kurdistan. It's Ledenierhomme (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Drop a line to User:Tnxman307 about it -- he seems to have the most experience recently with Ledenierhomme. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Light International (Holdings) Ltd.

Re this comment. I think we must have crossed each other... I quickly reversed some of the worst spam, but haven't entirely finished the cleanup. Was there anything that needed to be address specifically? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

All I noticed in particular was the removal of well sourced negative material and its replacement by puffery from the website. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. Unfortunately, it was totally negative before, and it swung to all positive. Of course, copyright violation was a problem, and you were quite right to remove it – I didn't realise it was from the website. Now the article's gone back to fully negative again. I'll have to try and find some more reliable sources on the company if we are to build a comprehensive article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Old block

Hi Jpgordon,
Long time ago, you proceeded to this block : [50]. I could not find trace of any discussion that would explain this. Wasn't this a mistake ? Could you please indicate me where sockpuppetry of this contributor was discussed ? Noisetier (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No mistake. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive#23 October 2010. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks.

Then he is back because on my side, I am 100% sure that this gentleman is user:HupHollandHup. My reasonning starts by what was deleted here which leads to this screen capture : here and that proves that they are the same people due to this old edit. Note he admitted this directly : here.

So easy. Would you mind checking this ? Noisetier (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please make use of WP:SPI for this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not make the request but thank you for your answer. Noisetier (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Ok, this is far too pathetic for a talkback notice so I'll just throw it out there: User talk:Kci357. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I dropped by to say the same thing about the same user. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Greetings Josh. Chester Markel has filed an ANI in relation to OM concerning "personal attacks". It also refers to evidence from the vacated decision and recent comments between OM and FT2 in relation to that vacated decision. I suspect you will need to step in in some way to resolve this, so I thought I'd let you know about the ANI if you weren't already aware. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, are you still mentoring OM? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly; if my minor barks in his direction haven't sufficed, someone else will need to wield a bigger fish. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Hello, Jpgordon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

User:Vrghs jacob

Hi, Moonriddengirl had approached you about this sockfarm a while back. I've now had to block another sock -- Goldfinger123 (talk · contribs) for introducing similar copyvios and there are many of his IPs that are introducing copyvios too (in addition he now has three accounts on Commons, but they don't seem to mind there as was mentioned at at an AN discussion there), but this is resulting in the need for a lot more copyvios and therefore protections of articles. Can you check to see if the collateral damage is minimal in the case of range block? Also, I haven't come across another sock yet, but his editing interests are quite wide, so it's difficult to monitor. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Collateral damage would be large; his socks seem to be in at least a /19 range, with a whole lot of other innocuous users. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It's semi-protections then, too much copyvio going unreverted for weeks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Paglakahinka

You have just declined an unblock request at User_talk:Paglakahinka. Might it not now make sense to block talk page access? There have been numerous requests and the message appears not to be sinking in. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do that if it edits again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you're around..

Jpg, could you take a look at this section at ANI. There are two relevant SPIs: this and that; since then I've had to protect TP a couple of times and now I see this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you need here. I've blocked the Cinammon username (someone said they'd done so on ANI but hadn't); it was directly linkable to Shannon1488, which I've now indeffed. Anything else I can do? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was what I was wondering. The problem was which of the two sock-farms to link it to, I figured it belonged to one of the two! thanks. —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Block of FreakyLocz14

I have just declined a request for unblock at User talk:FreakyLocz14. You made the block, giving "Block evasion: Blocked for BLP violations as IP address" as the reason. I certainly agree that there are grounds for a block (hence my unblock decline) but I wonder whether it is necessary for the block to be indefinite. Do you have any comment? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to edit your unblock -- you say "I see no reason for an immediate block", but you probably mean unblock...I have a pretty low opinion of liars, and as long as he pretends that the IP edits weren't from him, I wouldn't unblock. However, something I hadn't noticed at the time -- this is the same person who had been putting crap like this on Wikipedia, under various IPs; take a look at the history of Harry Reid, around May 15-16-17, and you'll repeated attempts to get BLP violations into the article by a number of different IPs, who'd I venture is the same guy. So perhaps I shouldn't have made the block, since I'd been somewhat "involved", though at the time I made the block, I wasn't looking at anything other than the fact that the IP was given an anon-only block for BLP violations on June 22, and the named account continued the same behavior, less than ten minutes after that block. If I'd looked a bit further back I'd likely have asked another admin to perform the block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Block → Unblock Done Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks also for pointing me at the IP editing in May. There's a good chance it's the same person, though I would not say it's certain. It also alerted me to what to look for in the editor's history, so that I realised there were serious BLP issues, which I hadn't noticed before. (It can be hard to know where to look when an editor hides their controversial edits among insignificant changes to articles such as New Boyz.) I no longer think there is any case for unblocking. I have also semiprotected United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010, as IP editwarring has continued to re-add the questionable material since you blocked FreakyLocz14. Thanks again for your help. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the college he's editing from does not have a law school, so he's not being honest about that either... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. I never believed the claim, actually: his editing never looked as if it was done by someone with legal training. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Or even with a decent secondary education, actually. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColumbiaAlumnus

Hey. I left a question at the SPI case for you (or another CU) asking what the relationship between the two found groups is. If you have a minute, could you swing by? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Deunov external links

Hi Josh, I noticed that recently you removed nearly all the external links on Peter Deunov. While I definitely agree it was a linkfarm, I think each link should be considered based on the value it adds to the article. After carefully looking through all the links and considering their value-add, I have put back 4 out of the 12 deleted. They represent different perspectives and are useful resources for anyone interested in Peter Deunov's legacy. I hope you'll agree with my choices. I would suggest new links to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Quartz (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

number

You have 660^th place in most edits (45233). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:

Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.

A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Whydelete

Template:Whydelete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Σ ^talk_contribs 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have asked Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the unprotection of User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang and they won't unprotect it. So can you please simply unprotect it for me?

I want everything to return back to before and normal as much as possible. I want to undo the changes as much as possible. I made a mistake and I want to fix it as much as possible. Please? So please? I beg you.

Can you please just deal with my desires just once? Please?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to do so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad edit

Thanks for picking up on and correcting my bad edit to User talk:Andycjp--don't know how that happened, sorry. This was the intended edit. --Macrakis (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I only noticed it because an unblock template snuck in. I wonder how that happened? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Three IPs being used by a banned user

I previously posted this to Timotheus Canens' talk page, but then I saw that Timotheus happens to be on an admin tools break.

I was looking through the edit history of the article 'Cold fusion', and found a suspicious user with a blanked userpage and talk page, named VanishedUser314159. I looked at the two pages' histories and saw that the user was previously named Joshua P. Schroeder, and ScienceApologist before that, and that he had been banned from editting by the arbitration committee earlier this year. I saw that FT2 pointed out that he had used the IP address 128.59.169.49 as a sockpuppet [51], which I noticed to be almost identical to an IP which had recently editted the cold fusion article- 128.59.169.46. Those two similar IPs are from Columbia University. I investigated further and found that the IP 128.59.169.46 has been used to edit several of the same pages that VanishedUser314159 had editted [52], and in the same way, indicating that it is clearly him. He hasn't behaved well under his new IP either, having been blocked twice for edit-warring and trolling, and having received numerous complaints on his talk page for his disruptive behavior. After digging further through the edit histories of the articles that Schroeder frequented, I found two more IP addresses that he uses: In the edit history of the article 'Parapsychology', I found the IP 128.59.168.240- another similar IP, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. In the edit history of the article 'Tired light', I found the IP 140.252.83.241, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. If there is any doubt that the latter IP is used by Schroeder (since the IP is not similar to the others), you can see in the user contributions that there are edits to the article 'Columbia University'. Rachel the nerd (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recent IP. The last two you listed haven't been used in months; let us know if they chime in again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Rachel the nerd (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I believe that the user 128.59.168.240 is not Schroeder himself, but a friend of his from Columbia University, who has made only a few edits at Schroeder's request. 128.59.168.240's editting does not strongly resemble that of VanishedUser the way that the editting of the other two IPs does. Rachel the nerd (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Very observant Rachel and clever research! But it is dangerous business calling the cat a cat, owing to WIKIPEDIA:OUTING and harassment policy. An indefinite block happened to me, trying to draw attention to the same IP-user in June. And other users mainly active on the Swedish wp have recognized the VanishedUser's extreme mainstream pushing in some cosmology related articles and his being far from vanished. One pointed out the problem here and here not knowing how to check the prank. 140.252.83.232 (talk) and recently 209.2.217.202 are similar sock accounts. The problems are his many active edits that has not yet been reverted. / User:Kurtan 89.160.124.74 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Vrghs jacob again

I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob as he's started user accounts again. I've also mentioned your earlier check for range block. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Leave my talk page alone

Pretend your mother taught you some manners. Deterence ^Talk 01:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bite me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ring Cinema

User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheep have wool

See link above. Does it look like this editor is Lombshi? -- Atama頭 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also I made this account to edit, just seems suspicious. Sorry to pester you but I figured you just recently did CU on Lombshi... -- Atama頭 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say

Likely, if behavior indicates. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- Atama頭 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Fastily#Your_block_action_was_overided

Hi Jpgordon. Hope you're well. A user is concerned with your recent unblock of User:08OceanBeach SD. Thought you might like to comment. For the record, I personally don't see any problems with the unblock. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

At least three IP:s being used by a banned user

You will recall your only block of 8 August. The VanishedUser is active again with 140.252.83.241 (talk) and it is just a week left until he is free to use his university IP again. 77.219.176.32 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

CU question

How much collateral damage would there be from rangeblocking 60.52.0.0/17? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like a lot -- there are many perfectly innocuous IP edits as well as new accounts who have gone on to make good edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Argh. We have a very persistent IP hopping vandal from that range. Oh well, thanks for the answer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK to blank a spoof user page?

Looking at an image used in one of my userboxen, I noticed it also appears on User:BeeKindRewind which is nearly a direct copy of my user page, as is User talk:BeeKindRewind. I see you blocked that user indefinitely, so I ask you: is it OK to blank those pages? Is there a better place to ask? cheers, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem blanking such things; they're dead weight anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, are you one of those just temperament dudes? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty easy, and would be hard pressed to tell just intonation from quarter-comma meantone or whatever else came up and bit me upon the left hand. Every now and then something strikes my ear as just plain wrong, though. I like it when singers hit their notes the way they are paid to do, and other musicians ditto. Now I will go blank those pages— thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Khazars

Hi! I undid my contributions, but I followed your advice: I removed the external link to the RovasPedia (despite of the fact that the RovasPedia is also correct). I also deleted the word "faulty". However, the widely acknowledged Prof. András Róna-Tas pointed out that the correct name is "Khavar" and not "Kabar". The reason of the mistake is the incorrect transcription of the original Greek text of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. Please, let me know if you see any further mistake in my contributions. I will fix them. Best Regards, --Rovasscript (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're edit warring. Also, please use the article talk page to discuss issues about articles. You are about to run into a brick well if you insist on referring to other editors as "vandals". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I answered in the article talk page. --Rovasscript (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot, Jpgordon for your support in helping me get unblocked. I feel great to be back to freedom on Wikipedia!!! Very happy to be unblocked. Thanks a lot. Jobin (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you sir for unblocking me. We, the new users of wikipedia, will take care that we will not violate the rules of editing... Feeling nice to see your user page... Happy editing sir...!!! Kaivalya 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaivalyas (talk • contribs)

Oingo Boingo Banjo

Josh:

Saw this in a shop window in Tokyo. Anything to do with you?

File:Oingoboingobanjo.jpg

--Calton | Talk 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh how cute! I did play "banjar" with them... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Why was the account blocked? As an administrator it is your duty (and Daniel Cases') to follow Wikipedia guidelines. According to Wikipedia's policy: “Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.”

I did not engage in any problematic article editing and just started this account yesterday. Once blocked I cant communicate directly and Daniel has his discussion page blocked from editing so I cant respond to him with a new account. You and all the other editors/administrators need to respect the important work of others and if they violate a not so obvious guideline follow Wikipedia's policy not your own personal agenda.

Follow Wikipedia's guidelines by unblocking my account and encourage me to change my username (which I will). This is a community and you and the other administrators need to act in a responsible manner.

Ericwilliamh (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)murrowcenterEricwilliamh (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First, if you wish for Murrowcenter (talk · contribs) to be unblocked, you must make your request from that account on that account's talk page. Second, creating a new account while your original account is blocked is block evasion, which is not allowed and will not help your case. Please go back to User talk:Murrowcenter, request to be unblocked, and another admin will review your request shortly. —DoRD (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That aside, the unblock request I responded to was a request to unblock for a change in username from "Murrowcenter" to "murrowcenter", which of course was absurd, so it was denied. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am just trying to get some important information on the site. The blocking of the username by an editor violated Wikipedia's own stated guidelines, so there is no explaining that away. It is a frustrating experience when the editors don't follow Wikiedia's own guidelines and then sit in judgment of my mistake. I could not respond directly to Daniel Case (the one who blocked the username) because he has his discussion board blocked.

I appreciate all the hard work the editors do, but the bottom line is that if they believe there is a violation they need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and clearly communicate with the user what they believe they need to do. One editor stated my entry was "promotion" and in no way shape or form did it espouse a value (the essence of promotion)...I was getting different responses from different editors. This is a community and the editors need to act in a responsible manner and communicate with users. Surely you can understand the frustration and time it takes to learn the basics of Wikipedia, create an account, post and have it all wiped away by a keystroke of an overzealous editor.

I appreciate your time please appreciate mine.

Ericwilliamh (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)EricwilliamhEricwilliamh (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make this request, with your User:Murrowcenter account, on your user talk page; I will not be reviewing your next unblock request, nor discussing this here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting a stale issue

In an under-construction essay -- WP:Delegitimization as a tactic -- I mentioned two stale examples. I hoped that very old illustrative examples would be non-controversial.

Among those who had anything to do with a minor 2007 dispute, you appear to be the only one still active. Will you take a look at this:

Delegitimization is a term used to describe is a kind of personal attack which is damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, e.g.,

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, 2007
Individual delegitimization. "' X ' has been relentlessly pursuing false sockpuppet investigations against me and against ' Y ' in an effort to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with him." (emphasis added)

Does this example make sense to you? Does it matter that I'm quoting the words of someone who is later banned as a sock puppet? Is the illustrative purpose served well enough? --Tenmei (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bad example, because X had been pursuing accurate sockpuppet investigations; there was no delegitimization occurring, just an accusation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't looked at it that way. In other words, you are telling me that this is an example of the use of the word, but not an example of what the word means. Before this, I did not recognize the conflating error. --Tenmei (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warrior

Hello. You recently granted User:08OceanBeach SD an unblock (he was blocked for 1 week). He was blocked for edit warring and breaching the 3RR [53]. Your unblock was lifted because he argumented that:

He understood the 3RR spirit and wasn't gaming the system
He would discuss instead of reverting [54]

Now take a look at this [55]. I took the issue to the talk page after he blanked a whole section. As usual, he found a way to game with the system and stopped editing but started reverting the map, a shorcut to succeed in his intented edits. He didn't care the map was there for a reason, representing the common regions of Latin America.

He has been reverting the map to his uploaded version. Like I said, a way to game with the system, obviously thinking that the 3RR rule or his promises doesn't count there. Would you please help? Thanks. My actions seem to be futile. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to point out, that prior to receiving Alex's notice on my talk page, I reverted to the original image. I wasn't gaming the system, I was adhering to the principles I set for myself and was discussing instead of reverting the text in question. I later asked Alex to inform me his thoughts on the map but he simply reverted the map without listing his thoughts on the talk page. The image as it stands now is in it's original format. Alex pointed out what he thought was wrong with it and I listened. I am disappointed that Alex does not assume good faith when it comes to my editing. Furthermore, my changes to the map remain with the 3RR as I only changed it twice; the other edits constituted attempts at fixing my changes. Cordially, 08OceanBeach^S.D. 23:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I really hate cut-and-paste duplicate discussions like this. Both of you stop bothering me and also stop bothering each other. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly fond of it either. Thanks for being straightforward though. I just feel at times it is necessary to defend myself. Hopefully this wont be necessary anymore. Cordially, 08OceanBeach^S.D. 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Page Un-Protection

I am asking that my user page be unrestricted as the corresponding blocks have expired.99.135.104.136 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The page wasn't restricted -- just your access to it while the block was in force. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am currently showing it as protected.99.135.104.136 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't imagine why; the protection log for User talk:99.135.104.136 shows it has never been protected. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Spamming

Hi. Honestly, I'm not trying to spam anyone or anything, just trying to get an answer to my question. I'm sure you guys have enough on your plate already. I apologize if that was misinterpreted.

69.204.38.3 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie J. Stone

Did you look at the similarities between their edits and received warnings? I was just going to ask what the connection was but found you'd unblocked SJS. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just automatically lifting all autoblocks caused by bugzilla:31403. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I could hear a duck quacking, as they were both warned about the Brazil Hot 100 Chart(amongst other things), and were editing mainly in the pop area - and were on the same IP, it would appear. Could be a coincidence... Peridon (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Ducks are ducks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User 88.211.44.71

Hello, Jpgordon! The user 88.211.44.71, who was previously blocked [56] for editwarring, is currently continuing to add the same disruptive material ([57], [58] [59]). In this [60] case he adds an obviously false material. An admin's engagement will be appreciated. Gazifikator (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, one edit on Charles Aznavour and one on Tamara Toumanova in the last month? Not sure what action's needed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk help please!

Greetings, I do not know who is an admin around here, but I wish to know: could you help me with some severe trouble?

This user Republican Jacobite is attempting to start something with me, for no good reason. I see 'he' has a history, and his removal of my good-faith posting at Steampunk on the talk page is outrageous. Even admins do not do that. Can you help?

You have contributed recently and seem attentive to the article; I have no wish to alter the article in any significant way, nor do I want this editor attacking me again, and again accusing me of attacking other editors. I have no time for such juvenile trouble-makers.

Please reply, if you can, at my talk page and I would appreciate if you looked over Steampunk and commented there also. Many thanks.75.21.113.40 (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks are never good-faith postings, and are appropriately removed from article talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now hold Republican to the same standards - which, by the bye, I find are applied here more often to some than to others. Do not think I am turning to you to beg for help at this point. Only suggesting you reflect on the bully you are protecting.75.21.113.40 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I didn't look at his behavior at all; just at the stuff you're complaining about being deleted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Aram-van

No problem; I'll try to do that in the future (of course, they could always just make it possible through the software, too, as you suggested). Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Declined unblock requests

Per the guideline du jour, I think that declined unblock requests may no longer be removed by the user.

A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested, declined unblock requests, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices

This is regarding User talk:Nevoexpo. Is it OK if I put these back? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, which is why I first reverted his blanking (which caused an edit conflict as I was in the process of declining the request), then noticed he wasn't blanking a declined request, just an unanswered one, so I rolled it back. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AutoCAD Article

Hello my name is David. I'm currently a freshman at Clemson University. For my English 103 class, I'm required to work on one wikipedia article and I chose the AutoCAD article. I recently added some content about the AutoCAD WS mobile app. I also created a new section "Newest Release." Technically this is only our "first draft" so I plan on added more information in the next week or so. I'm suppose to find other wikipedia users that have edited the page before and ask them for advice or any suggestions they may have. If you have anything you would like me to add or change or just a suggestion that would make the article even better I would appreciate it if you would let me know. If you go to the sandbox I created, I have bulleted points about things I plan to do and things I plan to add. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thank you! DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please look very carefully into simple matters such as grammar and sentence formation, as well as more complex issues such as neutral point of view. I'm looking at your most recent changes to AutoCAD. I see several problems:

Since 1994, Autodesk had abandoned Apple's computers and refused to create or distribute compatible software for Mac users. "Abandoned"? "Refused"? That is perhaps language for a magazine article or a blog, but it's not encyclopedic, and it's not neutral. Neutral language would say that Autodesk stopped porting AutoCAD to the Mac in '94.
AutoCAD 2012 for Mac provides intuitive interface that will come naturally to those use to the OX software. That's marketing-speak, not encyclopedia speak.
With Autodesk's move to support Apple's Mac OX since 2010. That's a sentence fragment.
do to the price limit -- "do to"?

Regarding your sandbox;

Autodesk officially release their iOS mobile app in September of 2010. Verb tense?
This was the start of their mobile application adventure. "Adventure"? Whatever does that mean? Why would that be in an encyclopedia?
but is also limited too." -- "also...too"?
forcing them to manual input the text -- "manual"?

Though there are lots of people on Wikipedia willing and able to correct minor spelling and grammar errors, we really prefer it when good English is used from the start. (Especially from college students!) The most important problems here aren't the spelling or grammar, but rather the non-encyclopedic language and non-neutral point of view. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much for taking the time to point all of that out. I will fix them as soon as I get a chance. DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I guess this is why I'm an engineering major and not an english major. I'm definitely better at the math and sciences. DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unblock requests

Sorry, I've been out of it all day (more like the past year) and should have checked. My mistake. Alexandria (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Havengore

In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Works for me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing Message

Hello, Jpgordon! Just to let you know I have listed your name here as you have fought the edits of this long-term vandal admirably. This editor has been very recently active and shifting IPs even more unpredictably. Please feel free to add any appropriate evidence to the report and please add it to your watchlist as well, as this draft will certainly be the basis for a LTA entry in the future. Thank you! Doc talk 04:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kiko4564 requesting unblock

Hello Jpgordon. You are the admin who declined this user's last unblock request back in January, 2011. You asked him to wait a year, but here he is with a new request. Since you must be familiar with his record your opinion would be valuable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The return of NoCal100

Hey Mr Checkuser!

I don't know if you're keeping track of this sort of thing, but permabanned sockpuppeteer NoCal100 is now posting from Honduras. An IP user with shifting Honduran IP addresses keeps obsessing about me and my user page, but this edit in particular tells me who's behind it. No real need to block, but I figure if he takes up his old obsessions (other than List of fictional ducks), this might be a helpful tidbit of data for checkusers. See also

--Calton | Talk 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Irving as pseudohistorian

Is it just a pusillanimous legal thing? I'm not up on legal minutiae. I'm mainly acquainted with... you know... facts, as established by courts of law. I kind of figured "pseudohistorian" would cover a man who had been deemed a Nazi liar by a major nation-state. It's not as if there's any chance of Irving suing us. His next noteworthy act will be to die. When he does, will we categorize him as a pseudohistorian? If not, then the category itself is meaningless. LANTZY ^TALK 07:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He's not a historian, certainly. I don't think he's a pseudohistorian either -- rather, he's a lying sack of shit. There is a difference there; I kinda think pseudohistorians are honest but deluded. On the other hand, the pseudohistory article references Lipstadt; does she refer to him by the term? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Tango jpgordon.jpg

Does that file and other uploads still need to be protected? File is on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Obnoxious brats were screwing with it to hassle me; that's why it's protected. Dunno what policy is for userpage pics like that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OPP

Understood ... just gets tedious typing it all the time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vrghs Jacob

Hi, You'd done a few CUs for Vrghs jacob based on requests from MRG and me. It appears that he's back again as Ravelnine (talk · contribs) but since the old cases are stale an SPI won't be useful. Would you be able to match anything with data you might have? We have some IPs that he's used, most recently from 59.178.*.* but there are a lot more. The articles are the same and the image additions are also pretty much the same. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob are the relevant cats, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob is the relevant SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't retain any data, so I can't provide any help in that regard. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, is there anyway we can match the range with the IPsocks listed in the cat? Else, MRG and I can do duck blocks if needed. He is using the 59.178 range currently (on New Delhi today). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

I've brought up some of the issues being discussed on User Talk:Ostreicher in the already open ANI thread on the issue, WP:ANI#Threat of legal action. I mentioned your name in that process, so your comments are welcome. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block Evasion. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You blocked the first account Mt king ^(edits) 02:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser314159 being discussed at WP:AE

The guy seems to have been editing as the IP 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs) since March 2011 or before. That IP is registered to Columbia University. He has also been participating on fringe science. Since you issued the last indefinite block here you may want to comment on what should be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblock my Accounts

Reguarding the ban of Rob-Oblong

User:CantorFriedman

Feedback

RfC Michael Collins

Request for lifting of restriction

Banned editor ptmccain at it again

Note suggestion

Plagiarist

IP 188.225.180.251

Survey

Haplogroup mtDNA K

More User:Brunodam

Ratel

Re: comment at Circumcision

Ted Gunderson

Unprotection

DeeKay64

ResearchEditor sockpuppet

More Brunodam

Thanks

Hmm

Grand Union (supermarket)

When BLP meets NPOV

Klangranger

thanks :D

SPI on GregJackP

Request

Thank you

Impressive work

Lovegames

Simulation12 socks

More Gun Powder Ma problems, now on ANI

CullVernon's block review

Adam613

Unblock request (User iaaasi)

More Don Murphy problems

Six month block of 98.223.95.42

Autoblock

Hey

Unblock

What's now?

Article unblock request

Sockpuppets of User:Jcarleo

FYI

changing block setting for User:Office of Fair Trading

Suspected puppetry

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

Hey

User issues

98.195.149.177 sock?

Vermont libraries guy

SPI case

RE:Sugar

Sockpuppets of User:Tosses

Name Request

Talkback

Talkback

Pastorwayne is back

Fine

TY

Harassment on my Talk Page

Unblock template

More Brunodam

Thank You!

At WP ANI, there is a discussion in which you may have an interest

Do you remember ...

The Holocaust

Same fool at Grand Union (supermarket)

Ten month old SPI case

FYI -- potential SPI case

Democrat Party (phrase)

Your failure as an administrator

Barry Bonds

Thanks again

Rollback rights

Excuse me

Vandalism by User talk:216.162.23.68

"New users" on my pages and JamesBWatson's.

Sockpuppet block