User talk:Jpgordon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:18, 6 June 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

/Archive 1

"Checkuser block" unblock request.

Okay, so it's not an "unblock", but one user wants the autoblock on 64.59.144.85 lifted. 64.59.144.85 was checkuser-blocked almost two days ago by you. As per policy, I'm required to discuss this with you before I take action; a hard block on such a large IP would cause a pretty large amount of collateral damage. (I imagine that was the idea). Unless there are serious issues with doing so (which there probably are), I would

downgrade the block to a anon-only, account creation blocked block. Cheers, Sean William 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Checkuser blocks are not issued casually. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sean William 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently being "complained" about. Daniel 10:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope so. I'd love another checkuser operator to analyze this and interpret it differently; so far, all have agreed with my analysis. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smileydude66 autoblocked

At User talk:Smileydude66 Smileydude66 is requesting help with an autoblock. They say they emailed you but got no reply. Maybe you could take a look.--Commander Keane 06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also User talk:Steveleenow and User talk:Dwightcharles. This one's causing a high amount of unblock requests and complaints, just FYI. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm not surprised. And I'm skeptical as all heck. For example, take a look at Stevellenow's contributions. He first edits on Dec. 23, 2005; all of his edits are on that day; and then he comes back a year and a half later to complain about a checkuser block. User:Dwightcharles has exactly one edit -- then posts the unblock request. I don't understand why that IP is an abuse nexus, but it is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another from that IP, and this one appears to have a longer history of contributing. Pastordavid 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that you could respond directly one way or the other at User talk:Smileydude66? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jpgordon! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 06:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for automated welcome messages, by the way :) Daniel 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr statement

I was adding a statement when you archived/removed it. What is the correct procedure? Should I just not bother to add a statement; add the statement to an archive; restore the discussion to add the statement and then re-remove it? (which does seem pointless : )

Or what?

Thanks in advance for your insight on this. - jc37 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't "archive" it, I just deleted it. So I guess you could put it on the talk page, or just not bother -- you'll likely have plenty of opportunity, since these storms never end as quietly as they should. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't so much worried about "opportunity", just didn't know if all named in a case needed to post a statement. - jc37 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. No need at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. (And btw, you were right.. I just received a notice that an RfC has been started.) - jc37 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eptypes

Hey, I saw your comment to Hipocrite that Eptypes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of a number of other editors (Goingempty, Parker007, etc.). Is that based on a Checkuser, or on an editing pattern?

I certainly don't dispute that Eptypes is a sockpuppet of somebody, but it might be worthwhile to know if he's a sock of a Ref Desk 'regular', or just someone who dropped in to play silly buggers for a little while. If you'd like someone to file a formal Checkuser request so you can do your thing, let me know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were accusations of sockpuppetry surrounding an arbitration request, so I ran a checkuser. I've only glanced at the editing pattern. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR's block

Is there any chance you could give some indication of when PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · logs · block log)'s block might be lifted? He still hasn't been told why he was blocked, and the Administrators won't touch it because his case is before ArbCom (even though the block was put in place before ArbCom). Mark Chovain 09:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not blocked... Daniel 12:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser on User:JB196 latest accounts

I hate to go around a decision by one of your fellow checkusesr, but the latest open proxies IP Check set by User:JB196 was declined by Voice of All (are we missing something in the report?).. would you mind reviewing it and seeing if there is anything that we can do to make it more palatable for you guys? Thank you :) SirFozzie 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked VoA why it was rejected. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really confused as the accounts have admitted to being JB196 which is pretty much as confirmed as you can get. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I'm kinda confused too, since only one of the three named accounts has any activity whatsoever. Maybe give me more background? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The two inactive accounts I found while looking through the logs of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive#JB196 3. Grant Hill Man was created by sock Schwag Lynch while FlapjackSkater was created by WEstside Ep. Why the IP hasn't been blocked really confuses me as every edit has been blatantly obvious that its JB196, on purpose for that matter. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you know all this, why do you need checkuser help?? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        To get the underlying open proxy addresses and sleeper accounts. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah. In this case, there weren't any. Kinda surprised me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not even under Sasquatch? What about the IP he was using? –– Lid^(Talk) 00:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. Just one editor, User:BooyakaDell, who's been blocked since December. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which was the ORIGINAL JB sock. That's interesting. Wonder if he's run out of proxies to abuse? SirFozzie 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We can only dream of such a wonderful universe. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt it, the IP orientates from the UK and JB is an obviously American user. Either an open proxy or zombie computer probably. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A starry starry night...What does the word "orientates" mean in that sentence? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant the verb derivative of orient to adjust with relation to, or bring into due relation to surroundings, circumstances, facts, etc.. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Valli

Do you even know what you are doing? 1937 is Frankie's trademark birthyear. The World Almanac says 1937, so we should leave it at that. 74.36.25.237 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion in the article. Furthermore, random data changes without comments by anonymous editors may and will be reverted on sight. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm terribly sorry for snapping at you like that. I am just trying to correct false information across this encyclopedia. Please forgive me. 74.36.25.237 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Minor snap! I've got thicker skin that that. (I hope.) You'll be able to easily improve your credibility when you make changes by (a) using edit summaries; and (b) registering an username. We get a ton of vandalism in the form of random changes to article data; sometimes they're blatant (changing someone's birthday from 1902 to 1202), but often they are subtle (changing someone's birthday from May 2 to May 12.) So we're pretty sensitive about such things. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar 2

I strongly urge you, as an ArbCom member, to wait for a few more hours before going into the voting phase. I am a busy man in real life, and I am tryping as fast as I can to produce evidence. Please bear with me. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gordon, have you considered the concrete on-wiki evidence of RA's abuse that I posted on the Evidence page? I am expecting a response. Thanks. – [2]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expect whatever you want. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. That was very nice of you. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocked user from checkuser block

This user is complaining to be the collateral damage of an autoblock. The block is yours and is a "checkuser block" so I didn't want to touch it. I told the editor that I would notify you and let you decide what to do about it. --Selket ^Talk 06:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an autoblock, it was a hard block of a published open proxy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about long-term abuse

Thanks for running the latest checkuser on Billy Ego. He's now at 55 socks and counting, and his MO is to show up and edit disruptively/tendentiously until he's caught, then come back a bit later and hassle a new set of unsuspecting editors. At what point would a long-term abuse report, and/or contacting his ISP, be indicated? I've not gone that route before, so thought I'd ask your advice. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno! I've never done either of those! I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of All

Did he explain to you why he has declined two IP checks on blatant JB196 socks? It seems odd to me as the two he declined were rather blatant, one of which was making edits proclaiming they were JB196. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just unfamiliarity with the case, apparently. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I only just realised I named this Voice of Reason rather than Voice of All. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser block unblock request

Please review the unblock request at User talk:Cris Sion, which relates to a checkuser block you made. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as the others. That's a public open proxy. I have begged on the checkuser mailing list for anyone to contradict my analysis, and everyone so far agrees with it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. I couldn't tell from the block log of this particular account, and the registered user has a few good-faith contributions. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tease

Permit me to tease you now with the thought that you could tie-break the stalling Badlydrawnjeff application for arbitration. Kinda intriguing, eh? --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true ... the weight of the Wiki lies on your shoulders. (Actually, Blnguyen, Flcelloguy, and UninvitedCompany haven't voted at all yet, but some of them seem to maybe be away.) Newyorkbrad 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming I think there's something wrong with it being stalled. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I enjoyed teasing you so much. Is there some way we could let this stalling thing drag on indefinitely, or do we have to close the wretched thing after a mere seven days? --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven? I thought it was ten. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ten, and can be extended by request of any arbitrator. If you can stall it until January 2010, it will be someone else's problem. :) (Tony probably means seven more days, as it was filed on Tuesday.) Newyorkbrad 00:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser steps

~~I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bogbuster. However, I am not sure what to do next. Where do I list the case at? Thanks.~~Never mind. I found the page. Thanks! Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ride

I didn't move the Sally Ride page. A vandal did and I moved it back where it belonged.--William Henry Harrison 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know! That's why I got rid of it...if you'd done it I'd have left a quite disappointed message on your talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASOIAF

Hi,

You were an arbitrator on my case, so you know I'm blocked from editing certain pages. Could you accordingly do me a favour and revert the following change?

thus

The link is already embedded in the text twice, so should not be in See Also as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also.

Thanks (in advance),

WLU 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Remind me: you're not banned from the article talk pages, are you? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, here's the decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yeah. Judgement call -- good one on WLU's part. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember talk pages being mentioned specifically, though on that particular article the talk page itself was a source of contention. Better safe than sorry, especially when the pages were at the limits of my knowledge. Anyway, thanks for the help, much obliged.

WLU 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HKelkar 2

I can appreciate how this has irritated you a bit - enough to delete sections of the talkpage - but I had originally posted a very relevant question on the proposed decision page because that was where I thought it should go. (Please note that I have largely limited my editing of this RfArb to the presentation of evidence.) The question was:"...If the presence of the email evidence has caused the ArbCom to back off from any action, should I, the moment this RfArb has closed, issue another request with the on-wiki evidence?" (It may be the case that I presented my evidence too late for it to be read by an exasperated ArbCom.)

If you are at the end of your tether with this, I can assure you I sympathize. Back in December, my statement on the first RfArb said, to explain my absence:"I realised that too much of my time was going in keeping these editors from spreading vitriol over article pages; every comment in my direction was dismissive and incivil; my position of attempted neutrality was repeatedly stated to be biased, as was any editor who attempted to mediate." That said, I think we know that this problem is not going away.

A reply to my question would be nice, but if you just don't want to think about it any more, I'll understand. Hornplease 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.45.219.185.

JP, this IP isn't an open proxy, it's a shared IP and so you shouldn't block it indefinitely - or even permanently. I don't really know who's causing this.... but it is a shared IP, from ENTA... anyhow, I'm only trying to edit good faith... I'm still trying to get used to here. --Belazzur 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm researching this. However, since you can clearly edit from other places besides this highly abused IP, I'm highly skeptical about restoring that one; it's acting like a computer in a classroom full of naughty 12-year-olds. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to the technicians who run the terminals today, who said Wikipedia is popular with the users of the public terminals anyway (according to their logs, their third most popular site after YouTube and http://www.invictafm.co.uk. I use them when I'm on the move (which I am a lot recently!). I think it's probably bored kids, judging by the fact it's end-of-term now.

I think the abuse will probably stop when kids find something else to do... but anyway, although I can edit from other IPs, some people's only access to Wikipedia may be from public terminals.
Anyhow... I like it here even if I don't quite understand it, although it is good fun! --Belazzur 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is ENTA, anyway? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ENTA are a British ISP who supply Internet to businesses... including public terminals. --Belazzur 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish lobby

Hi, you say we don't site "Holocaust denial websites", but IHR doesn't deny the Holocaust. IHR says that any serious scholar wouldn't deny the Holocaust, but that they do try to historically review our standard view of the holocaust and present possible exaggerations of it. Anyone who says the Holocaust couldn't be exaggerated at least somewhat in our modern view of history isn't being NPOV because there are two sides to every story. In this case the sides are that the atrocities of the Holocaust are played down and were actually far worse, or the atrocities of the Holocaust have been exaggerated and were actually not as bad. To not include either of these sides is to not be NPOV, and Wikipedia is all about NPOV, so I would ask that you consider reverting your edits on the Jewish lobby article. There are two sides to that article, and what I have added helps to present both sides. Thank you, Scifiintel 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss this on the article talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irving

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

An email has been sent to you. Please do not disclose any sensitive/private information. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi JP, any chance you could translate: "s/Badlydrawnjeff/Everyone/g"? Sorry, I don't get it :-/ --YFB ¿ 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. That's Unix geek-speek. It means, "for every instance of Badlydrawnjeff in the previous, replace it with Everyone." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered it was geek of some description but I couldn't guess the species. Thanks from a humble Micro$ofty. --YFB ¿ 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primum non nocere

In response to Sean William's proposed principle of this name on the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration workshop page, in which he says "Biographies concerning living persons that are well sourced, but exist only to document a misfortune in the subject's life, should be avoided if all possible", you write "I think it would be really nice if we did this."

Well you might be interested to learn that we have as a community already adopted the principle. From the biographies of living persons policy:

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar 2

Please see updated evidence – [3]. Rama's Arrow blocked another editor while being involved in dispute with him, for no reason at all. The user had not violated WP:3RR on any article and wasn't even remotely edit-warring. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 03:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really need to shut up now. All of you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...moony?

Er, yes. Um, why (he said with some tredipation)? --Calton | Talk 06:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Proposed decision

Hello,

I've noticed you voted for banning User:MariusM and User:EvilAlex on the grounding:

"As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the project."

I would ask if being a single-purpose account is wrong. If so, it means a variety of edits is required just to be in the project; and I think this opposes to the anyone can edit concept.

Regarding edit-warring, I think Mauco provoked them, either directly, or by his unfair edits, and I will add here only some of the examples in which I was involved:

my first edit on this subject was reverted by Mauco under the edit summary:rv rubbish
Mauco removed the disputes-templates I've added under the edit summary: rv POV hijack
Mauco "and Pernambuco" made changes depsite the oposal of the majority and asked us consensus before reverting them
"they" also reverted the edits they said they agree with, to force us introduce them gradually". [4]

I think it is relevat here to say Mauco refused mediation[5]

I wonder would Wikipedia have ever solved Mauco problem if MariusM and EvilAlex had been afraid to get involved in disputes? (there was a request for checkuser on Pernambuco and Mauco in November 2006, but it was rejected. The first step in unmasking Mauco was made in a war-edit, in which "Pernambuco" used User:Kertu3 to revert MariusM.)

Dl.goe 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Is there any chance of you dealing with this please? There's been spamming for the past 24 hours now, so blocking underlying IPs would be helpful. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent six hours driving across Death Valley. I'll get to it when I can. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So far, all the underlying IPs I've found have either been already blocked or don't show signs of proxitude. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expected more

I'm dissapointed because I expected more from you. El_C 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wavering between that and moving it to abstain. Gods, I've got 2.5 more years of this shit? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're seen to do it well, possibly longer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I don't think so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- /me enters in a clerkish way carrying the next stack of new cases.... 2.5833 years, but who's counting? Newyorkbrad 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ever talk to your shrink about this OCD thing? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chin up. I suspect that the people who would most enjoy a three year stint on ArbCom are the people we should least want to do it. Thatcher131 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll take my dissapointment elsewhere, then. El_C 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Or you could convince me I'm wrong. As you've noticed, I do have a way of changing my mind, sometimes even correctly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how this single-purpose user, who has been highly disruptive throughout the course of this arbitration, suddenly gets a free pass from Fred a few days after that user's latest provocational attacks directed at myself appear to reach a climax. As for "convincing," why not ask the arbitrators who are not Fred Bauder why they voted as they did? I tend to ignore Fred's often questionable conduct as an arbitrator, although admittdely, sometimes I cannot resist. El_C 09:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent through e-mail an explanation. I wonder if people who make fake accusations in an arbitration case [6] [7] should not be at their turn responsible for that?--MariusM 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, editing 380 unique pages is a characteristic of a single purpose account?--MariusM 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this elsewhere, please. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brya check user

So, maybe I misunderstand, but are you saying the additional ones, less the stale one, are confirmed socks? I'm a bit dense...[8] Thanks. KP Botany 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CannaCollector and GiantShoulders have edited from the same IP. You can look at their edits and draw your own conclusion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, yeah, they're Brya socks. They're a bit more subtle than the other ones, but not really. When I read the en-list, it always sounds like there's a conspiracy accusing people of sock puppetry, when really they're just users who have IPs used by a million others. But then I come across something like this, a beligerant user who refuses to listen to anyone and then thinks she can go about doing what got her blocked in the first place from a dozen or more sock puppet accounts. And the subtly is only in comparison to the her sock puppets.... KP Botany 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria arbitration

Hi Jpgordon,

I've noticed that you changed your vote in Transnistrian arbitration regarding the "finding of facts" about me, but you didn't change your vote regarding the proposal of my ban. Actually, you oppose the finding of facts that labeled me as a tendentious editor but still support my ban. I think there is a inconsistency here, please look at the case again. Thanks.--MariusM 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

memeco

i didn't sign it.. i moved it from the user page to the talk page. [9] [10] please have some faith in me. YoSoyGuapo 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I seem to have been in a confusable mood then. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a free hour

The Checkuser at JB196 has about 50 new socks to block the proxies underneath, and any sleepers there might have been here (I thought about titling this "If you have a free minute", but considering the list has grown so fast that the CU Clerks had to put in a hide/show tab to keep the pending page looking ok, I decided truth in advertising was the best policy. If you're busy with ArbCom work etcetera, no big deal (some of the sockblocks won't expire till tommorrow) SirFozzie 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this shit doesn't call for much brainwork, it's just tedium, which I work in when I want to create a free minute. I do wish the lists were alphabetized, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was more done in the order in which they were vandalizing (Block one, next pops up), etcetera, but I alphabetized the Accounts for you :) SirFozzie 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

84.45.219.185

Jpgordon, I'm not asking you to unblock the IP, but to reduce the block to something more meaningful - e.g 1 week or 2 weeks is best, considering this is an IP used by public terminals. It's been resolved now, the people who were vandalising got their accounts locked from using the public terminals. I think the blocking policy says you can't let an IP address be blocked infinitely... --Belazzur 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been resolved at all. In fact, I insufficiently blocked the IP and have hard-blocked it now. During the period checkuser data covers, there have been 32 named users on that IP. Of those, 28 have been abusive users, and 2 only had a single edit. Most recent abuse: two hours after you posted this. As far as policy is concerned, you're right; if you insist, I'll change the duration to a year, with a note that it should be extended another year the first time there's any abuse from the IP. Do you think that will be any different from an indefinite block? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria arbitration

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spam talk pages with this; we're all perfectly capable of reading the proposed decision talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know the case

You don't know why i reverted the Russian article, yet you returned the previous version without even checkung and seeng it has nistakes in numbers. You go against me on the Administrators page, yet you don't even know what the case is about. Calm down cowboy, you don't even know me to go against me. M.V.E.i.

I don't have to. You are blocked. You are evading the block. Do not do that; absolutely any admin will do exactly as I have done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting into the previous information you revert into false information, and you do that completely conciously, so stop. As you can see, i don't create articles and don't add information thought i do have a few nece stuff to add abd i have an idea for a big article. But nevertheless, i have deleted false information, as a rewerd you could at least not touch it. M.V.E.i.

@@ Line 282: / Line 282: @@
 You don't know why i reverted the Russian article, yet you returned the previous version without even checkung and seeng it has nistakes in numbers. You go against me on the Administrators page, yet you don't even know what the case is about. Calm down cowboy, you don't even know me to go against me. M.V.E.i.
 *I don't have to. You are blocked. You are evading the block. Do not do that; absolutely any admin will do exactly as I have done. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
+::By reverting into the previous information you revert into false information, and you do that completely conciously, so stop. As you can see, i don't create articles and don't add information thought i do have a few nece stuff to add abd i have an idea for a big article. But nevertheless, i have deleted false information, as a rewerd you could at least not touch it. M.V.E.i.