User talk:Jpgordon

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:

1. /Archive 1

RCU

Can you prove that Buffadren (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is MarkStreet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? He is Des Grant, from Dublin, Ireland.

• Jay -- for whatever reason, anonymous and new editors have been repeatedly asking for checkusers on Buffadren. I've carefully paid no attention to Buffadren's actual edits; but consistantly, Buffadren uses a small number of IP addresses, and is the only one that uses those IP addresses, and they're not related to whoever the request is trying to connect Buffadren to. I ended up blocking one of the requesters, as a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. More Tranistrian stuff, I imagine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren&diff=130541396&oldid=130535541

" Confirmed. Buffadren = 193.120.95.11 = Mark us street. The checkuser log shows that 193.120.95.11 is in fact Mark (the edit was true). Soonpush = Showninner, which are not related to the others.Voice-of-All 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC) "

• Careful with the personal attacks, anonymous editor. I may disagree with another checkuser person's analysis. That's not the same as lying. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for all the trouble this is causing you guys. The above anon IP is one of our resident Transnistrian banned pet trolls, who likes to edit through open proxies. But I have the feeling he had a point there. In fact, I came to inform you that besides Buffadren=MarkStreet I have now also applied the Duck test to Britlawyer=Mauco and done a block. I'm aware you said they were on different continents, but unless you tell me the IP evidence is such as would make sockpuppetry downright impossible, the edit profile and timing fits exactly. One point to remember is, there is pretty serious evidence out there that the Transnistrians are affiliated with a professionally organised astroturfing campaign that acts through an international network (an organisation registered in Mexico, running its servers in Latvia, focussing on Transnistria, with the help of a hired agency based in Ireland, funded from Russia), so I wouldn't be surprised if these people had networking facilities in several parts of the world that allowed them to fake edits from all sorts of countries. Not that I know a lot about the technicalities though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another chekcuser block

Seems like a simple decline, but I figured best to check with you first User talk:Cwj4365. John Reaves (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

False sockpuppet confirmation

Do you realize that just because someone is from the same ISP or same general area it doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet? This "Billy Ego" person said he was a "fascist." I have no relation to him and I don't think I've even edited any of the same articles or topics he edited. Checkuser is not magic. Crashola 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If I get blocked that will just force me to create sockpuppets to be able to improve Wikipedia. Crashola 00:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're already doing exactly that. That's the whole point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made sockpuppets, yes. But that's because I keep getting blocked. And I'm going to keep making them as long as I am blocked. I am within Wikipedia policy to do this, since official policy says to ignore the rules if they keep me from improving Wikipedia. [2] The problem is I am not "Billy Ego." There is no reason to believe I am. Somebody made a mistake. If you look at Billy Ego, he was apparently promoting a fascist agenda. Why would I have a sockpuppet that was against me? I'm against fascism. How can this error be rectified so I don't have to make sockpuppets? (You can block this sockpuppet as well, or even the whole ISP, but I promise you it won't keep me out. You will just cause a proliferation of sockpuppets.). I had a dream 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What recourse do we have?

... when User:Sylviecyn, (the user that was asking me to stop editing talk pages,) abuses other editors off-wiki such as User:Vassyana that came to assist with content disputes and is a disinterested party? See warning message. How can I ask for third opinions or invite other editors to comment knowing that they will be abused in this manner? What recourses do we have to prevent this disruption? Your help will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• We can't control what people do off-Wiki, nor should we try. People have the right to call me an asshole on You're-an-asshole.com. It's obnoxious, certainly, and it reflects poorly on them (as Momento points out), but that's just the way things work. Freedom of speech is ugly as all hell. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I knew that... :( Just that it makes it very difficult then to engage in a discussion in which you are supposed to WP:AGF ... but I guess that as I have in the header of talk page: I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. Woodrow Wilson. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"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)

• Don't. Checkuser blocks are not issued casually. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. Sean William 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• I've asked VoA why it was rejected. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • If you know all this, why do you need checkuser help?? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
          • To get the underlying open proxy addresses and sleeper accounts. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Ah. In this case, there weren't any. Kinda surprised me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Not even under Sasquatch? What about the IP he was using? –– Lid^(Talk) 00:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Nope. Just one editor, User:BooyakaDell, who's been blocked since December. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • 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)
                    • We can only dream of such a wonderful universe. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • 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)
                        • A starry starry night...What does the word "orientates" mean in that sentence? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
                          • 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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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. – [3]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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 <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube>YouTube</a> and <a href="http://www.invictafm.co.uk>Invicta FM</a>
. 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 Ican 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)

• What is ENTA, anyway? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ENTA are a British ISP who supply Internet to businesses... including public terminals. --Belazzur 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Irving

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

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)

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)

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)