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

using diffs

FYI regarding the diffs I am required to use as evidence,I'd just like to mention that I have used diffs for most of the evidence I have posted. Other evidence which I am posting or will post not using diffs are for the reason that the specific peice of evidence is from an archieved page and a history cannot be checked since it's not archived.

I hope that's okay with you guys.Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

Taj Mahal RFC

Its been nearly a month since posting an RFC to determine whether or not we include the theory that the Taj used to be a Hindu temple. How and by whom are RFCs usually closed? I started drafting a closing section here and started to tally up the for and against positions to get some idea of where the consensus might be. I stopped when it occured to me that it was starting to look like I was presenting the results of a debate as a poll. The debate suggests a majority are in favour of removal altogether, some of these and others are in favour of a very limited inclusion and a small minority would like a fuller inclusion. I'm considered contacting the participants and asking them to comment on specific limitation proposals I made towards the end of the RFC. Do you have any advice or would you be willing to sum up the RFC and close it? cheers. --Joopercoopers 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're working this one through on the talk page pretty well; you don't need really to "close" the rfc -- someone eventually will decide that it's time to age the listing off the RFC page. Otherwise, just move on. Undue weight should give a clear enough guideline on the bizarre point of view (which reminds me in its loonyness of Nazi racial theories.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I posted to you last night and then we've been thrashing out a compromise today - looks like I'm in the chair to rewrite the section. My worry is there are only 3 participants on the talk page at the moment and I think we generally agree to some form of limited inclusion - if we put this in the article, can it be said we are doing it because consensus been reached? If the RFC were a poll the claims would be removed entirely if we just needed a majority to vote remove. I'm still a little hazy on the WP:CONSENSUS, I brought the RFC in the hope of bottoming out the edit warring that had been going on about these theories - is the conclusion (because there wasn't a unanimous consensus) that no consensus has been reached and so we have to leave things as they are??????? --Joopercoopers 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Consensus isn't unanimity; it's an obvious weight of opinion, and I think you have that. But: isn't the Taj Mahal the centerpiece of Mr Oak's fantasies? If so, you can dispose of it with one sentence and a wikilink: "The Taj Mahal is given as a prime example of RN Oak's unorthodox and largely dismissed theories of Vedic influence". Or something like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, many thanks --Joopercoopers 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Letitsnow22113 checkuser

Thanks, I definitely don't want to drag in legit users with real edits. I blocked the four I listed. Unless any of the other accounts had some variation on the above username I'd guess they are not related and at this point I'll just keep an eye out for usernames along those lines.--Isotope23 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, good call. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is closed?

G'day,

If the me-Mystar arbitration is closed, does that mean it has officially taken effect? Could you let Mystar know so he leaves the Terry Goodkind page alone? It's petty but it's wearing down my teeth. WLU 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, the case has been posted for closing on the arbitration clerks' noticeboard. A clerk will formally close out the case and notify the parties before the end of the day today. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. WLU 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Verdict

Verdict (talk · contribs) is back today with Marcus roy (talk · contribs). If he follows previous behaviour, we'll probably see another couple of abusive socks today. This is in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. --Yamla 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And now Damon1988 (talk · contribs). --Yamla 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And Coolioso (talk · contribs). --Yamla 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please bring RFCU business to WP:RFCU. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(And please note this from WP:RFCU: In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the recent checkuser on Verdict. Much appreciated. --Yamla 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have some time...

...could you provide some insight at Talk:Prem_Rawat#RFC_Summary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. --Spalberings 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, right. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say, that's a barrel of laughs. Maybe they could identify the offending diff? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee Nysted

As the Checkuser who rooted out this editor's hosiery drawer, would you be able to go to his talk page and explain a) how (in a general sense, of course) the checkuser result was determined, and b) that it's probably not a good idea for him to be going around removing sock tags from the pages of the confirmed puppets, telling them to identify themselves, and declaring on his user page, in his edit summaries, and on the socks' pages that he's going to investigate the Checkuser (or, as he refers to it, Checkloser) system? Just thought someone might want to point out this guy's actions since he was unblocked in good faith. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nah. I try to keep my checkuser and my other admin/arbitration roles distinct. You'll want to get someone else to gently explain to this editor how it works. I'd say it's up to the unblocking admin to take responsibility here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

All right - just thought it would be best that, since he's claiming there's a problem with checkuser resulting in all these "erroneous" blocks, I'd check with you first. I'll check with Yamla. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your ArbCom Nom and Jesse Jackson

JP, I was preparing to archive my talk page and noticed this comment you left there:

Hm. I just re-read Talk:Jesse Jackson to remind myself of the disagreement we were involved in. I'm sorry you concluded that my motivations there were political; I'd have done the same thing if it had been (say) Rick Santorum. I thought we had had a good strong discussion of the quote in question as regards Wikipedia policy and encyclopedia writing, not politics -- my stance was, basically, "he says a lot of stupid stuff; what's so special about this incoherent one?" Otherwise, we've been doing about the same thing on that article: defending it from general vandalism. However, if you perceive I've been acting politically there, you're probably not alone; can you suggest how I might proceed in the future to diminish the appearance of political behavior? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding sooner, somehow I missed your post back then. I just re-read the whole talk page at Jesse Jackson and I have come to believe your assessment of our discussion is accurate (I think I was confusing you with another editor I disagreed with who would not intelligently discuss the issue). For what it's worth, in light of this, my comments on your ArbCom nomination were undeservedly harsh and I would change them if I could find the link to do so. The fact that we (most likely) disagree politically on some issues would not prevent me from supporting you. I hope you succeded and I hope there are no hard feelings.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at this

Even though I don't see how you could decline to look into my allegations, and say that "The system appears to be working", in light of the fact that I have not violated any identifiable policy (just stubbornly insisted that I have a right to voice my opinion), I will not second-guess your judgement here.

However, since your last post, I have noticed that no actual WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, only a minority of the votes went against me -and a minority is NOT a "consensus." Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by User:JzG here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.

In conclusion, the fact I have not actually done anything against the policy (did not edit war, did not vandalize, usually did not post excessive long posts, accepted consensus even when it was against me, etc.), if no consensus exists against me (not even a slim majority, mind you), this is the sort of thing that would prompt an email to Jimbo: Isn't it against policy (and also quite wrong) to pretend a consensus exists when it, in fact, doesn't?

Besides, many of participants who submitted the statements in my matter DO ask ArbCom to look into this matter -even if they don't agree with me on all the points.--GordonWatts 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Flameviper arbitration request

In connection with a pending arbitration request, User:Flameviper requests that you check your e-mail and/or his request on the RfAr page. Since he is blocked, he made this request on his userpage and I agreed to bring it to your attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks; I've removed it from my trash can and forwarded it to ArbCom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Jpgordon, this barnstar is for you, for all your hard work, finding, and blocking those open proxies!! Keep up your good work, both as a Wikiadmin, ArbCom member, Checkuser and open-proxy blocker! sunstar nettalk 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've copied it over to my user page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Being not so familiar with Wikipedia procedures yet, I would be glad to learn what was wrong with my edit which you reverted (at least I understood it this way, or am I wrong?). Sorry for having put out, FloK 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hm. Looks to me like your change was in the middle of some pure crap by vandals and kids, and I undid yours in the process of undoing the vandalism. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mcmillancaleb

Any chance you could advise on this user's current unblock request? They seem to be affected by a checkuser block you set on the relevant /24. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Took care of. I'd set a one-month range block on a naughty little range a couple weeks ago. Hopefully two weeks was enough. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernham

[2] Here we are. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• And there he goes. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Hi Jpgordon,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV. I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here [3].

Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

I know you did the last one of these. [[4]] When you find the time maybe you could check on these newest incarnations. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JP. But would you mind blocking those accounts too. I would do it myself but I cant. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I generally don't mix checkuser and other admin functions; please ask someone else to take care of it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks anyway. Jiffypopmetaltop 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that one of these reared up and bit itself in the ass, deleting their own name from the RFCU, so I put on my admin hat and indef-blocked the entire nest. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat

If you disagree, feel free to unblock him. The block was based on the fact mainly that he needs to get a wake up call that BLP applies even to people whose politics he disagrees with. We've had this problem with him for almost a year now. JoshuaZ 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' (I assume you mean the 'collective' WP community) - but I read this and felt the need to say that while sloat can certainly be an impassioned editor, he certainly appears to be working for the encyclopedic good of WP. It seems doubly unfair to minimize him with an 'us vs. sloat' frame like that. The circumstances of this block are such that I'm glad he's unblocked, I hope he doesn't run afoul of BLP and I also hope that he continues to be given just as much consideration and respect as any other editor with his history (politically active, sometimes confrontational but not intentionally disruptive). There are a lot of other editors who conduct themselves far more egregiously. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this fair?

Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring me? --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what you want me to say. I found the evidence presented against you convincing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the evidence. (some of the diffs are given amazingly misleading titles). The same evidence has been used to give me 3 weeks worth of bans so far. The Arbcom against us was started 1 day after my last block expired. And minutes after I tried to complain against Rama. And what about the Indian users who made extremely racist remarks and edit warred like no end? How come nothing was proposed for them? --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I did look at the evidence. I'm not going to argue this here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Essjay fiasco and pseudonymity

Hi, Josh. I noticed that on the mailing list you said:

I will consider criticism of Essjay particularly valid when it is accompanied by a general call to eliminate pseudonymous editing of Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are anonymous, and I'm sure they have their various reasons, but anyone whose persona is not congruent with their real personality is doing exactly what Essjay did, on one level or another.

I don't expect a lot of support for this position, but it's the logical extension of the outcry against Essjay's charade.

I thought you might like to know that at least one other Wikipedian agrees with you. Indeed, this was my first response when I learned of the situation.

I know that the use of pseudonyms is highly entrenched in Wikipedia culture, and a movement to use real names (as you and I do) is unlikely to gain much traction. But if such a movement were to be organized, I would support it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not gonna happen. That's several steps above requiring registered usernames, and that's not going to happen either. (And it probably doesn't matter, given the ease of creating accounts; doing checkuser work has made me realize that our registered users can be just as nasty as our IP-only editors.) But thanks for the support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh, I know it's not gonna happen. (Although abolishing pseudonyms isn't necessarily the same as requiring registered usernames — at MeatballWiki they allow anonymous edits from IPs, and "RealName" edits from registered users.) And I know that requiring real names would be unenforceable on a project of this size. That said, there's an interesting proposal at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wiki Policy Proposal - WP:HA Honestly Anonymous, as well as a new essay at Wikipedia:Honesty. At User talk:Essjay, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) said, "just like Siegenthaler gave us semiprotection, there could be a lesson here." I hope he's right. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt to close

If you want to close the Brandt case you can vote to close in the motion to close section, someone will then list it in the open task template. (This is one area where the clerks can't guess). Thatcher131 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• thanks!--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • everyone's a noob at least once :-) Thatcher131 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Thatcher131! 132.161.187.62 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Halaqah

Please do not revert my edits without comment. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. 132.161.33.98 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Here's what happened: I noticed your edit to Halaqah's page. I went to look at it, and followed the link to the MfD page. But probably exactly while I was doing that, another editor was fixing the MfD so yours was a new one, or something like that, and all I got was the link to the MfD for his page from last year. This made no sense at all, so I assumed it was some sort of harassment, and reverted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, no harm done. But I'd probably believe that story more if you hadn't almost accused me of bad faith at the MfD page. 132.161.187.62 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, did you just accuse me of lying? Look at the edit histories, if you will. You added the tag to Halaqah's page at 18:39. I saw it and looked at the MfD entry, and then reverted the tag at 18:50. However, at 18:50, User:Tjstrf reverted the entries in the MfD -- the one I was looking at -- and created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halaqah (2nd nomination). So when I followed that link, all I got was an old MfD. It could have been avoided if Tjstrf had done the sequence backwards -- first editing the MfD notice, then creating the new article -- but it's just happenstance that I got the wrong idea there. And, hey, I didn't mean to accuse you of bad faith; just of slightly bad manners, in my book. Didn't mean to harsh you; just defending another editor a bit. (Who is, I'll admit, a bit frustrating sometime, but he means well. We've run into each other, which is why his page is on my watchlist.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Like I said, no harm done. But you need to get in tune with universal peace and harmony, dude. You're harshing my mellow like, "whoah". 132.161.187.62 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • (haw!) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Eh? 132.161.187.62 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
            • uh...laughter? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm trying to assume good faith, but please keep your sarcastic laughter to yourself. It is clear you're not laughing with me... 132.161.187.62 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
                • (scratching my head in puzzlement) was your comment regarding universal peace and harmony not supposed to be humorous? oh, never mind. You seem to want to take offense; I don't want to give it, so I guess I'll bow out of this conversation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • As you wish, although I will miss talking to you. The best of luck to you in all of your future endeavors! 132.161.187.62

Abstentions and calculating majorities

In response to your query in the wheel-war case, precedent is that an abstention is treated as removing that arbitrator from the pool of participating arbitrators on that proposal for purposes of calculating the majority. I don't know if this has ever been discussed in detail, but of course, if the committee wants to change the procedure, it can do so, just let us know. I think the rationale for the procedure that's been used to this point is that if an abstaining arbitrator still counts in the total, then an abstention becomes the equivalent of an oppose. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Which makes sense -- it should be. Silence in the face of a positive action should be negation, not agreement. No big deal, as long as I know how it works. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been the practice as far back as I have been a clerk. It doesn't seem to be documented anywhere, so I just wrote it into Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. If the Committee wish to change the practice, we will obviously follow your lead. Thatcher131 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA on Madrid Bombings

jpgordan,

I filed an amicus curiae on the RfA/Madrid Bombings. In this briefing I detail why it's not accurate to say an RFC was never attempted. Your ultimate point, however, might be correct -- that they would make progress just the same by attempting it again. Perhaps you could read my filing and kindly re-consider. --Otheus 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK. I'm just one vote out of 15, of course. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job on closing the gaps

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Awarded for the relentless work on closing open proxies. Keep it up and thanks for the hard work! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

An award!

Congratulations, you have been awarded the Spirals of Doom! OH YAY! 132.161.187.62 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Gordon

A few things. Can you remind me how to be a gnome? Also, in looking at my history I noticed there is a lot of stuff there that does not seem to have anything to do with me. I wonder if some of the comments and IP addresses that are seemingly attributed to me are incorrect? Any way to check? Any way for me to delete inaccurate entries in my history screen? Also, since I am no expert at WP, I see that some comments have titles such as "Anti-Zionist" this or that which it automatically added to my comment without noticing, any way to change that?

Anyways, how ya been? I see that the Khazar and the Jewish page are still just as hot as they were before ... Anyways, thanks for your help in advance. Talk to ya later ...

Oemb1905 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU on Cs

Could you explain your reasoning here... it's a mystery to me. KazakhPol 06:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now that I can take. Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Check User Clerk Qualifications

Hi, Jpgordon. What qualifications are there to be a check user clerk, or a clerk in general? I am very interested. Thanks. And, could you please reply here? Thanks. Real96 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hiya. You'll need to ask the check user clerks -- I really don't know what the qualifications are, because someone else has always handled that end of things (and I don't think we've made any new ones since I became a checkuser person.) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks should have some useful information too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and assistance! Real96 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Vulnerable to harassment"

At RFA talk you said it was desirable that candidates be "vulnerable to harassment". I suspect you really mean something like "experienced in putting up with harassement", but could you clarify? My userpage openly declares my real world identity, so in practical terms I am more "vulnerable" than most Wikipedians. I would agree though that I probably don't recieve a high level of harassment at present. Dragons flight 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you delete an image that proved defective and problematic

Hi, Josh, could you delete this image for two reasons: 1) it didn't turn out as expected, and 2) it may prove problematic in copyright. I am sorry that I tried to download it. It was in my zeal to provide a first edition title page for the novel in question. The image is image:Deerslayer.gif.--Drboisclair 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I intend to create my own image for this purpose. I have an edition of this book in the public domain, the title page of which I will scan, edit, and upload without any problems. Thanks again for your kind response, cheers.--Drboisclair 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo edit warriors, I will be providing evidence for "possible" 3RR evasion. I just listed part of it. I will be listing more in a few hours. Please stay tuned.--Endroit 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course! And when creating an RFCU, it's perfectly OK to say in it "More evidence forthcoming." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I believe I'm done for now. Please let me know if we need more info for the RFCU. Thank you.--Endroit 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

Hello Jpgordon,

I just wanna thank you for declining This checkuser request concerning me. I take full responsobility for adding an external link to wikiproverbs.org, which I by myself own. I didn't know the exact policies beforehand about external links, and didn't put that much into it, given that it was written in context, is non-commercial, creative commons, etc. I didn't add the link again after being warned. What bothers me though, is that this guy Alexander Radyushin is having a personal vendetta against me, because I discovered his spam business. I was told that some of his pages are now already blacklisted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokum (talk • contribs) 09:02, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. You should't be inserting your link, either, though; it weakens your argument against spamming (it doesn't matter here whether it's a non-commercial or whatever; if it's your site, you shouldn't be inserting it.) Also, people will wonder: why the multiple accounts? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Acussations

Hello. Regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika I hope you understand that I was previously cleared twice by Checkuser. PaxEquilibrium is obviously fishing trying to get me blocked for whatever reason he has. Besides the obviously similar IPs with Afrika paprika, which can mean only thing - that we possibly have the same ISP, there is absolutly no similarity between me and this person. Also as I understand, PaxEquilibirum is also living in Croatia, so he too is possible user of the same ISP and he too would have similar IP's. How this proves anything is beyond me. Just to let you know. Tar-Elenion 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'Correction: This user was not cleared twice by CheckUser. The first one was a request regarding severals anons allegedly used by Tar-Elenion to evade 3RR (it was disproved). The second one (this time regarding him being a sock-puppet of Afrika paprika) was declined because Tar was inactive after I filed the request. There is a possibility that this is a way of evasion of Check-User because considering that Afrika paprika has been sock-puppeteering for a year or so (creating 6 major accounts), I expect that he has become more experienced at this.

P.S. I would not have filed a check-user (just like You once said "Check-user is not for fishing") had there not been much allegations that Tar-Elenion is indeed a sock-puppet of Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean? This user is higly aggressive towards me obviously seeing what others don't. I was cleared twice by checkuser and this is a fact. You can see it here: [5] and here [6]. Besides you know that since you cleared me yourself the first time Jpgordon. This user is obviously fishing, please tell him to stop. Tar-Elenion 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)