User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3 Archive #4 Archive #5 Archive #6 Archive #7

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

Move request

Hi, jpgordon. On August 7, 2010, User:Round the Horne moved Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden to CIA–al-Qaeda controversy (diff). Four days later, you blocked him/her for abusing multiple accounts (diff). I am wondering if you might reverse this move. I believe the move to be uncontroversial in that the previous title is actually the more descriptive of the two per the article's content and lede sentence. Let me know if you prefer that I take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be able to do that yourself. Let me know if not, but I think any confirmed user can undo a page move just by moving it again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Given that Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden still exists, I get the error message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." If you delete it to make way for the move, then I'm happy to take care of it. - Location (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Location (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:212.120.243.218

I've just orphaned the template {{Gibraltarian}} per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:Gibraltarian, which involved a couple of hundred 212.120.x.x IPs. The only IP still affected is User talk:212.120.243.218 which is an indefinite block. If 9 years is long enough for {{Gibraltarian}} to become "Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors." is 6 years time enough to reconsider that block?

I don't care either way, I just hate to leave a job half-done. Regards, Bazj (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like indef blocks on IPs, anyway. So, yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Daniel Case as the only other admin (who's still an admin) involved in this block. Bazj (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj:I have no objection to lifting it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, would either of you (Daniel Case, Jpgordon) care to do the honours? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. And you really don't have to ping people on their own talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. It just felt wrong writing "either of you" followed by one name. Thanks for doing the job. Bazj (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible Administrator intervention?

Dear Jpgordon, I am hereby requesting your possible intervention over the highly controversial Planned Parenthood Talk Page[2], specially the last few posts, where we have seen a lot of edit warring and even insults (lobbied at me, quite the new user around here by a long-time Editor) I am sorry of this seems like a cold call but after searching for a way to contact Administrators, I found "alexz's tools" and it showed me, by order of recent activities, "Admins willing to make difficult blocks". You were the second one in the list, thus I am trying to contact you (I decided on skipping Nihonjoe since he seemed to have quite the pointed interest on Japan and Anime, which is perfectly fine, but you seemed to have a more "general" experience (proof: [3]))

I am sorry if this is inappropriate of me, to ask of you to intervene. I do not know who is the "main" Administrator overseeing said controversial Talk Page.

Note: Is there anything I can do besides complain on the insulting editors own Talk Page? Source: Established editor JBL insulting me: [4].

Thanks for your time. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything requiring a "difficult block", or any other sort. I don't see any edit warring (if there is that, please report it at WP:AN3. There are no "main administrators", and administrators don't "oversee" talk pages, or anything of the sort. Leave me out of this; the other editors at that talk page can handle it just fine. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

"Not them"

I'm not exactly sure what the hell this phrase exactly means, but the simple fact of the matter is that I have not even been on Wikipedia for most of the period I have been harassed by Jbhunley. This has been going on for months and it is a disgrace.

You and other moderators seem to be condoning bullying behaviour, and I am being censured for even calling it such. It is about time that there were rules about what has been done to me, and presumably numerous others. -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion here on Bishonen's user page where MacRusgail is making the same complaints about so called harassment. @MacRusgail: it is really way past time you get over your ownership issues. Nothing is being done to you, as you say, other than you are being asked to do the same thing every other editor here must do. Create articles that pass our notability requirements and provide reliable sources for BLPs. Stop casting aspersions, if you think you have anything that shows I am harassing you, other than you saying so over a half dozen pages, many of which you sprinkle with personal attacks as well, present it at ANI or any DR forum you wish. I will be quite happy to address your behavior there. Repeated, unsubstantiated, claims of harassment are personal attacks, the irony here is palpable. It takes a lot for someone to get banned for civility issues here but I strongly suspect if I collect all of your accusations and attacks you might be getting close to the threshold.

• MacRusgail - "...This is harassment, and you have serious psychological issues of your own. "The spirit of cooperation" - You evidently know nothing about this. Go back and crawl under your rock you pathetic little man, and stop trying to hide behind the rulebook. I don't give a damn about you. Is that plain enough for you?" [5]
• MacRusgail - "I couldn't give a flying whatever about name calling. " [6] - Response to being called out on minor name calling. Really gets into the swing of personal attacks later and proves this comment true.
• MacRusgail - "Will you kindly blank off and leave me alone? I'm sick of you stalking me round Wikipedia. You wasted a whole evening of mine recently with your gauche nonsense. Your behaviour is a kind of abuse masquerading as some kind of house cleaning. If this continues I shall be placing an official complaint against you." [7] - First threat to file a complaint. Has not followed through to date.
• MacRusgail - "...There was a question recently as to why more women do not edit Wikimedia. I think the answer is obvious, even to a man like myself. " [8] - Not sure where sexism comes into this but it becomes a bit of a theme.
• MacRusgail - "Note to other users - nominator has been a persistent stalker of mine for some days now." [9]

Some of the more colorful attacks are, I believe, on some of the talk pages of deleted/redirected articles but I can come up with maybe a dozen others where you have falsely accused me of stalking/harassment. Your choice, back it up or back off. The more places you make false accusations the more diffs I have to show you are unable to participate in a collaborative editing environment and are incapable of behaving in an acceptable manner.

Since this still has not gotten through to you let me repeat it: I do not care who wrote an article, if there are no sources to show it is notable and I can find none myself I will nominate it for deletion. Six of seven of your articles that I nominated were deleted of redirected. The seventh probably should have been deleted but I withdrew the nomination because it technically passed WP:NBOOK and I was trying to be conciliatory. As to the two BLPPRODS - one later AfD'd - you do know that all newly created BLPs must have a reliable source or they will be deleted don't you? Jbh^Talk 06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not falsely accused you of anything. The fact remains that you have been leaving messages on my page for months on end. I have not even been around most of that period, because of your behaviour. I am worried about editing any articles (whether or not I have written them) in case you decide to destroy them.

"I do not care who wrote an article" - hence why when you failed to get one article deleted on a completely bogus copyright violation, you then went and found another reason to have it deleted.

"Not sure where sexism comes into this but it becomes a bit of a theme." - because women are even less willing to be treated in this manner, regardless of whether it fits in with current rules or not. If the rules are wrong, they should be amended. I am not even allowed to refer to your behaviour as what it is. On most other websites, there would be an "ignore" function for persistent unwanted attention. Also, Wikipedia clearly lacks any proper channels for me to complain about your conduct.

"Create articles that pass our notability requirements and provide reliable sources for BLPs." - And I could say to you equally to read the articles you nominate properly or at least try and gain knowledge of the subject matter. You seem to buzz around Wikipedia nominating as many as you can. It would be better if you tagged them for improvement instead of amputating them all.

And another thing, please do not quote WP:WHATEVER and obscurantist jargon at me continually. Use plain English if you are still capable please. I do not spend my entire life on this website, therefore I prefer to use the language of hundreds of millions of people on this planet, not that of a few dozen.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)