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

Flyers

Frequent Flyer Open Proxy Users

Do they get miles? Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Default to inconclusive?

I was going to post this on WP:AN/I, but I decided your talk page is better. Anyways, with regards to this statement, won't always using "inconclusive," as opposed to "unrelated," make it impossible for people accused of sockpuppetry to clear their name? As you well know, edit warriors and trolls who care not (naught?) for policy are sometimes the ones who file cases. Defaulting to declaring that the result is "inconclusive" could easily give the check-requester enough ammunition to keep a cloud over their opponents' heads for the rest of those people's wiki-lives. If there is no conclusive technical evidence, and they haven't violated policy to such an extreme that they are blocked or banned for something else, they should be able to go in peace, no? And defaulting to "inconclusive" when there isn't any reason not to say "unrelated," save the impossibility of decisively proving innocence, will make that very hard.

I'm completely unknowledgeable about this specific situation, (the Bosniak case), but I'm concerned about your decision. Picaroon 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• But there's no way ever to say "unrelated", at least for the editors. We can say the underlying IPs are unrelated, but as you see, people take that as exoneration, which is an incorrect extrapolation. You have a good point, though. Why not bring up the issue on Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

GoodCop

Hi Jpgordon,

I don't mean to belabor this, but the RfC at Talk:Atlantis seems quite uncivil to me, since it states that I reverted edits under false pretenses; Rwqf's statement that HalfOfElement29 was blocked because of my actions seems like taunting, under the circumstances. Maybe I should be more thick-skinned, but the RfC ought to be about the article, and instead, it seems to be about my conduct. Would it be appropriate for me to refactor the RfC to be more neutrally worded?

As far as the (alleged) socks, blocking the proxies seems to have halted his activity, so maybe no action is required. But if there are further problems, what should I do? When I posted to WP:ANI (thread now in archive), I got no response. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just keep pointing 'em out as open proxies, I guess. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

deathcamps.org vs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen

Hi, Josh. Can you give me the short course on the difference between these websites? Is one a Holocaust denial site or something, masquerading as a genuine holocaust information site? I note that you reverted my reversion, so I presume I unintentionally ended up on the wrong side of the distinction, but from a cursory look at the sites I couldn't see a huge difference, except that one is obviously designed to look like the other. I note that a series of anon-ips seems particularly interested in inserting the link to the one without the dash. Is there a story here? --Rrburke^(talk) 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm not sure at this point who is the jerk and who's the jerky. But take a look at this blog about it (it's one side's report.) I've been slighty favoring the one with the dash because the one without the dash has been putting stuff in articles telling people not to put in the one with the dash. I didn't even notice that I'd reverted you, though. ---jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's now been reverted to the no-dash version by an anon, User: 216.242.194.34, from the same domain as the previous one, similar to the previous one, User:216.242.194.229. So I guess that's... bad? User: 216.242.194.34 has made this change in a whole host of Holocaust-related articles. What to do?

Did you get an answer to this? --Rrburke^(talk) 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. And as far as I can tell, nobody is saying it's not identical material. One thing I haven't done, though, is analyzed what the links point to. (If you wanted to do a quick study of them, it might be helpful.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the blog you offered a link to. My eyes glazed over and I ended up feeling the need for a scorecard. Did this dispute strike you as pretty inside baseball, or was there some substantive issue my lack of expertise in this area was concealing from me as I struggled desperately to stay awake to the end? --Rrburke^(talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand of the matter, you're probably best off using the one with the dash. Although hosted by folks who are partisan (in the sense of being anti-deniers), their mirror was created to maintain a copy of historically useful materials untainted by forgeries possibly being introduced by a partisan (denier) source. I'm afraid the childish personal battles between the principals of each side continue. Considering the venom involved between the parties and the fact that only a very small number of people are involved, the edits are probably coming from the former ARC's HEART faction; as such, it's probably a POV activity. Since we know where the ARC-HC Blogspot faction's site is going, purpose-wise, but not that of the former's (which is nominally defunct), the "dash" site is probably "safest" for the time being. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be saying I have to wade through several dozen articles removing dashes, a prospect so execrably dull and tedious I could cry just at the thought of it. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Worse ... you'd have to repeatedly wade back in to revert them. As an alternative, you might wait 2-3 months and then edit them. Since they're combative, single-issue folks, if the person(s) changing them sees the articles stabilizing with their POV links, then they may come to feel the job has been done and leave them alone. Maybe not, but it might reduce the amount of wasted time. I ceased having anything to do with groups like these some time ago because even the anti-deniers can be as fascistic as the deniers. These blow-ups occur all the time in both faction-ridden camps and often over trivial issues. I doubt that ARC's stated goal of neutrality is at all feasible with regard to the revisionism issue. Most of the people attracted to the issue see everything as black or white, and here that's treated as pro-denier or anti-denier — and if you don't believe in everything I believe to be "white", then you must be a fellow-traveler of the "dark side." Best wishes, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct. Let's ignore this till it cools down, since it doesn't really matter. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On Irpen's request for arbitration

Strictly speaking, I agree that the question of the channel's existence isn't within Arbcom's competence (nor, in my opinion, the community's). But the request has been made by someone who has a fairly well established history of extremely aggressive attacks on the good faith of other editors, and he isn't the only one. You could accept the case to examine this. There have also been allegations of malfeasance on Wikipedia coordinated on that channel. You could also look at that should you have credible evidence of this. Quite a number of past arbitration cases have been accepted to examine a serious problem that is different from the problem presented to the committee in the request; since there is clearly a problem of some sort here it isn't a bad idea to open up the problem to examination. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my e-mail

Thank you. Dino 20:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ploughman

I noticed your check-user results for this editor came out as "Likely". I don't deal much with socks myself, but I have been following this JacobPeters drama for awhile now. At any rate, I'm wondering why this sort of finding wouldn't result in an immediate indef block. I've been editing here for a year, and I'm studying up on admini-stuff. Cheers, Rklawton 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Except in the case of open proxies, I think I want to keep the identifying vs. taking action on functions distinct. Someone familiar with the Peters case gets to do the blocking stuff. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah! Thanks. Rklawton 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I saw your reply at the CU request. How do I go about getting those tags off then? I believe there's some guideline or other about waiting ten days for confirmation, and then the tag can come down, but I don't remember. Milto LOL pia 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you're more specific about which accounts were improperly tagged, and in conjunction with what request, us clerks can do that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you do the check anyway, so the accounts can be shown to be related/unrelated? I wasn't sure if your comment on the CU page meant you wouldn't do it or not. Milto LOL pia 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I finished it while you were typing...--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, I wasn't sure if you were gonna do it, sorry for my impatience :-P Milto LOL pia 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about putting my message on your user page, I thought I was on your talk page.Azerbaijani 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• No prob! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake, I think I should have posted that request in the check IP section, not the check user section, corret? Can you make the change or should I, or should I just start another subsection there?Azerbaijani 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How long do check IP's take? I've put it up since last night (in my time zone atleast), your probably busy or something.Azerbaijani 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do them when I please in the order I please. I'm still unconvinced yours is justified. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is mine unjustified? You claimed that those were not personal attacks, while another administrator told me that they were personal attacks. I also laid out clear evidence as to the possibility of them being socks. Also, note that user Atabek was already confirmed to have a sock, user Tengri, which has not been blocked indefinetly.Azerbaijani 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. My official response is at WP:RFCU; if you find fault with it, please bring it up at WPT:RFCU. Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reverting eBay

Why not edit what you don't agree with, rather than deleting material which someone else has taken time to prepare - or make a suggestion on how it could be improved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikigod (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

• Because often, as in this case, removing the material completely is a better solution than a quick half-assed rewrite, which is the best I'd be able to do in a hurry? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196

Would you mind blocking all of his puppets? –– Lid^(Talk) 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can't now, heading out. Suggest asking on AN/I. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help in thi case, it is much appreciated. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response to my latest RFCU implicated that Miamivice was on the previous list but I don't see him listed? –– Lid^(Talk) 05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lightbringer socks

Thanks for the user checks and blocks... but he is still at it. As soon as we block one sock, he creates a new one. Is there no way to block his IP or something so he goes away? Blueboar 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

RfArb regarding Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs)

I have completely revised my statement in regards to this RfArb I started regarding administrator User:Lucky 6.9. In particular, given a couple days to reflect on others' comments, I make a substantially different point, completely unrelated to furthering accusations toward the administrator. I would appreciate if you'd take a quick glance. Link Reswobslc 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ip check

Hello im also concerned about adil, he's edits are harmful along with dacys the users share common edits, see [2] and [3] the users start so many edit wars i hope you dont mind me emailing you. Nareklm 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense, because another admin agreed with me that these were personal attacks, so obviously, one of you is right and the other one is not. Also, I think there is some confusion going on, because I have brought up the evidence which should be enough for a check IP all on its own, and also, user Tengri has been blocked indefinetly for being a confirmed sock of Atabek, so please, I urge you to do a check IP on the other users as well, there is something going on here.Azerbaijani 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize, user Khoikhoi just informed me what the letter A was supposed to be used for and I shouldn't have used it. I made a mistake putting that up, so could you please do the check user?Azerbaijani 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see this, [4], [5] if there not socks than there accomplices? Nareklm 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration of WP:RfCU

Considering the # of sockpuppets involved with the User:DogJesterExtra RfCU you just declined, is there any chance we can go ahead and make sure there AREN'T any other Socks we've missed, because this is a long term vandal (see JB196's page under WP:LTA), and he has shown no signs of stopping. Thanks for any reconsideration. SirFozzie 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, you missed a few. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Understatement, wow. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad I requested it :) Holy canoly, that's a lot of socks. SirFozzie 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nwwaew vs Nwweaw

Hi, you recently ran a checkuser in a case brought by Nwwaew (talk · contribs) (with "ae") involving among other things an apparent impersonator account Nwweaw (talk · contribs) (with "ea") (here). In your results, you listed the complaining party himself, Nwwaew, among the socks. As a result, Nwwaew was indef-blocked and is now appealing. He says he's normally on a stable IP (which he has tagged as his), namely 24.50.211.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Was that intentional? Also, even if Nwwaew was a sockmaster faking the harassment against him, wouldn't an indef be rather harsh? We normally indef only the socks, not automatically the masters, do we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well...I just provided a list of the editors who were using the same IPs. Yes, Nwwaew did use that stable one, but also showed up on the two other IPs that all of those other editors were using. I'm not drawing conclusions here; I'm just reporting my findings. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for the clarification. In the checkuser discussion it was said that there might be a group of harassers who are different from Nwwaew but know him in real life. Could the two shared IPs be a shared school or work IP or something like that and the stative one a home machine? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's quite possible, yes. The shared IPs are from a school district in the American Midwest. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Just FYI, I've reversed the block in question. Luna Santin 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

About my RfCU on User:Nationalist that you declined

I think there was a misunderstanding between us. I did not mean that he might have used User:Taiwanlove as his sockpuppet to avoid/evade the 3RR warning/block that was 6 hours after Taiwanlove's edits, and I know that is illogical; I meant to say that he might have used Taiwanlove to substitute his 3rd revert on the history link in the Case so that his 4th revert would appear to be only his 3rd and last (i.e. Nationalist reverted 2 times, then there comes Taiwanlove to revert for N (3rd if it is a sock), and then N reverts the 3rd time in 24 hours after T's revert (4th if T is a sock)). I have provided more evidence in the Case, and I wonder if you would be so kind to take the trouble and investigate them again. Thanks. Vic226_(chat) 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reconsidered and confirmed. Originally I'd turned it down because there were almost no edits from Taiwanlove so it seemed pointless. Now there are many more. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel

BS"D

I can't believe that a wiki admin and everything else you are would undo an edit that was RV massive vandalism. I'm ashamed and feel that you should lose rights for this. --Shaul avrom 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mm. Please assume good faith and consider the possibility -- just the distant possibility -- that I made a mistake. I am not responsible for your shame; you'll have to deal with that on your own. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Whoops

Sorry, I obviously need to go get some sleep. :) Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Confused the hell outta me too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:DeanHinnen attempting to make it appear as though you signed a comment...

...at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen. Sorry for bothering you again, but I thought you should know this. --BenBurch 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ebay

Hi I saw somewhere that you used to program for ebay. Could you please tell me (since anyone who knows in eBay only gives form letters) why they allow asterisks in usernames, but don't allow asterisks or quotes in their ebay messaging system. Someone once told me that the disallowing of asterisks or quotes in their ebay messaging system is because of some coding issue, but this sounds like something extremely novice to fix (such as adding backslashes) and it's annoying if someone has a username and one can't type it because the asterisk is restricted.

So do you have any idea why such a simple fix never happens at eBay? SakotGrimshine 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Laziness, I imagine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

blocking user

jpgordon,

User 123nick321 has been adding nonsense to several pages, including The Holocaust, which is one of the pages you use to edit. He ahs been warned several times. I am not sure how the block policy works: does it have to be done by a administrator (like you) or anyone can block anyone? thanks.--Ninarosa 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom IRC channel case

I noticed you removed this case. It seems that standard procedure is not to archive rejected cases, however, since UC moved the bulk of the comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC it has been in effect, archived, even though rejected and those comments not removed. I'm seriously disturbed by the mixing of a rejected case with the personal espousal of arbcom views in the arbcom namespace. If the personal opinion essays must exist there, the comments from the original rejected case should be removed, as they would have been had UC not moved them. It isn't standard practice to archive rejected cases, and this is what has now happened. As it is, the page is doing nothing but to promote more drama with no resolution, but that's beside the point I suppose. pschemp | talk 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're not alone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Fyi, and thanks for the support. --HailFire 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight, again

I'm a stupid, impulsive ass. Please delete this... ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As this is my user talk page the comment was made on, I'd like to request this isn't oversighted. A. I don't see anything in the oversight policy that suggests that someone being a "stupid, impulsive ass" as oversightable and B. this is a big comment that is being used at Flameviper's RFA. This is a clear example of incivility and to get rid of it is to get rid of evidence in the adminship discussion. Thanks, Metros232 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If your mom was going to go through all your files, wouldn't you at least make an effort to delete the porn? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The purpose of oversight is not to prevent people from making fools of themselves, unless the way they do so is by revealing certain categories of information. That you told someone they are a stupid, impulsive ass does not fit into that policy.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

why can't you just oversight edits on the request of the people who make the said edits? I'm not attacking you, I'm just wondering. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy explains the very limited circumstances in which we may do this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you just do a normal sysop revision-delete instead? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Under what grounds? That you wrote something obnoxious on someone else's user page, and now don't want anyone to know during your various RfA games? Wikipedia isn't a video game. Please don't treat it as one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Harsh. I do believe I was just owned, quite verily so. Crumpet? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

MFD update

I've moved that rfar irc page to Wikipedia:IRC channels/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. Some other current pages have some inbound links to the page so I have not deleted the redirect, though it should be speedyable in a few weeks. Do you think this will be sufficient? Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Asian2duracell report

With all due respect, I am new at this. Please tell how and what I should do to go about this. Regards. Wiki Raja 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Insert-Belltower

Thank you very much for running the check on IB. I hope this leads to some lasting action against him. Best,--Amerique^dialectics 05:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It may interest you that I've found another sock used to impersonate Amerique: Ameriquə (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is likely another I-B sock and has already been blocked indefinitely. szyslak (t, c) 22:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

!!! Woh. This is NOT me. I would like to request that a Check-User be done ASAP. Insert-Belltower 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IP check indicates no particular connection; for a change you aren't obviously responsible for this one. But if you'd knock off using abusive sockpuppets, you wouldn't be suspected. And if you do it again, I won't hesitate to block you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. Insert-Belltower 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jpgordon,

Would the IP address of the new impersonator correspond to any of these:

• 64.54.92.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 64.54.91.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 64.54.92.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 64.54.68.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

If so, I know who it is.--Amerique^dialectics 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bluntly, I think it's UCRGrad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The rhetoric of the impostor is identical with his. He and IB were known to work in concert to keep the University of California, Riverside article a constant edit war until I began organizing a sustained community response against them in June of last year. UCRG was the ringleader, and I was about to launch a second ArbCom case against them in September when UCRG entirely split, followed by IB soon after. I'm now openly trying to pilot that article to FA status and this seems to have caught their attention.-- the "real" Amerique^dialectics 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I still think it's him, but he's probably posting from another IP address by now. If he resurfaces in any other form I'll be sure to request another IP check against "Ameriquə." Thank you very much for your assistance.-- Amerique^dialectics 06:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar IP data

Essjay and Dmcdevit do. Daniel.Bryant 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this needs your clarification, as it is a claim contrary to your technical findings. Daniel.Bryant 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a follow-up check requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar regarding Bakasuprman (talk · contribs). Can you please confirm/deny whether any evidence of Bakasuprman being Rumpelstiltskin223 showed up when you ran the CU? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No such evidence. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFCU on Frater Xyzzy

Any reason for the declination, especially given the admission of the user? Moreover, is that enough to ask for a block based on prior block evasion? MSJapan 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Annoyance? I'll reconsider. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that over again. MSJapan 07:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser in CoI case?

Hello. Could you please tell me whether WP:RFCU is the correct place to check a users IP to confirm or not a claim of corporate conflict of interest? If so, which code to use and if not, could you direct me to the correct page, if such a one exists? Thank you very much. 121.1.155.27 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if that's a legitimate use of RFCU, and it's certainly the only place where you could request it (other than in the process of an arbitration action.) Who's the editor in question? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. The editor in question is Sparkzilla, whom I have a good faith belief is intimately involved with crisscross.com, which apnic cites as block assignment 219.123.156.16 - 219.123.156.31. (S)He is probably 219.123.156.18. Will of course provide fuller details if I am permitted to apply for an official check. 121.1.155.42 05:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• You'll need to address the possible COI elsewhere, I think. WP:AN/I might be a good place to start. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Question

Hello, I am a current Penn State student and thought you seemed like a quite knowledgable person and wondered if you could answer a question for me. One of my professors, in a recent lecture, tried to explain a short history of CAD programs. Long story short, he said that there was one person who wrote the programs AutoCAD, and Pro Engineer (I can't remember in which order he said). But then something he said really interested me. This person, whomever he was discribing, said he was moving away from these companies and writing a new program that would "blow the current CAD programs out of the water and take the drafting world to the next level". Which brings me to my question, well actually more than one question. Who wrote the programming for AutoCAD and ProE? Was this just one person, or possibly a main contributor? And have you heard anything about his new company or program if he does indeed exist? Or is my professor just trying to tell us a good one, and its really a big crock? Any input you have would be greatly appreciated.

05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) a currious Penn State student

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.77.182 (talk • contribs) 05:12, February 6, 2007 (UTC)

One person? No. Mike Riddle wrote the first version of what became AutoCAD. I don't know if any one person at Parametric wrote the original version of what became Pro Engineer, but it wasn't Mike. No idea about anyhing upcoming; I've been out of that industry for almost a decade and haven't paid too much attention. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps...

...Wikipedia's policy should be altered on that one to include the possibility, no? --PaxEquilibrium 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Possibility of what? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could just now make tens of sockpuppets and start to edit in collaboration, presenting my POV as the general viewpoint of all Wikipedians on one case. But apparently, that qualifies under no request code, so there could never be a checkuser and I'm free to command a little private "Wiki-Army". --PaxEquilibrium 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're certain they're sockpuppets, you don't need a checkuser. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but he/she's denyin' it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My checkuser

Hi there, Are you an admin? Do you have checkuser rights? If you do, I'd dare you to go ahead and conduct the checkuser on me. For God's sakes, the ip and I are not even in the same country!! If you cant conduct the checkuser, I demand that you take back your words and stop feeding the troll.

As for the reverts itself, it is NOT vandalism. It is a simple 'content dispute' and I have taken the pains to explain my stance on many talk pages(Dravidian people, Dravida, Carnatic music, Template:Dravidian topics etc.,. You are free to go and investigate. You will notice that Wikiraja is just stonewalling without convincing anybody. As for me, I've even got support for my views from user:Bakaman with whom, it is no secret that I dont share a very cordial wiki-relation with.

As for the convoluted charges and bullcrap of a million diffs that he's plastered all over the checkuser page, I can only laugh. I dont have the time to go through each one and counter them. So conduct the checkuser and settle this once and for all.

And as for him, he's been crying 'vandalism' when it is a content dispute. He's been doing it for days now and I've just ignored his troll. But now I've been forced to respond. I've also warned him on his talk page.

btw, if you might notice, this is not the first time someone's filed a CU on me but each time I've come out clean. I take it in my stride as I know that this is part of wiki-life if you take it upon yourself to fight POV-pushers or patent nonsense.

So, once again, conduct the checkuser get this done with. Sarvagnya 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're not quite civil, but in this case you are correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility in Edit Summaries

Hi. I noticed you called another user's edits "crap" on Institute for Historical Review [[6]]. I think it's somewhat incivil to do such, so please reconsider the usage of such words in edit summaries in the future. Thanks. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial is crap; that's the kindest thing I can think to say about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it only aggravates situations when such terminology is used. I'm sure there's some way to phrase it that doesn't have to insult. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Stop trying to whitewash the article, please; deniers is what they are, and deniers is what they'll be called. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss that on the talk page if you want. I'm not particularly gunning for the change, although I see a problem with calling someone a "denier" who doesn't actually deny that it happened. I was just bringing up the civility issue here. .V. _[Talk|Email] 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR comments

JP - If you see the edit histories - the other users are simply revrting the content without discussing.I reverted their vandalism and even wrote that in edit summaries (rv. Vandalism) even then this bunch of editors continue doing reverts without discussion. See the redirect change of Hindu Fundamentalism to Religious Fundamentalism - One of them changed it unilaterally even though it was linked to Hindutva - since a long time and that is what vandalism is Neptunion 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed mine is a good faith edit while those editors have knowingly subverted the articles.Please don't be judgemental before reading the edits and going an inch deeper Neptunion 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF

"Wikipedia is not a role-playing game"? That makes no sense, and I find it insulting. I created that account... ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we all kind of figured that one out. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean you performed an informal checkuser? Shame on you! ~ Flameviper 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what Jpgordon is saying is that it was painfully obvious that you registered that account (hence your autoblock after its blocking). Metros232 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not rocket science. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence the phrase "informal checkuser". You blocked the account that I created and then I logged in. When I wanted to be un-autoblocked, I had to disclose my IP address. And you don't need checkuser rights to figure that one out, nor execute it. In this case it was an accident, but eventually someone's going to be de-sysopped for it. ~ Flameviper 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

De-sysopped for.....not being an idiot? All Jpgordon is saying is that we all knew it was you who created the account because of the autoblock. No checkuser was performed nor needed to be performed. If you hadn't created such a blockable account, this wouldn't be an issue. So don't go around with your accusations when you could have prevented this all yourself, Metros232 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the practice of informal checkuser, an underhanded move. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. Don't be so offensive. ~ Flameviper 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you were making accusations. You accused me of performing an "informal checkuser", and said "shame on me". What else am I supposed to interpret that as? Stop playing games with Wikipedia; there are plenty of articles to improve, or, if you prefer, plenty of vandalism to clear up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was joking. "Shame on you" is rarely a serious comment, and besides, why would a user with checkuser rights need to perform an informal checkuser? I wasn't insinuating anything. ~ Flameviper 17:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't deliberate or somekind of a tatic agaisnt you. You revealed yourself to be in control of that account. If you didn't want anyone to know, you should have e-mailed me. Yanksox 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page or Forum?

Jpgordon, since you are also following the Holocaust/Holocaust denial pages, could you answer me a question? I understand taht the talk pages are not supposed to be discussion forums. Therefore arguments there are not supposed to "convince" my interlocutor, but just to bring what is most reliable academic data to the wiki, is it correct? However, am I authorized to bring original research to the talk pages to counter an argument from a user--that I believe to be untrue? I am referring to this section in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Biblical_implications

Thanks~!--Ninarosa 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you can bring original research to talk pages. The whole point is to keep it away from article pages. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor/Carfiend

I'm guessing you declined to look into this [7] because he/they have not yet reached the level of disruption of last summer. Fair enough. If and when things get to that point again, I'll try to make a stronger argument. Wahkeenah 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Cool. I do need to be pretty strict there; simply annoying isn't enough to justify a checkuser; it has to be downright disruptive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, these users were very disruptive last summer, and the pattern is beginning again. Their entire editing energies were focused on one subject, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, and their disruption (especially Carfiend's) accelerated to the point where Bubba73 posted an RFC against him, whereupon both Carfiend and Gravitor abruptly stopped editing. Gravitor recently returned, and at first he seemed reasonable, but his disruptive behavior, personal attacks, etc., are accelerating again. A few days ago, Carfiend resurfaced, just briefly. That's when the light went on for me. My thought was that maybe Gravitor forgot which user he had signed on as. That revived the suspicion I had also had last summer. I posted the RFCU, and mentioned it on that page in order to be up front about it. At that point the insults accelerated, as Gravitor began accusing Bubba73 and me of being sockpuppets (which we aren't, and I would encourage you to verify that) and of being "NASA shills" (words used by Carfiend last summer), and such stuff as that. I didn't accuse them out-and-out of being sockpuppets, but I listed my concerns: timing, similar behavior, similar wording, single-subject focus, etc. They might be different users, but their tactics are nearly the same, so they're at least copycats. OK, that's the story. Thanks for listenin'. :) Wahkeenah 08:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to see if this similar comment from an anonymous IP is the same IP as these two users. This was in response to my posting the RFCU: "LOL @ the gestapo tactics. They are not the same person.24.7.34.99 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" Wahkeenah 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

Excuse me, I think you may be able to help. I've have been repeatedly blocked by User:Pschemp based on their assumption that I am a sockpuppet of user "light current". See WP:ANI#Blocked_by_User_Pschemp

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current I notice that two of the anon IP's are mine - they are the ones from 'Karoo ISP' the others are not. I would appreciate it if you could help here seeing as you noticed that 'light currents' socks were from 'Tiscali ISP'

My request for unblocking is currently at WP:ANI#Blocked_by_User_Pschemp

Thank you.87.102.7.51 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User unblocked. pschemp | talk 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Hello,

Would you be willing to semi-protect Israel? It seems like it would benefit from some protection. okedem 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I kinda prefer someone less involved to do it; I'd think pretty much any admin will look at what's going on today and agree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC

Can you point me in the vague direction of an ongoing dispute, flamewar and all? I'd just love to get a bag of popcorn and watch the RfCs roll in...if I'm lucky there'll be a desysopping and a vandalistic rampage to follow, shortly ended by an indefinite block of the-

Oh, ascuse me. I was just hypothesising about what might happen if there were to be a particularly entertaining RfC or RfAr.

~ Flameviper 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please find some way to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done that...done that...and done that again. I want to see some Sysop Versus Sysop! I found the RfC against InShaneee particularly entertaining. Is this somehow wrong? ~ Flameviper 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, and neither is blocking editors who have decided that Wikipedia is a toy rather than a tool. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes, I just pissed off an Oversight and a CheckUser! I'm goin' DOWN! ~ Flameviper 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)