User talk:jpgordon

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

Question

I noticed you declined an unblock request here as "checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts". I'm assuming this means that the account is  Confirmed to one or more previously blocked accounts, but you didn't specify the master or the other sock(s). Nor did you change the block to a checkuser block or indicate the master/sock in the block log. I feel like this makes it difficult for patrollers to keep track of which sock is which especially when reporting new ones. (The talk page is on my watchlist because I reported the account to UAA, but was curious if there might be an alternate explanation behind the name that I hadn't considered). If you're going to state publicly that an account is a sock, can you please be kind enough to also state whose sock it is? Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No, in general I won't do that. I also almost never tag, especially in pure vandalism cases like this. But since you asked, this one includes User:9-11Attack and User:Pornhub2023; it eventually goes back to User:Timelash. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought that any block based on checkuser evidence was required to be denoted in the block log? And this account didn't vandalize anything as far as I can tell, the only issue was the username. I'm not a particularly avid sock hunter and probably won't become one, but if there is no indication of the master, how are non-CUs supposed to be able to establish a paper trail for future reporting? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I know of no such requirement. Perhaps I've missed something (in the almost 20 years I've been a checkuser); leave me a pointer to such a policy if that's the case. If someone happens to file an SPI to document this case, the paper trail will sort out there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks states that Checkusers can block accounts based on technical (checkuser) evidence. They will make clear in the block log summary that they have blocked as a "checkuser action", usually by including the {{checkuserblock}}, {{checkuserblock-account}}, or similar templates. You declined the unblock request with the reason of "checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts"; this, to me, indicates that your rationale for declining the unblock involves CheckUser evidence and therefore your decline is a "checkuser action" since non-CUs can't see the evidence/information that led you to make such a conclusion. Therefore the block log should be modified to indicate this. While I can't find any specific policy in regards to identifying the master, I feel like it's just best practice and common sense to make note of this, assuming a specific master is known/can be identified. It probably makes sense not to formally tag the user page in certain situations (especially cases like this where the username is inappropriate), but at least making a note of the master in the block log is helpful for non-CU/non-admins who might have an interest in a particular case for whatever reason.

This is probably worthy of a more general/broader discussion too, since I have a feeling that practices amongst different admins and CUs aren't the same, and it would be nice to have some uniform community-wide guidelines/expectations. This issue extends far beyond this one troll account. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Galehautt

Malecide (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) look right to you for Galehautt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? A bit past 90 (although might be worth checking anyways), but lots of behavioral similarities. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I was suspicious right on September 17, and checked it then, but didn't find any smoking gun. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked farther and am sufficiently confident, so have blocked. Gave some (but not all) of the evidence in the block summary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Football socks?

Shiv5523, a brand new account, was trying add some unsourced blatantly promotional material to Ben Stokes a couple of days ago. CosmicEntity01, not so new but not very many edits, comes along and adds the same material, this time with a source (not a reliable one, so I've reverted). CE01 has made similar promotional edits to other footballers (I think that's all they do), but I haven't reviewed them for sourcing. They both use the same editing platforms. Socks or coincidence?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

They're in the same country but that's about all I can say; one uses just iPhone and the other just desktop, and otherwise are entirely generic user agent strings. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jp.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

SS United States top speed disagreement

Hi, if you feel that a claim for the reported top speed of the ship is relevant, then I'm not going to get into an editing dispute.

Kind regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Uzones / Saheb 22

Might be time to revoke talk page rights from this editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Blackface Wiki

What seems to be your issue with the edit in question? Is it not reflective of accuracy? You arent providing any kind of sourcing etc to the contrary to label any of those edits as disruptive. I would argue your dismissal of the factual evidence is far more disruptive, so please explain your actions thank you. 65.93.214.95 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)