Jump to content

User talk:Jpgordon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TruthCrusader (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 27 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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




3RR block of pali.tv...

I don't think this user has technically breached 3RR. here. The "1st revert" appears to be an addition of new material.

The same apparently incorrect allegation was made by Prester John against him [2] yesterday on another article, but it wasn't the case either. What appears to have happened according to my reading of the history pages, is that paki.tv has added material, and then prester john has reverted three times and paki.tv reverted back each time. Both have reverted 3 times, but neither has breached 3RR. Now, maybe you could argue paki.tv be blocked for edit warring if not technical 3RR, but then the same would have to be done for Prester John.

The merits of the addition is a different matter, but that is a separate issue and should not be managed by unequal application of blocking for 3RR and/or edit warring. My apologies if I am wrong here, but I dont' think I am. Thanks for your good faith admin efforts - but please look at this one more closely. thanks --Merbabu 07:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count four reverts of the Although transportation was officially abolished by the British regime in 1868 (originally added: July 22) passage in less than an hour (21:41, 22:04, 22:11, 22:20); it isn't even a complex or a partial revert (which, technically, also count), really... Thx. El_C 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your autoblock on my account and your "advice" on sock puppetry

Concerning your post on my user talk page:

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --jpgordon 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in fact familiar with sock puppetry, so what's your point? I have done nothing to you or to anyone else on Wikipedia, so I don't understand why you have blocked me from editing. I'm not trying to be uncivil, but it seems to me that you may be an administrator who is a little overzealous. Please assume good faith when dealing with editors. Heavyhandedness by administrators tends to drive productive editors away from Wikipedia. Citizen Dick 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I've not blocked you from editing. Using multiple accounts, in your case Citizen Dick and User:UPGRAYEDDD, to back each other up on an AfD, is abusive sockpuppetry, and tends to drive productive editors away as well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstood your statement above, but are you now threatening to block this account because you allege that I am a "sock puppetmaster"? I have made hundreds and hundreds of constructive edits to Wikipedia, and to be honest with you, I am getting tired of dealing with administrators who seem to get a kick out of holding the threat of blocking the accounts of editors who may have committed minor violations of Wikipedia's rules over their heads. If you do in fact decide to block me, you will just prove my assertion that you are an overzealous administrator. Citizen Dick 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberGhostfarce

I have literally no idea whatsoever. I didn't even know he existed until you told me, and to the best of my knowledge, we haven't even edited on the same articles. I've had a number of run-ins in the past with IP vandals, so he might be in league with one of them, but besides that I have no clue. Thanks for notifying me and could you please tell me if you find out anything new about this guy?--CyberGhostface 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (3)

Thanks for handling my unblock request. I was probably somewhat in the wrong, but a single warning telling me I'm being uncivil and then a block without any examples or anything does indeed seem uncivil in itself. I'll just try and stay away from that page for now. Thanks again. SpigotMap 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon,
I believe you have made a mistake in this regard. Did you verify the edits made by the user? Did you notice the previous block? Did you look to see why I might have done what I did, including checking the correspondence I've had with the editor and the editor has had with other people and the message I left on the first responding admins talk page? Are you sure that you followed blocking policy or did you assume this was a block as punishment? What you have done is unblock an editor who continues to engage in uncivil edits after a block by another admin, after warning by me, and won't work with in the community to find a way to stop the uncivil edits. The editor openly has admitted they won't change their behavior and you have unblocked them for it. I believe you should have instated a LONGER block after SpigotMap appealed the decision, on the grounds that he has wasted MORE time than needed through is efforts to GAME THE SYSTEM. Considering that blocks by policy don't even need a formal reason, that the editor has rejected all feedback, has himself quoted WP:CIVIL as policy, then acts as they are confused by how reverts and failure to communicate on a talk page could possible be uncivil (then further tries to confuse the situation by arguing a point that does not exist, has never existed, and I've given up trying to rectify with the editor for a long time. Note that the editor does not need specific feedback about how they violate WP:CIVIL as if they were to look at WP:CIVIL with half an intent of understanding, they would certainly find Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress which is the second sentence.
You undid my block with out asking me; you released the chains on an editor that has a consistent pattern of disruptive edits and, in my opinion, is gaming the system; you called my actions uncivil yet did not comment to me about them, report me to Wikiquitte alerts, or anything that would provide me feedback on how I can change my behavior for the better; and lastly, you did not do the same for the editor. I believe you have made this situation worse now, not better, as I believe the editor now has a more effective way to "game the system." Yes, I have lost my good faith with this editor, however it's not required that good faith be maintained in the presence of enough evidence to the contrary. Please think about what you've done here. Triddle 16:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about it. As soon as you went into game playing mode -- i.e., "I'm not going to give you any examples" -- it was time to put an end to it. It's simply unfair to say "Stop doing XYZ" and not provide any examples of what you consider "XYZ". All it would have taken was a couple of diffs; that's your responsibility as the blocking admin. Leaving it to the reviewing admins to try to guess just what it was you were blocking him for was improper. I didn't ask you about it because I didn't see any particular reason you'd provide the diffs to me, or to the community, when you wouldn't provide the diffs to him. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple - every single bit of communication with him has been met with stiff resistance. Did you notice that? Did you notice that I sent the diffs to another editor right after they contacted me? Did you notice that "contact the blocking admin" is a standard part of the appeal process? I still think you made a mistake, and btw, I've reblocked him with a specific 3RR violation this time. I'm sorry if my tactics ultimately created more work, they are designed to create less. Triddle 17:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the blocking process is to protect Wikipedia. Fresh on the heals of one 3RR block comes another 3RR block. The editor has consistently said they will not change, has not demonstrated any willingness to change, and I'm in the wrong? Can you please let me know a better way to proceed? Thank you. Triddle 17:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if that is your way to sum up this entire situation, the actions of SpigotMap, and my reasons and intentions for doing all of this, two things have failed us. 1) My ability to explain the situation. 2) In my opinion, your willingness unwillingness to do anything more than read SpigotMap's talk page. Both of those things are sad. Triddle 17:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd provided the requested diffs, this would not have happened. Your obligation to be civil extends in particular to those you are blocking for civility breaches. "No, I'm not going to tell you, you have to figure it out yourself" is not appropriate for teachers, parents, cops, or Wikipedia admins. Think of it this way -- if a cop gave you a ticket, but wouldn't say what exactly you were doing that earned it but rather just gave vague "you weren't driving acceptably", the judge would throw it right out without giving it any more than a cursory glance. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is flawed. Lets come up with a true analogy that represents the situation as a whole, not one particular tiny little piece of it. We have a city with a lot of people. Some of those people speed by accident. Some of them speed on purpose. Cops should be nice to everyone but everyone who speeds gets a ticket. Most people who speed by accident and get a ticket have their speedometers fixed. Some people who speed and get a ticket go "hey, I can still speed if I just pay this ticket!" - these people tend to get caught multiple times. After a few tickets have been written, how long do you wait before you just throw them into the back of the police car and let the judge take care of it? Triddle 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you needed to provide the diffs. Why should I waste my time hunting down what you felt to be offensive if you wouldn't even bother telling the offender? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming the editor in this case doesn't know what the rules of WP:CIVIL are - I believe this to be contrary to the truth. I do believe this particular editor is gaming the system and I am treating him accordingly. I understand now that interadmin communication is important for these type deals as some people don't want to dig very hard to find out what is going on, however, I disagree that necessarily putting all of that stuff on the talk page of someone who is gaming the system is a good idea. For what it's worth, I've gone through this a few times, with peer review the last time it happened, and the editor and I were able to come to a compromise where we communicated again at the end AND he learned how to participate in the community process. I'm not saying I'm perfect, or that this idea even works, just that the last time I went through this process it worked out really well in the end AND everyone else who participated didn't see a problem with it. Triddle 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I consider warnings to be tickets (no loss of privileges) with a block to be incarceration. So the editor has been ticketed multiple times and can now spend a little time in the slammer. Triddle 17:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible source

You said that I could not add the Bible source to the article. Is that not a credible reference for the Bible page? I do not understand how some things qualify as references while others do not. The reference was a point by point explaination of the old and new testament which I added to the Bible wikipedia page. Please explain why it should not be a reference. Should it be an external link instead? Thanks! RopeTrav 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the Alice Bailey article

Hi jpgordon,

I may have not been appreciative of your "neutrality" during your presence on the Alice Bailey article. If so, I apologize for that. I now know that you're very conscientious about following Wikipedia rules. Those that have knowledge of Alice Bailey writings have departed from the article because there is no one there to take a stance of "neutrality."

The Alice Bailey article is currently being shaped by those with a "personal view". The editors are biased, have little or no knowledge of the subject, and are not following Wikipedia rules of finding the the best verifiable sources, but are selecting sources that support what they want to say. And will insult and delete the work of anyone who tries to give a more balanced and scholarly picture. My personal talk page is still active if you want to reply there. thank you, Sparklecplenty 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

FYI, I have sent you a request via email. Thanks. --B 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad this happened Mr. Gordon. Especially since I'm a big fan of Oingo Boingo, and of the movie Forbidden Zone. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What's that got to do with someone sending me email? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the Ferrylodge situation. B has made accusations about Felonious Monk. I know you have CU powers, and I absolutely know for sure B is wrong. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well,the checkuser came out negative, for what it's worth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that would be the result. That's probably the reason B resigned, I'll consider it a resignation in disgrace, but that's my POV! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

No clue how I managed that. -- But|seriously|folks  09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Multiple accounts

Hiya. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of multiple accounts. In particular, using one account to support the position of another account is not allowed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This was on my personal talk page. I only have one account. I'm insulted. Sparklecplenty 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm a checkuser operator; I'm informed. A word to the wise should be sufficient, I would hope. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still clueless? Are you suggesting that I am not who I say I am? I hope you have more than just a suspicion that I have more than one account on Wikipedia. You have my permission to email me about this. I am assuming you have the ability to access my personal email address? Sparklecplenty 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon, I use the same domain name because I am James' wife of 37 years. No one asked, why should they, so I never mentioned it. I consider it harassment that you question my identity because I've done nothing to justify your attention. And in my view, you have not properly exercised your real duty in the AAB forum.
Now please hang out and watch the onslaught of personal attacks that make me a "strawman" for anti-semitic and racist "meatpuppetry," etc. etc.
James and I have been long time students of the literature attributed to Alice Bailey. James started working on the article about May. I had to listen to his complaints, I told him to give up, knowing others had tried and failed to give this article balance. In effort to relieve some of his frustration, and mine from listening to his, I decided to contribute. He left long ago, and refuses to have anything to do with Wikipedia, and told me I was wasting my time here. It els like your singling me out without justification, since there are others that grossly violate Wikipedia rules of--civility, neutrality, and the distortion of this article by picking and choosing references that support a personal view. Sparklecplenty 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not singling you out; another editor showed me strong evidence that the two accounts were linked; in particular, some off-Wikipedia postings in which an account named "Sparklecplenty" were signed "James" or "Jim". My job as checkuser operator is to follow up on reasonable suspicions of abuse of multiple accounts, and I did exactly that. You also have a strong conflict of interest, given that you (or James) have a commercial enterprise based upon Bailey's teaching; this would make it hard for anyone to properly edit in an NPOV fashion. Family members aren't allowed to team up to support each other in discussions, either. Please consider this and consider exactly how you can edit fairly and neutrally on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jpgordon; thank you for clarifying what several editors have suspected -- that we were being "tag-teamed" by one user with two accounts or two people posting in tandem from the same IP block / same computer.
I am very sentsitive to the issue, as both my husband and i edit at Wikipedia -- but due to the potential for confusion, we have always been totally outfront about our relationsip as spouses -- see my user page here: [3] and his user page here: [4] -- and we have never concealed our marriage as Sparkleplenty and James did.
I will post a message about this incident on the Bailey talk page. It will point people here. I also have a question: Is your placing of Sparkleplenty on notice all that can or will be done, or can we ask for a block against this kind of abuser?
Please reply, if you will, on the Alice Bailey talk page. Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 03:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait until you put up your message. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. cat Catherineyronwode 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a twin brother who sometimes edits wiki, we do this from the same Ip address but we do not edit the same articles or game the talk pages. I believe that the violations in question were deliberate. I also understand that you are assuming good faith on the part of the offending party. I also believe that there is a case of meatpuppetry and perhaps another case or 2 of sockpuppetry as well as dandy case of conflict of interest that may need to be considered. you can read about it here. Danny Weintraub. : : Albion moonlight 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Danny. I'd like to see this discussed on the Bailey talk page so that all can participate. cat Catherineyronwode 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU

Just in case you got some spare time, there are 40 open requests there :). I'm just saying, but a few more active hands there might be a good idea, one request was opened a month ago already. -- lucasbfr talk 16:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read you comment correctly.

It sounded like you gave them both permission to edit the same article. This would mean that Cat and I can do the same thing She with her Husband and I with my Brother, Moses. I thought that that was against the rules . We both have the same Ip address. Please explain this to me. Are we allowed to do this too ?? Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I found the answer pursuant to an internal link you posted. : Albion moonlight 06:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple editors with a single voice"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think thats the one. It strikes me that if consensus can be gained in this manner we would be fools to not prepare ourselves for an insurgence of sock and or meat puppetry from the others. We have a consensus at the moment but we did not have one a month and a half ago. A writer by the name of Phillip Lindsay has already sought Meat puppets and or sock puppets to come to the Bailey article and fix it. He is a friend of James and Sparkleplenty and shares their conflict of interest. Albion moonlight 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to engage in sock or meat puppetry by the way because that would be cheating. Albion moonlight 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.45.219.185

Hey, I'm considering giving User:84.45.219.185 / User:Whitmorewolveyr one final chance, and, moving User:84.45.219.185 to a softblock. I see the IP's contribs all in all were actually somewhat beneficial towards the end (I'm willing to AGF that that was User:Whitmorewolveyr, but, given the {{checkuserblock}}, I wouldn't be able to keep an eye out for other accounts abusing from that IP. So, as a way more experienced admin, who's also involved... Considering that I'm willing to keep an eye on that user, would it be alright with you if I moved that IP's block to a softblock? Out of curiosity, do you recall how many other accounts were involved last time? (I understand, if you can't say) Anyhow, thanks for your time! :) SQL(Query Me!) 10:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the swift response! SQL(Query Me!) 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I just got in from work, and was about to do the same. SQLQuery me! 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice

Pushing the envelope (the content and the edit summary). I'd rather leave this to you. Thatcher131 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advert box

Hey Josh, here's a present for you. Do a forced refresh and the advert box should disappear. --Deskana (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank goodness, Deskana. I was about to go nuts too! Gscshoyru 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

84.45.219.185 apology

Sorry for my vandalism, I didn't quite understand Wikipedia back then, but I do now. The internet cafe terminals are now set to either 30 or 60 minutes set time - so this should hopefully stop vandalism (previously they were open terminals with no user login/password).

I'll attempt to educate people about Wikipedia so they understand it better.

i don't want to upset or offend anyone. --Whitmorewolveyr 11:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

You don't like drama, then talk to the drama queens. Linking to wiki content on one's user page is not forbidden. Thatcher is out of line and you're off the mark. No one has to visit my page or my talk page. Vote with your web browser and step off. *x* deeceevoice 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Nope. Create drama magnets and the drama queens will surely show up. If that's the game you want to continue playing, it's your choice, but just as you have better things to do with your time, so do I. Sometimes being in the right isn't enough. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of wiki process will always be controversial. So, I suppose your solution is that we just shut up and go along to get along. Screw that! And supporting other editors who would prevent others from meaningfully addressing such concerns on one's user page, with links to supporting documentation is nothing but censorship, and if that's not controversial, then nothing else is. Everything meaningful is controversial to someone, sometime, somewhere. Ultimately, it's all about where you stand. Weak. *x* deeceevoice 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of "support" -- commenting upon the perfectly legitimate use of wiki links on my user page and, thus, inviting another officious, meddling, cowboy admin to come in and change and lock it -- I easily can do without. And, yeah, you're absolutely right about that. It's my choice. Now I'm out. *x* deeceevoice 08:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitmorewolveyr

He's being disruptive again? Blah, what should be done now? I was hoping he was just testing, but if he's continuing to be disruptive...then blah. Reblock? ^demon[omg plz] 18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARB vandalism

If it comes to the point where it's necessary, and I don't think it is quite necessary yet, all his IP's seem to be in the range 213.151.217.*, which is range-blockable. I don't think it's quite reached that point yet, but in case it does, I'm letting you know if you didn't know already. Gscshoyru 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was just looking at that range. Actually, it seems even more limited, perhaps 213.151.217.128/28. Almost all of the IP edits from there are him, so an anon-only block there wouldn't have too much collateral damage. Still, I'd just as soon whack-a-mole him every day as he shows up. He's not too bright. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing on AAB

Greetings. I just want to say thanks for your gentle reminder on Talk: AAB. I know I'm a contender for World Welterweight Soapboxing champion, but I've really tried hard to reign in that tendency. In the particular case you noted, I believe I was discussing the article appropriately, as my response there makes clear. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that I have long since given up hope of changing Kwork's mind on any point; my comment is not meant to debate the issue with him, but rather simply to counter his charges with reference to AAB's text, and as they relate to the article. This is purely for other editors' benefit, and I promise I'll do my best not to be drawn into a debate with Kwork on this (or any other) issue, except (again) as it relates to the article. Thanks again for all your input, btw, the climate there has improved so much since a few experienced editors like yourself began working to focus editors on the article and away from tendition. :) Eaglizard 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Jpgordon. The discussion does have to do with the article, as Eaglizard knows. What I was referring to is this paragraph in the article

Bailey criticized Zionism, comparing it with the then-current Stalinist regime in the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, writing, "Zionism today stands for aggression and for the use of force, and the keynote is permission to take what you want irrespective of other people or of their inalienable rights. These points of view are against the position of the spiritual leaders of humanity, and therefore the leaders of the Zionist movement, and the group of men who direct and control the policies of Russia, are against the policies of the spiritual Hierarchy and are contrary to the lasting good of mankind. ... The menace to world freedom today lies in the known policies of the rulers of the U.S.S.R. and in the devious and lying machinations of the Zionists."[122]

Was I blunt? Sure I was. But Eaglizard, and a number of other editors, have been crying for months about the sourced information about Alice Bailey's known antisemitism. There have been many efforts to remove that criticism. I am sorry if they do not want to hear the bad news about her, but it can not be avoided when discussing Alice Bailey. Considering the viciousness of her antisemetic statements, I think I have been rather restrained. Bailey called "Zionists" liars, criminals, and members of the Black Lodge. This closely parallels what she said also about Jews, so it is quite clear she is talking about, in one case, Jews, and in the other case, Jews who happen to be Zionists. Since Eaglizard thinks that sort of lying insult is defensible, he should not be surprised if I explain the problem to him. Kwork 19:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird; Kwork has responded to my comments on at least a half-dozen other ppl's talk pages. I've learned to just let him have the last word. :) In any case, I offered a rather detailed defense of why I think our interpretation of AAB's text is often very relevant in the "this woman is a ****" section, and I really hope you'll do me the favor of responding to that. I'm honestly trying not to be an editor who rambles incessantly and off-topic; it's very hard for me, since I'm so damned long-winded by nature. If you think I'm failing, I'd appreciate your comment. My talk page may be more appropriate for your response, I suppose. Eaglizard 08:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your views requested re Kosovo arbitration enforcement

You'll recall that a few months ago you participated in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO, which involved User:Nikola Smolenski arguing in favour of using an unreliable source. Another issue has arisen with the same editor repeatedly disrupting an article currently under article probation. I can't take action myself, since I've edited the same article, but I'd be grateful if you could review the facts set out at WP:AE#Enforcement request re Kosovo. -- ChrisO 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Workshop

Thank you for your comments on behalf of the arbitration committee; this being the first time I have been involved in an action such as this, I am not sure how to proceed. What is the best way to "frame" my suggestions since they are not really motions but statements of principle? FWIW Bzuk 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RfC request

I am thinking about starting an RfC on Fred Bauder. Though not for the reasons you might expect an RfC on someone. This is more a "reverse RfC".

Presuming that he runs, I currently intend to "vote" for him. However, there have been innumerable complaints about him in the course of his time on ArbCom. I'd like to find out more about this in order to place an educated "vote". So, I'd like to see those aired, but in a positive forum.

So I am asking for your assistance/advice/whatever as to how to set this up. - jc37 20:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haham hanuka

Hello Jpgordon. I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey, again

Hi Jpgordon. You wrote on the Alice Bailey talk page: "This has no bearing on the article. Kwork, you're being disruptive; stop."

I will stop when I am permanently blocked from Wikipedia. Nothing less will shut me up. If you need relief from my troublesome presence, nothing less will do. Kwork 14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

So lets see this so called evidence Calton claims he has. I think I have a right to see on what basis he is falsely accusing me of. TruthCrusader 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpgordon&oldid=167494636"