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 index - Index of all archive entries. Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3

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

Sorry

I let a couple of friends onto my computer (won't do that again) and thy all created their own wikipedia accounts while we had them over for a few days they managed to irk many administrators (I do not blame you) and they even went on my account. From your point of view this may look like vandalism and sock pupetry, but I had no part in it and if I do get my editing priviledges back, I will NOT let those guys on my accounts again. Please reconsider this block and if you don't trust me than keep an eye on my editing. I promise it will be all legit. Signed Campbec001.

User talk:Trip to Sunderland

Please see User talk:Trip to Sunderland. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand why this user was blocked. Neither account made any inappropriate edits. I saw the IP range's block history. There is surely a very persistent vandal editing from that range. Is there a reason I'm not seeing, beyond the use of the same IP range, to assume this user is the same one? Mangojuice^talk 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that one or two users in that range were not vandals. Use your own judgement; I don't fuss or try to pull rank over such things unless they are egregious. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

192.251.125.85

The IP range belongs to a hotel. Past vandalism from that IP is not an indicator of future vandalism because the guests here change from day to day. The guests who committed the vandalism are almost certainly not inhouse any longer. 12.192.55.66 (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• New ones seem to keep coming. There was a continuous stream of vandalism for a year and a half leading up to the current block. We treat this the same as an internet cafe with a surplus of bad customers: we at least insist they be registered users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nochi

Hi, would you mind having a look at this? Think we need the benefit of your past experience here. Best, Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Converts

Which one in particular are you referring to? Why did you replace entries with no reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsruhe (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article talk page is the appropriate place this. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Who publishes the Jewish Encyclopedia

There is a proper way to reference sources, and then there is the "I hope nobody notices this nonsense" way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsruhe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What is with the repeats?

Why are you undoing my deletion of repeats? Your behavior does not reflect that of a thinking being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsruhe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arnon Chaffin/Mools

I blocked Mools as a regular vandal, and was somewhat surprised to see that it was a sock of Arnon Chaffin. What happened? Has Arnon Chaffin been compromised or something? Acalamari 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dunno. He's been blocked for having a compromised account before; perhaps this is continuing? Feel free to override anything I've done if it's a compromise rather than a case of sockpuppetry. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's possible it's been compromised, as none of his recent edits have been constructive, but I also seem to remember that some of his early edits were vandalism too (see some of his early deleted edits). We'll have to see if the Arnon Chaffin account provides any explanation for this behavior. Thanks. Acalamari 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • On a similar note, I've sent an E-mail. Regards. Acalamari 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blends

Please look up the term blend. Most of these words are incorrectly used. It is not about soapboxing, which is promoting outside links and organizations. Please look up the term WP:SOAP while at it. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Enjoy yourself. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else? It is two people. If you still don't believe me, look at the academics and what they have to say. Blends Linguistics is my field. I have dealt with the English language for a very long time. I analyze poetry, which requires using proper linguistic terms to break down syllables, word origins, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thanks for the blocks. I knew Muls was but couldn't prove it. Grsz 11 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2

Hey there.

I note you opposed principle 4 and supported principle 4.1 without much comment; would you care to clarify your position slightly so that the wording suggested in the clerk notes can be tweaked if needed to represent your position fairly? In particular, most of the arbs who have supported 4.1 did so expressing the opinion that it should be viewed as a strict subset of 4 and the currently proposed wording of the merged principle reflects that. — Coren ^(talk) 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:ANI

Would it be against CU policy to monitor the IP related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Obuibo_Mbstpo_back_again.2C_I_think and report to the community new sock creations of OM? MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not really, but I don't think anyone will "monitor" it anyway. OM's pretty damn blatant; there's no reason to hunt for his socks; they'll show themselves. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll keep my ears open for more voting proposals. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Blank of a Checkuser page

Hi Jpgordon:

Number In an OTRS Case [[2]], number 2008020710020518, a user is requesting a courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Usedvivid, among other pages. I have no problem blanking the other pages, but I wasn't sure about blanking a checkuser case. Can you give me any insight as to whether that would be a problem? Thanks. - Philippe | Talk 14:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have access to OTRS. I don't see why we'd "courtesy blank" a positive Checkuser result, given that (a) there are no real names, and (b) none of the parties have edited in a year anyway. Am I missing some subtlety? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a real name: Maximillian Roos. Someone is kicking up a fuss that the checkuser page appears in a google search about that name. - Philippe | Talk 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So blank it. I figure a year of "who cares" is sufficient for a permanent "who cares". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX

Hello. I was very surprised to see your comment here. Please see my reply there. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Censoring other good-faith editors' comments is, invariably, a terrible idea. In fact, a fucking terrible idea. I've never seen a single case where it doesn't make matters worse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That I agree with you. But you did not address the incivility for which the user was blocked. Húsönd 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, as it was the result of escalation caused by the censorship. You'll note also I didn't unblock. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I note that there is a fuckingly huge difference between simple emphasis and calling someone a "fucking hypocrite". One may have been the cause of the other, but doesn't excuse it. *shrug* — Coren ^(talk) 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Which is why we really shouldn't do things that escalate discord; the proper response would have been "y'know, you're right, your comment shouldn't have been censored; tell you what, withdraw the nasty reaction and I'll resist the urge to censor." Or something like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

Reminding you of this unblock and directing you to this comment:

• "Breathtaking inanity. ... Your argument is intellectually dishonest, of course, and not meant to be taken seriously." Eleland, 21:51, 28 March 2008.

To remind, editor has continued uncivil commentary even during the 7 day time to which he made his civility pledge. I've posted an AE post regarding this and felt it was closed without proper examination.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)