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

Should I ammend the title, then, per your comment? I was merely trying my best to find a title that was not unbalanced. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Limit it to Fyslee and Ilena. The other stuff involves entirely different issues. Fyslee and Ilena are interesting enough; the rest, really, is just bickering. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. Thank your for your timely response and indulgence. I will change the title shortly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please update the [2] section? :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I really meant limit it to Fyslee and Ilena. Items 10 through 13 in Peter's list aren't about the Ilena/Fyslee issue at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 09:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They address an administrator's involvement in the matter. I can better explain it, if you don't get the context, should you wish. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand full well, and I won't accept that part of it; it doesn't belong there at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, unless I'm misinformed, it is entirely within the discretion of the Arbitrators involved in the case to simply ignore or turn down parts of the case as they see fit. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The areas of concern have been mutually struck by both Durova and Wizardry Dragon. 61.88.163.26 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's moot, since the case has already been rejected (apologies for my long time in getting back to you) - however, I just didn't feel like that particular request warranted a case, especially given that the sites in question weren't pertinent to attack sites of editors. Obviously, we disagreed on this, but thanks for your comment again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, no prob. I'm sure the issue will come up again in a more suitable fashion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and good luck :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy check. Unblock-en-l appreciates the help... (well, I do, and I assume the rest of us...). Georgewilliamherbert 08:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've got pretty much every user right now. Steward is next? :)

It's been a pleasure working with you, bud. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion re your revert Pgr94 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for this refactoring [3]. No harm was intended. I only felt that the established format should be maintained. I guess there must be other issues here. Sorry again. -- Fyslee 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's not that. It was really a matter of principle -- nobody except arbcommunists and perhaps clerks should change arbitrators statements on that page. That's all. Nothing personal or even really important, except the principle. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcommunists? Hehe :) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand if you were upset that I made a change, instead of letting you do it yourself, but I didn't change the statement in any manner. I only WP:REFACTORed the missing indent. Right now your entry at that point is a long string-along entry, instead of following the format the others are using. Whatever. It's not a matter of content anyway. -- Fyslee 07:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, it takes a lot more than that to make me upset. I wasn't even annoyed. It was simply, "don't do that." Think about it -- it's probably a bad thing for a party to an arbitration to touch the arbitrator's section of the page at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do it again. -- Fyslee 07:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for running this check--I assume if there was anything else we should know (open proxies, etc.), you would have told us. . . editing style (including the abusiveness that got both accounts indef-blocked) seemed pretty conclusive. Chick Bowen 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you were a responder to a few questions on the RFC talk page and was wondering if you might be able to answer a few questions of mine, being that it's the first time I've launched an RFC. for background here's the statement on WP:RFC.

• Talk:Taj Mahal - During efforts to improve this article, a number of editors asserted the need to emphasize a non-academic minority theory. Initially proposed by P.N. Oak, this theory asserts that the Taj Mahal was not originally built by the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan, but was a much older Hindu temple or palace stolen by the Mughals. It is instructive to note that Oak also claims that the tombs of Humayun, Itmad-Ud-Daulahand Akbar — as well as the Vatican in Rome, the Kaaba in Mecca, Stonehenge and "all historic buildings" in India — were also stolen Hindu temples or palaces.[4] We seek comment, prior to an overhaul of the article, to establish "to what extent we are obliged to include minority points of view within this article."

1. Does it run for a month? 2. Who closes it? 3. Who judges consensus? 4. So far there's only really been one comment from the pro-oak camp and the majority of edits to the main article which added pro-oak views, were from anon IP's. Would their lack of participation in the RFC imply consensus? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya.

1. There's no hard and fast rule
2. Nobody or anybody; it's a pretty informal process.
3. Everybody. Either it's obvious or it's not consensus.
4. Nope. Silence isn't consent; it's just silence.

Good luck! And keep WP:Undue weight in mind regarding minority views. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into the RfCuser on KayKay92, but I have a question. What do you mean by "easy duck" in your comment? That's my first checkuser submission, so I'm a bit clueless. -- Kesh 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See duck test: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh, I should have thought of that. That's what I get for Wikiediting with a head cold! -- Kesh 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's what I get for making slightly opaque references when I should be transparent! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just started working with some AMA peeps at the moment. I fully intend to respond. I just need a min. I do have a life (A family, a business and running two official websites for Terry Goodkind, oh and his IRC chat rooms as well), other than Wikipedia ;p and framing my response correctly and properly I think is important. Especially as the user WLU has not only listed about every edit I've ever made, but has in fact listed such erroneous allegations and assumptions it totally crazy. So I need a mo to offer up my rebuttal and proofs. Is that ok? Or is there a rush to justice and I am to be found guilty even before I can do this thing right? Please note, I am not being "condescending" ;p I'm simply asking eh! Mystar 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have previously warned and temporarily blocked user Corporaljohnny for vandalizing an article. He has recently made inflammatory edits to the page Muhammad that need to be taken notice of. Thanks. Aslamt 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The open proxy user 80.90.47.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) you blocked earlier tonight has now jumped to another Tor proxy 217.20.112.191 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and continued his harassment. Numerous Google hits shows that this IP is a listed Tor router based in Germany, the hostname being tor-proxy.jan-muennich.com. - WeniWidiWiki 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent Flyer Open Proxy Users

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Ah! Thanks. Rklawton 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • I think I finished it while you were typing...--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello im also concerned about adil, he's edits are harmful along with dacys the users share common edits, see [5] and [6] the users start so many edit wars i hope you dont mind me emailing you. Nareklm 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also see this, [7], [8] if there not socks than there accomplices? Nareklm 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It's quite possible, yes. The shared IPs are from a school district in the American Midwest. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just FYI, I've reversed the block in question. Luna Santin 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

!!! 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]