Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jpgordon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:19, 2 July 2007 editVanished user skj3ioo3jwifjsek35y (talk | contribs)1,567 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:10, 17 January 2025 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,587 editsm Reverted edit by 86.84.200.125 (talk) to last version by Bbb23Tag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__ __NOTOC__
{{lowercase title}}
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|-
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''14''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|counter = 11
|-
|algo = old(14d)
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-14 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|archive = User talk:Jpgordon/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}}


For older history, check as well as the archives:
#]
__TOC__
== Kosovo article probation query ==


You'll recall that a while back the ArbCom placed all Kosovo-related articles on article probation (per ]) and you also participated in a mediation case regarding links to ]'s self-published essays (]). An issue has come up which intersects with both matters, and I'm not quite sure how to proceed - I'd be grateful for your advice. Basically, I recently replaced the contents of ] with . Unfortunately ] has rolled it all back to the (which he wrote). His version is a combination of ] - the bulk of it is his personal analysis of the speech - and the rest is "based on Gil-White's analysis" (in his words). From Nikola's comments at ], it's plain that he doesn't accept the results of the earlier mediation on the use of Gil-White's self-published polemics.


{{adminstats|jpgordon}}
I don't want to relitigate this and I see absolutely no point in doing so, seeing as the use of Gil-White's material as a source is clearly a violation of ]. Nikola has suggested merging in his commentary but I'm reluctant to do that, seeing as it's pure original research. I think his actions probably count as a violation of the article probation, but what's the procedure for bringing an article probation issue to the attention of people who can actually do something about it? -- ] 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
{{Signpost-subscription}}


For older history, check as well as the archives.
__TOC__


== my discussion page == == Your signature ==
Would you mind leave my discussion page.
I have the right to edit my discussion page.
You have the right to block me (even though I think it was unfair).
But I will complain about your annoying.
People have the right to archive and to delete comment from '''their''' discussion page.
My browser not always log in.
But if I delete that I expect from you to leave me alone.
You obviously engage in thing that are '''NOT''' your business.
I have don't done anything wrong to any article leave me alone and grow up.] 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

== RFAr question ==

Sorry to bother you with this, but there are several people at Badlydrawnjeff's RFAr that consider the remedy too harsh. In particular, BDJ's editing of ''articles'' has never been problematic. Would you consider limiting said remedy to, e.g., deletion discussions on BLP articles, rather than the articles themselves? The remedy as written boils down to banning one of our most prolific editors from a very substantial set of articles, and that seems hardly worthwhile. Yours, ] 08:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:That concerns me, and the justification also concerns me. Perhaps more importantly, I should like to see cautions handed out on all sides; I really dislike seeing admins bullying their way to what they Know is Right; for the same reasons I dislike editors who Insist that WP must tell the Truth (their Truth, of course).] <small>]</small> 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

==Thanks==
But what I'm here for is to thank you for restoring my talk page. ] <small>]</small> 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*Happy to help. Don't like rude people. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

==RFAr==
I'm not sure where exactly is the right place to respond to your (temporary) decision at ], so I'll do it here. What I want to tell you that the Ombudsman is for (legal) privacy concerns, and the privacy policy has most certainly not been violated, as no personal information was revealed.<br>The primary concerns in this case are whether the revealing of CheckUser info in the middle of an RfA, and the conduct by both editors following shortly after, was appropriate (as summed up ] and ]). What exactly do you want the Ombudsman to decide or do? <b>]]</b> 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*Since a request to the ombudsman is pending, I voted to defer action until they either reject or act upon the request. Which I believe is exactly what I said at RfArb. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

== Diyako checkuser logs ==

* ] (Possible sockpuppets)
* ] (Diyako is stale)
* ] (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant ] (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]).

Currently ]/] is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have to believe (, , ) there may be a connection as the edit pattern ] in many ways. Diyako's[REDACTED] ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as ], there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with ] and possible other socks. This is '''NOT''' a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on ] to confirm if you have the logs or not. ] appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*It would probably have been a better idea to email this or post it again on RFCU, and it would probably have been a better idea to notice that I was the one who told you Diyako was too stale to use -- I would have used old logs had I had them. And, Nick -- don't presume to delete non-vandalistic messages from my user talk page; I'm quite capable of doing so myself. I appreciate the intent, but it's misplaced. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

== BLP for the recently dead ==

"If my Dad dies and a Misplaced Pages article decides to stick something in his article which wouldn't have been allowed the day before he died under BLP, it's hurtful in much the same way."

It's hurtful ''to you'' in much the same way, but the day after he dies, it is only hurtful ''to him'' in a metaphysical sense, which is far different from potential hurt to him while he is alive.

Remember Daniel Brandt's complaints about his article? They were basically that he couldn't get work because employers would run a Google search and find out that he was a draft dodger or whatnot. Remember the ]? That's real, concrete harm that articles about living people can cause. All of that doesn't apply to the dead, even the recent dead.

Here's Brandt's "bottom line" on the subject, by the way: ] Surely there's a big difference for a recently deceased person. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*Shrug. Decency comes first, but that's my policy in all things. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
** Good personal policy, but comes into conflict with being an encyclopedia. We can avoid discussing unpleasant topics at a dinner party, but we can't leave them out of the encyclopedia that is supposed to be the sum of common knowledge. "Does it directly affect a living person" is at least a good bright line, and we can probably maintain it. "Could it possibly hurt the feelings of any living person" is something we just can't maintain - at least someone is potentially offended by nearly every one of our articles.
:: Here, let me suggest another personal policy. ]: "Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others." You don't personally have to write any articles that offend anyone, but as an arbitrator, you're writing what the encyclopedia will accept. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*We can discuss this in the appropriate place; it's not a personal issue. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JP - you say "Decency comes first". How do you feel about the article on ], who, as best I can tell, only spoke out against fundamentalists within his own faith? His biography here certainly doesn't treat him decently, re-publishing amazingly nasty allegations. Is this (or should it be) in conflict with WP policy? ] 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*I've made no study of the man or the article. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::He died six years ago, he was a hugely controversial public figure while he was alive, and the material in the article is stated quite neutrally. PR misrepresents the issue; Shahak didn't "speak out against fundamentalists within his own faith", but rather invented some rather horrifying libels regarding Judaism, which was not ''his'' faith, since he was an atheist. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Rogue Admin ==


Could you fix your signature? Your talk page link has random box characters in them (which display "01D 122"). On another computer, it just comes as boxes. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> | ]) </span> 04:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Please see my ] and ]. Misplaced Pages seriously needs your help Josh. Thanks. ] 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


:I would've uploaded an image but Commons kept saying that my file name was too generic (yeah right). <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> | ]) </span> 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
== hey...I need a favour... ==
::Interesting that nobody has complained in the many years I've used those four unicode characters. Hey lurkers (do I have any lurkers? hello?), are my musical characters legible? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
Hey Jp, sorry to bug you, but I couldn't find User:Beestra cause he's on a Wikibreak, so I coming to you for advice/ your knowledge of Misplaced Pages Policies. I was wondering....is this article section () a violation of Misplaced Pages policy? or is it a just another case of an edit conflict or censoring? ] <sup> ] | ]|]</sup> 14:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*"Whitewashing", I'd think. But I'm not a BLP expert by any means. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
**"whitewashing"? ] <sup> ] | ]|]</sup> 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
***Well, removing the mention of the nasty court judgement seems to be whitewashing, covering up something ugly. But again, I'm not a BLP expert; I see nothing in the article about Maxwell-as-fraudulent-spammer other than the court judgement. Perhaps some other information might be useful (for example, an article about the judgment rather than the judgment itself.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
****Thank you. ] <sup> ] | ]|]</sup> 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


] from the past month (November 2024).
== ] ==


]
With all due respect, I must protest your rejection of ]. Bakasuprman and Shipslucky's bickering is insufficient reason for rejection. If you were to say that checkuser is moot because Gr8India has been blocked, that I would understand; however, Gr8India's ballot-stuffing of the Hkelkar 2 Workshop page is good reason to run the checkuser anyway.


] '''Administrator changes'''
Moreover, if personal attacks are all it takes to derail a checkuser request, do you think your rejection of this checkuser for that reason makes personal attacks on the checkuser page more or less likely in future? I have removed the personal attacks and hope you will reconsider. If not, I understand. ] 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*Hkelkar is stale, anyway, and Gr8India doesn't share IP with anyone else at all. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:Thank you for your reply. Might I ask you what you mean by "stale"? ] 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
::Hasn't edited recently enough to have any more live tracks for checkuser. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:::So how is the ban on Hkelkar and his socks supposed to be enforced if checkuser doesn't have any live tracks to work with? ] 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
::::Most of the time they're pretty obvious by their behavior, no? And if any already tagged Hkelkar socks had been alongside Gr8India, they'd have been recognized as such. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:::::I'm not so sure about that; Freedom skies put on quite the performance with his sockpuppets, using multiple false identities to edit different sets of articles. Let me see if I have this right: Gr8India could very well be a Kelkarsock, but checkuser just doesn't have the live tracks to confirm it, is that right? Also, if there's a sock whose sockmaster is likely to be "stale" due to block or whatever, what's the best way to deal with that since checkuser may not have the "live tracks"? ] 23:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:::::::Checkuser isn't magic wiki pixie dust. IP data shows no correlation between Kelkar and Gr8India. That's all I have to go by. Behavior matters more. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
::::::::Ok, thanks. ] 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:::::::::It was Kuntan, and if you want to checkuser "Hkelkar" suspect socks, you need Dmcdevit. He's got a Ph.D in seeking Hkelkar. Best, — ] ] 12:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
::::::::::Jpgordon I would like you to check out this ]. There are numerous Hkelkar impersonators and BhaiSaab impersonators/socks out there now (including the ] who called me a moron on the checkuser).<b>]]</b> 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
== Rejection of My case ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
I saw that you rejected my case and i am somewhat flustered by the "system". An admin abused his power and I would like his actions reviewed. If RFA is not the best place to do it, please let me know where to file a case. //] 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*Read the top of ]. Arbitration is the ''last'', not the first, step of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:* I am aware of that. How exactly should this situation be dealt? The other levels of dispute resolution are applicable, i have disengaged for quite some time. Other than that, admins need to look at his behavior. That's the situation. //] 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
:::Well, the next step in ] is discussing it with third parties. That's what I don't see you as having done. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
}}
:::*I have sent an email to Charles R. Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com). That seems like a reasonable third-party to me. I have received no feedback other than confirmation that he saw my emails. This was over two weeks ago. //] 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Please read ] to get a better idea. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::*Again, i think we are getting of topic again. I have discussed this with many third parties. If you look at the original sock page you will see a person who discussed the matter and said the exact same thing: that this user abused his power. //] 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Have you read the section in question? Have you posted a ]? There's a specific place on ] for requests for comments about administrators. Have you sought mediation? Again, arbitration is the ''last'' step. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::*I have not seen RFC/USER before! Thanks for pointing that out. I will look into that and explore options there before I move forward with anythign else. Thanks much! //] 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
If Tecmobowl actually goes forward with an RFC, to try to get revenge on anyone who he regards as an enemy as per ], I can assure you that there will be a list of disgruntled users ready to do likewise against him. ] 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
== RFC for admin ==
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
Have i done right? I cannot tell if I need to add a template to it or not. I will notify various parties of the discussion once it is "properly" started. I will go ahead and notify the admin as he will be the one most affected. Thank you. //] 13:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
*So far so good. However, I should point out that I'll have new information to add to the report -- specifically, that re-running the Checkuser will confirm that you are the same editor as ]. I strongly suggest you're not going to get any satisfaction from the process; and I withdraw from any involvement in it, including answering procedural questions from you, as I'll be needed (a) to provide further Checkuser information if requested; and possibly (b) as an arbitrator when you find yourself dissatisfied with the RFC results. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
**Please explain to me how your checkuser case showed up with something new as I was out of the country the past week. My behavior is not the question here. Regardless of my denial, i was still deemed a sock and blocked. That is done. The issue isn't whether or not I am a sock, as the "system" has deemed me to be such. The issue is the behavior of an editor who clearly violated guidelines/policies (etc...etc...) //] 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
***I don't need to provide the details; suffice it to say you weren't sufficiently careful a few weeks ago, and that the original checkuser operator missed that. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Galopindeschamps ==
::So let me see if I have this correctly...even though you used socks and therefore violated guidelines and policies...that doesn't matter. What REALLY matters is that I didn't follow whatever policies you think I should have when enforcing those same guidelines and policies that you have violated. Nice. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:*I didn't use socks, you simply "believe" i have. I'm not going to argue that point anymore. The issue (SEPARATE FROM MY SOCK CASE) is YOUR behavior. My behavior and your behavior are NOT THE SAME THING! I am not going to make any more comments to you on another users talk page. //] 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::*Thank you, please don't. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::*Will you kindly answer my question. It is legitimate. //] 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Which question would that be? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::*You have said the user was not "careful". That is fairly non-specific. If you think I have logged in with the same IP, then do me a favor and email me a log of my IP history and that of El Redactor. I can be emailed through the system. //] 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::*I cannot do that, sorry. Checkuser evidence is confidential, as is the process (to prevent abuses; for example, I'm not going to help you improve your sockpuppeting skills.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::::*So you are saying you aren't willing to give the person who is a sock the proof? This situation is so warped. Although you will probably take this as a personal attack, I will say that people on[REDACTED] like you are childlike in your inability to adhere to the rules/guidelines/policies that you are supposedly here to support. You have again focused on me and not the issue at hand. If you want to focus on my behavior, you can do so. The topic at hand was an administrator who is violated those very same principles and who is now denying the existence (or at least skewing the interpretation) of documented (and public) information. He now won't even admit to being in a dispute with me. This system is a joke. It allows users like Baseball Bugs to do nothing more than follow me around, Irishguy to ignore his own responsibilities, and other users to spam their site while trashing me in their comments. //] 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
::PS - don't feel the need to respond, I am going to just unwatch this. Your handling of this is just as problematic as almost everyone elses. //] 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
*Bye. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


You recently blocked sockpuppets of Budisgood. Now there is another brand new editor ] working on the . I am hesitant about another sockpuppet investigation. What do you think? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== Um... ==


:Oh hell yes. CU-blocked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
::I reverted some of 'em, could you get the rest? (Gotta run.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, I will take care of it. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


What do you think of ]. To me it screams the same level of incompetence as Budisgood. See . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Could you clarify as an arbitrator, is me violating my arbitration, being a ] or just unhealthily obsessive? I get the feeling I'm just splitting hairs at this point.


:Yup, and another range CU-blocked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
] 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:Actually, I'm less comfortable with it as I think about it. Plus I've got a bunch of work I need to get done. I'm putting in for a voluntary ban for the next 2 days. ]


] from the past month (December 2024).
::Yeah, take a break. You're obsessing. (I figure, if you think you are, you are.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
==Antisemetic trolls==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
What can be done to handle blatantly antisemetic trolls like this ]? He does nothing but go around "exposing" individuals as Jews, to say nothing of his telling edit to ], which I believe set off your radar as well. I find the pattern of editing very offensive, but I'm having trouble finding the precise policy or guideline to explain why. Please advise. Regards, --] 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:] ]
*It's called ]; it's a pretty common form of expression of Jew-hatred. I've warned him pretty strongly; I'll just block him if it continues, as he's obviously an editor with the sole purpose of doing this. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
::Thanks for your quick assistance. --] 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== check what I write ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
I have add a lot of reliable source.I am not going to enter any war.But the section should be appeard.check it and see that I have supplied everything needed.Plus I removed my older link to the[REDACTED] article.Also ALM have just done cleans up according to his opinion. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
|]
*I am not interested in the content. You ''must'' familiarize yourself with ]. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
::See what I have written.And check for yourself.
|]
::I would like to add it again since I have made the change and for sure no reason to erase the whole section. I hope you will understand. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
|]
*Shrug. Someone else will get to take care of this; I'm going to play some poker. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
|]
**please see , Oren.tal's IP has resumed reverting. ] 14:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
}}
***Thanks. {{IPblock}}. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
==Open?==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
Are you open to an off-wiki discussion? Nothing sinister, or untoward. Just an exchange of questions/answers and ideas. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
]
*About what? You can use ] (over there in the left column), of course. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
==Factcheck21 blocked, userpage protected==
Greetings, Jpgordon. I hope you've been well. I am writing to you because a few minutes ago I blocked {{vandal|Factcheck21}} and protected the userpage, indefinitely. With respect to you raising the possibility that the user is not a native English speaker (as per the "Jewish pilots" bit), I think it's obvious based on the account's subsequent edits, mostly to biographies of living people from the United States, that the likelihood for that is remote. Irrespectively of that, it seems clear that the intention is to disrupt and provoke. Best, ] 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, good. I'd have done the same had I seen his loving comments to Beaker342, but luckily, sleep intervened. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
== Clarifying question ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
You said ] "Established by ''whom''?". Do you mean what a relevant need is? <font face="comic sans ms">]<sup>]</sup></font> 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
</div>
*I'll discuss such things on the arbitration page. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== emperors-clothes.com ==
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
The edit summaries say it all: . Nikola obviously isn't going to listen to arguments that emperors-clothes.com is an unusable source, and he's blatantly in breach of the article probation - I think it's time to block him. What do you think? -- ] 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
:Never mind. I just blocked him for 24 hours for re-linking to the emperors-clothes copyvios of ABC News stories, which he's now re-added twice (, ). You might want to consider whether further action is required over the violation of article probation on ]. -- ] 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::Best to list it over at ] -- let someone completely uninvolved stick their nose in. (I've been overinvolved in the Gil-White stuff, some might suggest.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:::OK, will do. Thanks for the input. -- ] 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== DreamGuy ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
The fact that you could make a decision without the other person's involved making their statements, nor without taking the time to view the evidence would appear itself "premature". I would appreciate your justifying your decision, beyond a single word and the obvious aquiescence to a long-time problem editor's protestations. --] 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
*I don't see any indication that sufficient other steps in dispute resolution have been attempted. Hence, premature. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first or even the second or third. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== I apologize == == User ==


@] Hi JPgordon, you recently unblocked this user ] and they claimed they had improved.. Well they dropped this on the talk page over a dispute claiming me and another editor are ''disruptively editing''...while they themself didn't actually read the discussion to see what the dispute was about. I'm not sure what would be done here, but giving you a headsup. ] (]) 18:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I delisted that CU request because of ]. I thought nothing else was needed. <font face="comic sans ms">]<sup>]</sup></font> 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
*Right, but there was nothing in the request in that one you just linked to that related it to the connections being looked for in the request I commented on. Now, try to parse ''that'' sentence. No big deal, by any means. But you shouldn't move things to "completed" unless a checkuser operator has given the final word; I only noticed it because an unfamiliar name (you) edited RFCU. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
**Ok, so you mean the one I linked wasn't really a compliant request with no "master" or other accounts in it, but the second one was? Also, I'm starting to get the hang of it, I just need to sit back and watch for a few days or so. <font face="comic sans ms">]<sup>]</sup></font> 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
***Well, I consider all "G" requests marginal anyway. Best thing to do when clerking is remember there's no hurry; and also, it's up to us checkuser operators to decide whether or not to accept cases. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
****Alright, will keep that in mind. <font face="comic sans ms">]<sup>]</sup></font> 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


:Thanks for the heads up. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== your warnning ==
::Ridiculous, I just pointed out how @] had been quoting an incomplete snippet and then misinterpreted the source, @] they are not presenting the full picture here, please do not judge my behaviour by this. ] (]) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
AA is not an administrator.Therefor I don't see any reason to let it stay.
:::I'm not. All I'm concerned about in your case has to do with what you were previously blocked for, not your editing disagreements. So I don't need this discussion here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
P.S. do you have any personal problem with me?] 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Understood, the discussion has been resolved now. ] (]) 07:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*Well, besides the fact that you refuse to do what everyone else does and put your new postings on the ''bottom'' of talk pages, and that you insist on using alternate accounts to evade blocks, and that you've taken to edit warring, and that you seem to have serious difficulty understanding Misplaced Pages policies regarding ], no, I have no personal problem with you. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


==Nikola Smolenski== == Master? ==


Hey JP, I just blocked {{noping|S344556}} as a sock. They were created two minutes after {{U|Risker}} blocked {{noping|Smart Sarno 1}} whose unblock request you declined. S344556 posted a cheeseburger to your Talk page (I reverted it), apparently a reward for your decline (smile). Anyway, who's the master? No one tags anyone. There are some others recently as well, also untagged. Thanks.--] (]) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears he's blown off what we've both said about linking to copyvios and unreliable sources. Please see ] - your comments would be appreciated. -- ] 19:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:I didn't even need to check. It's a sock of Smart Sarno 1. ] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*You probably should take off your admin hat for this one now -- no more blocking, get someone else to review and do it for you. Remember that it's not exactly a life-or-death matter whether TENC is linked to or not for a few days. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
::No, I meant who's Smart Sarno 1's master?--] (]) 01:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:10, 17 January 2025


Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.



The Signpost
15 January 2025

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Your signature

Could you fix your signature? Your talk page link has random box characters in them (which display "01D 122"). On another computer, it just comes as boxes. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would've uploaded an image but Commons kept saying that my file name was too generic (yeah right). TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Interesting that nobody has complained in the many years I've used those four unicode characters. Hey lurkers (do I have any lurkers? hello?), are my musical characters legible? --jpgordon 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Galopindeschamps

You recently blocked sockpuppets of Budisgood. Now there is another brand new editor user:Galopindeschamps working on the same articles as Budisgood. I am hesitant about another sockpuppet investigation. What do you think? The Banner talk 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell yes. CU-blocked. --jpgordon 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I reverted some of 'em, could you get the rest? (Gotta run.) --jpgordon 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I will take care of it. The Banner talk 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of user:Jetelasseraidesmots. To me it screams the same level of incompetence as Budisgood. See here. The Banner talk 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, and another range CU-blocked. --jpgordon 21:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User

@User:jpgordon Hi JPgordon, you recently unblocked this user User talk:Koshuri Sultan and they claimed they had improved.. Well they dropped this on the talk page over a dispute claiming me and another editor are disruptively editing...while they themself didn't actually read the discussion to see what the dispute was about. I'm not sure what would be done here, but giving you a headsup. Noorullah (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --jpgordon 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ridiculous, I just pointed out how @Noorullah21 had been quoting an incomplete snippet and then misinterpreted the source, @Jpgordon they are not presenting the full picture here, please do not judge my behaviour by this. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not. All I'm concerned about in your case has to do with what you were previously blocked for, not your editing disagreements. So I don't need this discussion here. --jpgordon 06:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Understood, the discussion has been resolved now. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Master?

Hey JP, I just blocked S344556 as a sock. They were created two minutes after Risker blocked Smart Sarno 1 whose unblock request you declined. S344556 posted a cheeseburger to your Talk page (I reverted it), apparently a reward for your decline (smile). Anyway, who's the master? No one tags anyone. There are some others recently as well, also untagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even need to check. It's a sock of Smart Sarno 1. Risker (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
No, I meant who's Smart Sarno 1's master?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Jpgordon: Difference between revisions Add topic