Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jpgordon

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user skj3ioo3jwifjsek35y (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 2 July 2007 (→my discussion page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:22, 2 July 2007 by Vanished user skj3ioo3jwifjsek35y (talk | contribs) (→my discussion page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 as well as the archives:

  1. /Archive 1

Kosovo article probation query

You'll recall that a while back the ArbCom placed all Kosovo-related articles on article probation (per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo) and you also participated in a mediation case regarding links to Francisco Gil-White's self-published essays (Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO). 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 Gazimestan speech with a greatly expanded and heavily sourced version. Unfortunately User:Nikola Smolenski has rolled it all back to the original version (which he wrote). His version is a combination of original research - 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 Talk:Gazimestan speech#New version, it's plain that he doesn't accept the results of the earlier mediation on the use of Gil-White's self-published polemics.

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 WP:RS. 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? -- ChrisO 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


my discussion page

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.Oren.tal 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) I am sorry I don't write that in the bottom but I just don't know so just erase it after you read. By the way my page is not article in wikipedia.Oren.tal 20:22, 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, >Radiant< 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).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

But what I'm here for is to thank you for restoring my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAr

I'm not sure where exactly is the right place to respond to your (temporary) decision at this RfA, 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.
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 here and here). What exactly do you want the Ombudsman to decide or do? SalaSkan 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. --jpgordon 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Diyako checkuser logs

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat 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 a reason to believe (, , ) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's[REDACTED] ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, 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 User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat 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. --jpgordon 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 Historian detained after his Misplaced Pages article is vandalized? 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: "The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages should not pretend that it is competent to write biographies of living persons without the subject's consent and cooperation." Surely there's a big difference for a recently deceased person. --AnonEMouse 20:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Shrug. Decency comes first, but that's my policy in all things. --jpgordon 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. Robustness Principle: "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. --AnonEMouse 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JP - you say "Decency comes first". How do you feel about the article on Israel Shahak, 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? PalestineRemembered 07:31, 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. Jayjg 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Misplaced Pages seriously needs your help Josh. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

hey...I need a favour...

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? Nat Tang 14:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar#Gr8India

With all due respect, I must protest your rejection of the checkuser request for Gr8India. 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.

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. JFD 20:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Might I ask you what you mean by "stale"? JFD 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't edited recently enough to have any more live tracks for checkuser. --jpgordon 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? JFD 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. --jpgordon 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"? JFD 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. --jpgordon 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. JFD 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, — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon I would like you to check out this ANI post on impersonation. There are numerous Hkelkar impersonators and BhaiSaab impersonators/socks out there now (including the one who called me a moron on the checkuser).Bakaman 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of My case

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. //Tecmobowl 21:10, 25 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. //Tecmobowl 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the next step in dispute resolution is discussing it with third parties. That's what I don't see you as having done. --jpgordon 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. //Tecmobowl 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:DR#Discuss with third parties to get a better idea. --jpgordon 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. //Tecmobowl 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the section in question? Have you posted a request for comment? There's a specific place on WP:RFC/USER for requests for comments about administrators. Have you sought mediation? Again, arbitration is the last step. --jpgordon 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! //Tecmobowl 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If Tecmobowl actually goes forward with an RFC, to try to get revenge on anyone who he regards as an enemy as per User:Tecmobowl/links#users harassing me, I can assure you that there will be a list of disgruntled users ready to do likewise against him. Baseball Bugs 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC for admin

Have i done this 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. //Tecmobowl 13:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • 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 User:El redactor. 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. --jpgordon 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • 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...) //Tecmobowl 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • 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. --jpgordon 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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. IrishGuy 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. //Tecmobowl 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Which question would that be? --jpgordon 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. //Tecmobowl 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.) --jpgordon 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. //Tecmobowl 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. //Tecmobowl 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Hi,

Could you clarify as an arbitrator, is this me violating my arbitration, being a dick or just unhealthily obsessive? I get the feeling I'm just splitting hairs at this point.

WLU 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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. WLU
Yeah, take a break. You're obsessing. (I figure, if you think you are, you are.) --jpgordon 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemetic trolls

What can be done to handle blatantly antisemetic trolls like this editor? He does nothing but go around "exposing" individuals as Jews, to say nothing of his telling edit to Jew Watch, 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, --Beaker342 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It's called yellow badging; 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. --jpgordon 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick assistance. --Beaker342 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

check what I write

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs).

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oren.ta (talk • contribs).

Open?

Are you open to an off-wiki discussion? Nothing sinister, or untoward. Just an exchange of questions/answers and ideas. Peace.Lsi john 21:11, 29 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 Factcheck21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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, El_C 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. --jpgordon 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying question

You said here "Established by whom?". Do you mean what a relevant need is? Kwsn 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

emperors-clothes.com

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? -- ChrisO 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Gazimestan speech. -- ChrisO 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Best to list it over at WP:AE -- let someone completely uninvolved stick their nose in. (I've been overinvolved in the Gil-White stuff, some might suggest.) --jpgordon 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, will do. Thanks for the input. -- ChrisO 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

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. --DashaKat 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. --jpgordon 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

I delisted that CU request because of this one. I thought nothing else was needed. Kwsn 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. --jpgordon 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. Kwsn 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

your warnning

AA is not an administrator.Therefor I don't see any reason to let it stay. P.S. do you have any personal problem with me?Oren.tal 17:35, 2 July 2007 (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 original research, no, I have no personal problem with you. --jpgordon 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Smolenski

It appears he's blown off what we've both said about linking to copyvios and unreliable sources. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Bruce Borland - your comments would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 19:49, 2 July 2007 (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. --jpgordon 20:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Jpgordon Add topic