User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archive index - Index of all archive entries. Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3

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

Wikigiraffes review

Thanks for your time. Josh, I apprecaite your looking into this for me. I'll wait patiently until you have reached your decision.

Wikigiraffes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.30.245 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Eh? Blocked user on my page? Begone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for reverse?

I was just wondering why you reversed this change? In my opinion, the current redirect is far from optimal. There are at least 2 better matching pages than the one where it's pointing to at this moment.

Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.96.242 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

hi fellow wikin or wikipedian my name is robert schmidt , i am new to this wonderful site and was reading about you i am also a musician(bass, vocal). i was browsing the site and noticed your edit hm..... forgery. do have any futher comment regarding the protocols. regards10:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what you mean. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Hello Jpgordon,

I was wondering whether you might have a source to remove the fact tag added by Ourben a few days ago [2]. I already looked among my books but couldn't find the one I was hoping to use. It's been a while since I seriously dealt with this topic, so I don't think I can do anything about this.--Caranorn (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's described in more detail in the section below, The Times exposes a forgery, 1921. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

True, could remove the tag on that basis alone. Will do that then.--Caranorn (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Please note that 2 arbitrators have opposed this case closing, but 3 arbitrators have voted in support for this case to close, with 2 of the 3 most recently. Hopefully it is closed soon. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)  Done and closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Homeopathy case can be closed now - the two remedies relating to SAB are the only ones that do not pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you (or to inform you, in case you didn't know) that one vote has been submitted in support of this case finally being closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo

Hy there. I noticed that you blocked User:Tigeroo for being a sockpuppet (sockpuppet= a second user account? - but you didn't wrote whose sockpuppet he is). I barely know him and I know nothing of his edits, or of sockpuppeting in general, but I would like to know more about sock puppets in general and of this case in particular. How can I check someone out, how can I prove it, and where should I complain? Flamarande (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just follow the link to WP:SOCK. It will explains most everything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor is asking for an unblock. Can we get some more info about the sockpuppet accusation? -- Ned Scott 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. Tigeroo has a history of sockpuppeteering to game 3RR. Take a look at his block log. The technical CU evidence was strong that he was doing it again, and in combination with the behavioral evidence was convincing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: ip block (User_talk:Akmg)

mind to elaborate on why 203.177.74.139 is supposed to be an open proxy? this is the ip dynamically assigned to me by my internet provider, globelines. i cannot do much about this. i don't use a proxy. i find it a little unfair to get blocked just like this, without any more information. thank you! Akmg (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• please see my follow-up. Akmg (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Axl

Hi Jpg - One of your range blocks caught Uer:Axl. It seems it's been giving him problems for a while. I've granted him IPblockexempt for the time being, but could you look at the threads on his talk page (generally titled "blocked") and let me know if there's any concerns about Axl himself? I've always been under the impression he's a good user, hence why I granted the IP block exemption, but you're the man with CU so you're probably more educated than I am. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• No concerns I can recall. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Hello. Are you by chance a follower of Peter Popoff? Feel free to write me if you wish. Thank you. JimmyWuzHere (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• ^ He's asking for an unblock review, but I gather he was blocked based on a CU? See User_talk:JimmyWuzHere. –xenocidic (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jpgordon, please remember to use an informative block summary when you block users, especially for sockpuppetry. I review a lot of unblock requests, and sockpuppetry blocks especially lead to many requests that are basically impossible to review without a block reason. Mangojuice^talk 13:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Abusing multiple accounts" is a block reason. Often we have no idea who the sockmaster might be, and it doesn't really matter. I don't block people for sockpuppetry without checkuser evidence. This one was a cluster including:

1. HumpyNoRegardLives (talk · contribs)
2. HumpyNoRegard24 (talk · contribs)
3. HumpyBoregard (talk · contribs)
4. Terminator148 (talk · contribs)
5. PhillipJFry575 (talk · contribs)
6. Thatwazezee101 (talk · contribs)
7. Terminator14 (talk · contribs)
8. TimmyGanton42 (talk · contribs)
9. TonyGanton46 (talk · contribs)
10. TerryVanHeigar27 (talk · contribs)

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Abusing multiple accounts" is an uninformative reason: it gives the reviewer nowhere to start to confirm it. Sometimes such blocks can be understood if an RFCU links to the user's talk page, but blocks like this reveal absolutely no information. I realize it can be tricky to identify the puppet master, and pointless, because if one person is operating many accounts, it doesn't really matter which one we point to as the "main" account. However, pointing to at least one other account would make a big difference to those of us who review these blocks... even knowing you have checkuser evidence. I want to process these unblock requests rapidly and diligently, but the lack of information in your block summaries prevents me from doing so in many cases. And those cases cause work for many other admins, since they remain on the short list of users requesting unblocks. Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'll consult with the blocking admin" suffices in those cases; clearing RFU isn't a contest (if it were, I'd be near the top of the list), and if I've blocked someone for abusing multiple accounts, the chance of their being unblocked is quite low. I can think of two false hits on my part, both cases being the sole good user on an IP full of abusers, since I started doing checkuser duty. And both of those cases were patient and understanding and didn't mind the little bit of extra time it took for me to study the case, examine the editing histories, and conclude I'd been wrong. But I'll just say "unknown master" when the master is unknown. Or I'll lie and say the master is unknown if I feel like denying some wanker the benefit of being noticed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What I take from all this is that if you see a block by jpgordon with the stock reason "Abusing multiple accounts" you can safely decline the unblock request with the reason "Compelling checkuser evidence". (Unless there is a preponderance of good faith edits from the user, in which it may be a rare exception as noted above) –xenocidic (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Special enforcement on biographies of living persons

I apparently cannot comment on your avowed support for this measure on the page where it is expressed, so I will ask here if you will explain your support for this "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal..." measure.

Can you give me an example of an edit that would satisfy all Wiki policies except WP:BLP? I believe it would be less than obvious that this hypothetical edit, which complies with all other policies, would be in need of deletion (and thereby demonstrating a need for an additional policy that would support such deletion). There is another way of asking why WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:NPOV are insufficient such that WP:BLP is required. If an article is unfavourable to a subject, why not just apply WP:NPOV to correct this problem?

My second question is to ask why you see this "special enforcement" as your responsiblity when WP:OFFICE already seems to have taken on that responsibility (and more). May I refer you to the WP:OFFICE language which indicates that not only does the OFFICE reserve the right to intervene with respect to the "threat of legal action", but "in other cases it may be simply as a courtesy". See also the language which says the OFFICE will intervene in "questionable or illegal" situations, as opposed to just illegal. Similarly, see "prevent legal trouble or personal harm".

Yet it is your position that the OFFICE has nonetheless so limited the orbit of its responsibility that YOU have to step in? To protect the interests of Jimbo Wales?

My final question would be to ask how your position does not further aggravate a Chilling effect (term). Bdell555 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer not to have policy discussions on my user talk page. There are better, more visible venues if you wish to have this conversation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

like where?Bdell555 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in for Josh here, I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log or Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as better forums. MBisanz ^talk 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me, however, that this is the place closest to the point of origin of these "special enforcement" measures where one might ask a creator/supporter of the measures about the origin of the measures, since it is unclear whether Jpgordan is going to address my questions on any of the pages you mention, MBisanz.Bdell555 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll add that I believe it was Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) who composed the remedy in question, that Josh later supported, and that in general, Arbcom members are normal volunteer editors like all of us, so if they choose not to engage in further discussion, that is their option, now you could file a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Request template for all other requests which would force them to address and elaborate on the issue, but I think Kirill has expounded on it at length at his talk page and/or some of the other pages I linked to. MBisanz ^talk 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The creation of this page will hopefully address the questions that various users have raised..Bdell555 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hy there (again). I need your help, please. I found the following: Category:Caesar's legions and resolved to fix it. My reasons were/are the following: 1st) It is simply a enormous over-kill to sort some of the Roman legions by their commander (most of these legions had more than one famous commander - that's why I honestly think this action was simply foolish). 2nd) The Category:Roman legions was and still is the proper place to sort every and all Roman legions. 3rd) If we begin to sort the legions by their commanders we will end up with dozens upon dozens of largely useless categories which will list many legions several times (Ceasar's legions, Antony's legions, Octavian's legions, Galba's legions, Vespassian's legion, Constatine's legions, etc ad absurdum).

I looked at the history of the category "Caesar's legions" and found out that this was the recent creation of a single user. I checked his contributions and discovered that he was also the one who sorted the legions in the new category (no big surprise, and honest, if too-eager work). However I'm simply unable to understand what steps I have to follow to propose the deletion (obliteration) of the category. I read some of the pages but to be honest I was unable to make head or tails with them. Could you help me? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CFD#How to use this page should get you started. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone (I'm guessing that it was you; in the case that it wasn't you thanks anyway) deleted the category already. Everything seems to be fine now. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret trials

I must say I'm deeply disappointed that you'd be party to crap like that. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - this refers to the Orangemarlin case (evidence). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see...I take it this means that it is one of many? Lovely. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusions there, certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[3] leaves us all confused. Please help to clarify. Is FT2 correct or is KL correct or is there some as-yet-unexdplained magic which allows them both to be correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Massive miscommunication, basically. I'm trying not to exacerbate it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

The author of the article available at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p287_Kubek.html holds a PhD in American Diplomatic History and has served as Chair of the Department of History and Political Science at the University of Dallas. I would note that all the substantive claims of fact in the article are in turn duly cited to reliable sources. This author has numerous citations at scholar.google and was invited by the United States Senate to author an introduction to a Senate report.

You have reverted an edit of mine cited to this source in the past saying your rejected the source and I was wondering if you would continue to do so. If you think this particular source is unreliable, under what conditions would it be reliable? If it would NEVER be reliable, why is it not indicated in WP:RS that certain sources are 100% unusable in all circumstances with this one enumerated? Would you be willing to edit WP:RS in order to make it clear that certain sources are, in fact, entirely inadmissable in Wikimedia and identify this source a one of them? I am raising the issue here, and suggesting it be taken to WP:RS if necessary, because it appeared that the content of my edit, to which this source was a footnote to, and by extension the article in which it occured, was irrelevant to your consideration.

I believe that if there is a difference of opinion on this issue, changing WP:RS to support your view would allow for community input into your view of WP:RS. As it stands now, the information I've given above indicates that the source satisfies WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are correct that my position (which has been consistently upheld) is that fruits of a poisonous tree are poisonous; that a site dedicated to perpetuating falsehood is by definition unreliable, and that any information gleaned from such a site is usable solely in articles about that site. Holocaust denial sites as a class are unusable as sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Upheld"? By who? The only upholder that matters here is WP:RS and other collaboratively determined policies. Neither you nor I make policy unilaterally. I thus ask, again, where in WP:RS is your position supported? Even if this content were a "fruit", your reasoning would be a classic example of the Poisoning_the_well fallacy. But it isn't a "fruit" in the first place because none of my (or the cited source's) claims follow from any assumptions about the Holocaust. If there is an entire "class" of sources that are "unusuable", I again challenge you to put that into the WP:RS for the whole community to discuss (and also create a section titled "indisputable facts which disprove sources instead of the other way around" with "Holocaust" as entry #1). If everything from any given website is of the same level of reliability, then if the New York Times has a comment section and some crank denies the Holocaust, a citation of that crank's comment has all the credibility, or lack thereof, of the New York Times. Tell me again that you truly believe that's how WP:RS works.Bdell555 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I started this topic here because I thought it could be resolved quickly. Evidently that won't be the case. I'm going to accordingly try to raise the issue on WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, WP:RS's Talk page doesn't seem right because it will seems I'm responding to a user instead of the policy. I don't know where I'm supposed to go if you don't want to discuss policy here so I'll try and take this to Holocaust Denial's Talk page, which is not any kind of suggestion that I believe Holocaust Denial is nearly as relevant to this particular issue as you claim.Bdell555 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been upheld by the community every time the issue of "can we link to holocaust denial sites" has arisen. If you wish to go through the exercise again, have fun, but I'd be surprised if you get much support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a prohbition in WP:RS then?Bdell555 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the whole section, where you will see "... unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources". That is absolutely and unequivocally the case here, as the material I'm citing has been published in full by the United States Government Printing Office. To ignore this "unless" clause is to simply ignore WP:RS. And this assumes that this particular section of WP:RS applies at all, as I explained on the other page.Bdell555 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to continue discussing this with you; I don't have anything new to add to our conversation of a year or so ago. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the point of a revert war. How about arbitration?Bdell555 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)