User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 6
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Unblock my Accounts
I don't see how we sockpuppeted. If you agree, can you please unblock my accounts? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Shot yourself in the feet, and shot yourselves in the foot, would do too. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Reguarding the ban of Rob-Oblong
Hello,this is Robert Parrish,for some reason ive been accused of using "multiple accounts",not sure why My accountUser:Rob-Oblong was banned,because that was my only account up until i made this one to inquire why the first was banned,seeing as didnt sign up an email address because i wasnt expecting to be randomly targeted and attacked).seeing as really havn't made any edits,there was another issue as well everytime ive logged on it says my ip is blocked for vandalism? I've never vandalized anything and resent this greatly,and now my account is blatantly being bannned for no reason,it seems like wikipedia is being run by a bunch of loose cannons with an itchy ban button finger who are making it quite complicated for the average joe to use wikipedia. You see, i dont have a problem,it would just be much appreciated if you unbanned my account ,thanks. RobP1989 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please use an {{unblock}} request on the blocked account's talk page. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
User:CantorFriedman
I'm not sure, but I think this User:TomasCantorFriedman might be a sockpuppet for the above.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tomas Cantor Friedman. Please unblock my account! I have not done anything wrong! Whats a sockpuppet? In any case i'm really not any puppet!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- And you're also User:Arn Cantor, User:Tosses and User:CantorFriedman; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I have an explanation for that, even if it sounds kind of corny. I had a account named Tosses but I realized that "Toss" or something like that is a sexual behaviour, something &#%#%#. So I created the account Arn Cantor because I'm related to Arn, a figure like Beowulf(believe it or not). Anyway, I forgot my password and had not linked the account to any mailadress. So I created the account CantorFriedman, which is my name. Then that account was blocked indefinitely. So I created the account TomasCantorFriedman = also blocked for obvious reasons. But please, 3 of the accounts are named almost the same. Arn Cantor, CantorFriedman, TomasCantorFriedman. This just because I did not want to deceive anyone. Is there any way I can clear this and start over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- This would be a lot more believable if you hadn't been alternating between the Tosses and CantorFriedman accounts on the same articles at the same time. I imagine the account User:Cantor is your as well? --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No I can't remind me of creating a account named Cantor! I only altered between Tosses and CantorFriedman when I got a angry hate message(or what you call it) on my talk page. I don't recall altering on any other site except when I stopped using the Tosses account and started writing with my CantorFriedman account. Is there a way to start over or am I forever banned from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- You should appeal your block at User talk:Tosses, while logged in as Tosses. You'll have some explaining to do, because we really really don't like it when people use multiple accounts abusively. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
But I don't want the account Tosses because of, you know. And secondly, I can't edit my talk page while logged in because the account are blocked indefinitely! So that means I can't appeal my block!! Moment 22! Have you got some other advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see, if I appeal the block at Tosses(and hoping for the best), is it possible to change the username afterwords? PS. Thank you for just not ignoring me! DS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The appeal is mailed to [email protected], :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing stopping you from logging in as User:Tosses and appealing from User talk:Tosses; blocked users can generally edit their talk pages to make appeals. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't edit anything when logged in as Tosse, I had to mail the appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Feedback
Saeedrags (talk · contribs) left an odd note at my talk page (and some others)...I know it's hardly standard operating procedure to run a check on an account at that account's out-of-the-blue request. Frankly, I'd like to know why and have asked as such. I just wonder what you might think of the situation... Thanks, — Scientizzle 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
RfC Michael Collins
I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't this crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I am Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. ---
Request for lifting of restriction
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Banned editor ptmccain at it again
My good fellow editor and helpful administrator: Please look at the Book of Concord page. Banned editor Mccain is again attempting to edit it. I think we need to make the article protected from editing by anonymous editors unless someone wants to lift the indefinite ban. I for one would not be in favor of lifting the ban. His latest sock puppet is the IP address: 75.8.92.141[2]----Drboisclair (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Note suggestion
Plagiarist
You stole my block summary without attribution. Are those covered under the GFDL? I guess it's cool, though, since I'm your sockpuppet. MastCell Talk 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
IP 188.225.180.251
Hi Jpgordon, IP 188.225.180.251 continues to vandalize
- Doesn't seem like vandalism to me; seems like a good-faith content dispute regarding the nomenclature, and some tendentious POV-pushing as well. Anyway, the usual thing to do would be to bring it up on 21:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I called it vandalism and brought it to your attention was because he was previously blocked by you for doing the exact same thing. My bad, Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I called it vandalism and brought it to your attention was because he was previously blocked by you for doing the exact same thing. My bad,
Survey
Hi Josh,
I am a PhD student at the
Haplogroup mtDNA K
Why are you locking the page from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because you're a banned editor; therefore, you shouldn't be editing it at all, much less edit-warring over it. Pleased stop editing Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
More User:Brunodam
Hello JP, I hope you are well. Bruno has opened a couple more accounts recently - User:Olvenetian, User:2Lauderdale (apparently retired) - as well as the IP address 12.185.127.9. Once again I'll open an SPI case if you would prefer me to do so. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done for the accounts; the IP seems rather different, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- 207.69.137.27 and Special:Contributions/209.215.160.106 are also clearly the same user, judging by their edits to Sub-Roman Britain.--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your attention once again JP. It earned me something of a rebuke on my talk page though [3]. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- 207.69.137.27 and Special:Contributions/209.215.160.106 are also clearly the same user, judging by their edits to Sub-Roman Britain.--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ratel
Re: [4]: interesting. A quick skim of that page didn't show any struck-out edits; is there a sock-puppet investigations page for the details? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. It was a private request, and it was just a couple of the snowballed "keeps". I'm not even sure why he bothered. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
- Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
- Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
- From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
- User:Fladrifis (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
- Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: comment at Circumcision
Please accept my apology about "put up or shut up", but I hadn't appreciated you were an uninvolved editor nor involved in the investigation about the user concerned. It came soon after a similar comment by an involved editor on the page, who when challenged for making a similar statement had not substantiated his comment. I have had no contact with the user who has now been blocked before a request to contribute to the discussion a week or so ago. What concerns me is that this request cam from an IP within the range that have been identified, but looking at the contributions of that user, the only overlap is with the circumcision article, and there are two IPs where these requests for input come from, so one can reasonably assume they are one and the same user:
- 172.190.204.241
- 172.191.234.191
However, what strikes me as odd is that this IP user also included the user he is supposed to be the sock of in the list of people he requested to contribute. If you look at the user's comment on his own block, he seems completely oblivious of his being blocked for using IPs - but talks about an association with some other user who was not even included in the alleged sockpuppetry. I would be concerned if this user was subject to an investigation without being informed of this. I was not aware of it, and I can find no discussion of this recent investigation on his talk page, so am left wondering by the lack of response to the accusations, which if he was not aware of the procedure, how he could have responded? I have to bow to your experience in these matters, but I am left wondering how far we can be sure all of this is the same user as the one who has been blocked, and not a new user with a similar perspective? During the discussions I did not get the impression that these IP edits were the same individual as the blocked user - but I guess I wasn't looking for that at that time. Mish (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, but I'm not that thin-skinned; "put up or shut up" is only bothersome when the target has nothing to put up. I explained over on the Circumcision talk page that we're deliberately quite vague about what technical information is available through checkuser. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, I was a UNIX systems admin for ten years, and I was intrigued as to how one could pin a DHCP assigned address to a particular user without having access to the system that assigned the IP address. It would be theoretically possible if you had access to the MAC address of the network card on the PC being used, but that information is not available via WHOIS. So, I was unclear how it could be established. However, I looked into User:Yris edits, and initially they seem to be completely independent of the editing history of the user in question, until the last edit made, which seems to follow on from the requests from the IP addresses I detailed above. So, I guess this could be a different user who began editing anonymously, then created an account - or... it was who you say it was, concerned he would be blocked again, and setting himself up with a new account to try and get round the block. My feeling at the moment is that given it started with circumcision and ended there - you may well be right; I am disappointed with the user if that is the case - one thing I have learned about these policies is that they do tend to curb the worst of our potential behaviours. But, part of me also hopes we haven't just blocked a new editor who was starting go about things the wrong way. Not my problem. maybe one day Wikipedia will entrust me with some of its secrets, but the libertarian-anarchist within doubts it.
- I do have another question, unrelated to this topic: out of interest and for future reference, if one finds oneself in editorial conflict with an administrator, and they respond with profanity and incivility - what is the correct procedure to follow? Mish (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ted Gunderson
I appreciate your balanced observations and hope you will weigh in on this. User DougHill has been inserting a conspiracy theorist category onto this page for retired FBI SAC Ted Gunderson. I'd like to clean this page up and get rid of the unreferenced material, but I think it will be an uphill climb when another editor is insisting that Mr. Gunderson's only notability is as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks! Winksatfriend (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
Unprotection
Can you please unprotect User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang? Sorry. I am sorry if what I said in User talk:Bowei Huang was inappropriate. I promise that I will never say anything inappropriate there again. I promise that I will never make any more requests for unblock there again. I promise that I will either leave User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang blank or redirected if you unprotect them. So can you please simply unprotect User talk:Bowei Huang now? Can you please simply unprotect User:Bowei Huang too?
Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- No. Please stop bothering me. If you want the page unprotected, go to 03:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
DeeKay64
Thanks so much for unblocking me! ;-) Can you tell me what I have to do now to get my 1541 Ultimate article back, which was deleted without any discussion whatsoever? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- You'll need to go through 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
ResearchEditor sockpuppet
[5] Not really worth a sock check, it's already thrown away.
- Yeahbut, he often creates them in bunches (like this time.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bunches? I only found this one but more might turn up tomorrow (the search function seems to be delayed by a day or so - you probably know more about it than me). I did a couple searches and checked the history of some likely page but that's the only one I've seen so far. If I see more, I'll let you know. Thanks for the block. complex01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bunches? I only found this one but more might turn up tomorrow (the search function seems to be delayed by a day or so - you probably know more about it than me). I did a couple searches and checked the history of some likely page but that's the only one I've seen so far. If I see more, I'll let you know. Thanks for the block.
More Brunodam
Hello JP, Bruno's back, with this tomfoolery [6], and as User:Old1980s, whose user page bears an uncanny resemblence to his old sock User:DuilioM, and whose editing interest bears an uncanny resemblence to Bruno. Thanks for your attention as always, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- (Comment from banned user removed) Yup, got that one and a few more. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks, as always. Seems to have been a stick into a hornets' nest, that one. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
SheffieldSteel has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thank you for your efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm
You did unblock 1 party in the edit-war, but I had declined the
Grand Union (supermarket)
So it seems that one day after the semiprotection you put on this article expired, the same anon editor keeps attempting to add te same unencyclopedic list of former locations. In short, I think either the anon needs a block or the page needs an extension of semiprotection. oknazevad (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's no fun. I did block the most recent IP; perhaps that will deter him for a bit. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
When BLP meets NPOV
Thanks for the considered comments earlier. I still think I was right, but you made me think a lot about it, so maybe I would take a slightly more lenient line the next time. Unlike a football referee, I am obliged to explain my administrative decisions promptly and honestly. I especially enjoyed the booger-eating salt monkeys comment. Incidentally, I noticed your user page states that you are against "ironically", "interestingly" and "it should be noted that". I share this aversion, and another one I have noticed increasingly since I started looking is "however" used as connective tissue in flabby writing.
- X was born in Footown, Ruritania; however, he spent his formative years in Fulchester, Unified Stations, ...
Take care, and thanks again for your thoughtful comments. --John (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Klangranger
Did you intend to block Klangranger indefinitely? I'm only asking because you tagged Klangranger as indefinitely blocked but the account hasn't been blocked yet. Elockid (Talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks :D
Thanks again for your help. Btw, did I ever share this one with you? I came across it on recent changes patrol. It's my favorite vandal thing: Look at the title of the article.[7].
Hey Jpgordon, Arunvroy (talk · contribs) is suspicious as well. The account hadn't made an edit in over two years but showed up today at Talk:Ahatallah advancing exactly the same opinion as the recently blocked Fyodor and his socks.[8] Cheers, --Cúchullain t/c 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
SPI on GregJackP
Could you clarify your comments on the other accounts per my last comment at the SPI? I freely admit to the account dealing with the crazy/scarey people, but haven't created any other accounts and don't understand what you are referring to. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Request
Hi. Could you possibly delete this GA review from the sock puppet you recently blocked? The review was incomplete, and even if it wasn't, I'd rather have a fresh one from an honest, credible reviewer. -- James26 (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not sure why. There's nothing even conceivably dishonest or incredible about asking for link fixes and a reference, considering he was correct; all it needs is for someone to review the prose, and that's also not troublesome. Am I missing something? --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose my initial thinking was that it would bring undue attention to the page/review -- which wasn't something I wanted under these circumstances. But having rethought things, you may have a point. Perhaps it's not such a big deal, as it doesn't seem to have made a difference. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your suggestion. The unblock request was approved. --
- Happy to help. Most of the time, when working with the unblock requests, I have to say "no no no". I'm so glad to occasionally be able to do something else. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Impressive work
Nice Martin BTW, Koa? 71.108.127.244 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Blackson
- Not mine -- I was just restoring the image that had somehow been removed. My main Martin uke is a 1940 or so T-1, all mahogany, less photogenic. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Lovegames
{{
Simulation12 socks
One of those socks created by Checker Fred wasn't this was it? --AussieLegend 14:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, there were seven new socks there, now blocked and tagged. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
More Gun Powder Ma problems, now on ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gun_Powder_Ma_repeated_NPA. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
CullVernon's block review
I noticed that you restored the content of CullVernon's talk page, so he couldn't impede the unblock review. Well, he blanked it again... 76.123.241.114 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there's no unblock request, I don't care if its talk page is blanked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, that I'm having an issue with this one guy
- Actually, I don't think they really belong there; on the other hand, my wife is on the KERO list, so I guess that makes me neutral by way of conflicting biases! --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Adam613
He's suddenly come out and requested unblock after almost two years. I can't the similarities to the alleged sock or puppeteer in the editing history. But since this is a direct block, was Checkuser involved? Is there something I can't see? Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there is, I sure can't see it either. And it doesn't make much sense; that account hadn't made an edit in almost a year before that block, so there can't have been any checkuser data leading to it (and, indeed, the log comes up blank.) I imagine I had a reason, but I've sure got nothing to support that reason now. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request (User iaaasi)
Hello
My original account (User:iaaasi) is completely blocked, consequently I cannot make a request from there. I have a dynamic IP (79.117.xxx.xxx).
A more detailed motivation for my request would be here [9]... The main reason why I had recourse to sock accounts was that I was falsely accused to be User:Bonaparte (maybe without that accusation the problem would have been simpler)... I regret a lot that I chose that way...
Please give me a new chance at User:iaaasi and I promise I will not create problems. User:Rokarudi from WikiProject Hungary can confirm that I am a good faith editor and I am not against Hungarians
I am ready to be supervised by you or another admin and my edits to be under a strict control if you think it is necessary.
I will be grateful if you will help me(79.117.150.47 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
More Don Murphy problems
Two apparent sleeper sockpuppets have emerged and are causing further disruption - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. It would be helpful if you could assist with resolving this speedily. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Give Mr. Murphy's approach to dealing with adversity, I'd just a soon spread the risk here some. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Six month block of 98.223.95.42
Hi Jpgordon, I got an email from a user claiming to represent this IP, asking whether we could lift the block. I looked at the sockpuppetry discussion for the user, and I do think that a six month block is a bit heavy. I think a shorter block of say one month would be sufficient time to see if the user cools off and graduates from their current position to a become a better contributor. What do you think? --Zippy (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The block on the IP is to prevent the indefinitely blocked TVFAN24 from continuing to create block evading sock puppets. The only reason it isn't indefinitely blocked is that we try to avoid doing that to IPs. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I got an email similar to Zippy's. I don't see the reason for the indefinite ban on her account, yes she created some socks but the socks should be blocked, she should be warned not to use them any more and then a timed block on her main account. To me it just looked like sock was shouted and everything she had was banned. Also if you look at the edits that originated this dispute it appears to me that the person who was edit warring with her pulled a wheel war and got her blocked in the first place, that led to the socks. I don't mean to second guess you I can see why she would frustrate you just trying to give it some fresh eyes. I was going to get to notifying you when I got your message. --talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, late to the party here. Thank you for bringing me up to speed. Why is TVFAN24 indefinitely blocked, rather than blocked for a limited period? --Zippy (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I got an email similar to Zippy's. I don't see the reason for the indefinite ban on her account, yes she created some socks but the socks should be blocked, she should be warned not to use them any more and then a timed block on her main account. To me it just looked like sock was shouted and everything she had was banned. Also if you look at the edits that originated this dispute it appears to me that the person who was edit warring with her pulled a wheel war and got her blocked in the first place, that led to the socks. I don't mean to second guess you I can see why she would frustrate you just trying to give it some fresh eyes. I was going to get to notifying you when I got your message. --
- OK. I see now. Naughty. What's the primary account for TVFAN24? --Zippy (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- TVFAN24 is the primary account. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to see a temporary (month+) block on the primary. The user's most egregious behavior is sock puppetry, and I think that with the sock puppets banned and the IP address blocked from creating new accounts, it would be reasonable to put a definite rather than indefinite block on the primary. I realize WP:SOCK gives us the flexibility to perma-block the primary, but I'm generally in favor of giving users additional lengthening blocks on bad behavior to give them an opportunity to reverse their ways. What do you think? --Zippy (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I do believe the user has other strikes against them - canvassing against a ban and probably not owning up to sock puppetry too. So I'm just speaking about general discipline issues in this case, rather than with much knowledge of the specific case, aside from what I've read over the past day or two. --Zippy (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to see a temporary (month+) block on the primary. The user's most egregious behavior is sock puppetry, and I think that with the sock puppets banned and the IP address blocked from creating new accounts, it would be reasonable to put a definite rather than indefinite block on the primary. I realize
- TVFAN24 is the primary account. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I see now. Naughty. What's the primary account for TVFAN24? --Zippy (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm working with her and, let's just call it an experience. At this point I told her if I saw some changes I would be willing to give her credit for "time served" and end it at month end but this far she's been very enthusiastic to get back at it and "fix" things. I'm going to keep at it and see where we get at I'm hopeful I can work with her but it's tough going at present for certain. --
Autoblock
Shortly after Sandstein blocked the user, an autoblock appeared in the IPBlocklist. Would it make sense to run a check to see if any light may be shed on this? –xenotalk 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Mind if I tag those sockpuppets? --Bsadowski1 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, but who's the sockmaster? --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- More likely it's "talk"22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- More likely it's
Unblock
Hi there, thank you for reversing the decision to block my account because of my nephew. I can assure you he's been given a good hiding and he's gone home now anyway so it certainly won't be happening again. Next time he comes here he will find my modem power cable missing unless he learns how to behave and use my computer appropriately. Thank you again. Crazy-dancing (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What's now?
Thank you for running this thing: [10], but what should be done now?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine one of the CU clerks will review, tag and block as appropriate. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible for you to perform the CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin as they seem to have recieved a lot of attacks in the past two hours? Thanks. Kevin Dorwin (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Article unblock request
Hello, Josh, I believe that the problem with Book of Concord has ceased, so if you would and are able, please remove the semiblock. I leave it to your discretion. I hope all is well with you in your beautiful environment.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanx, Josh, but I think that ArbCom will be the poorer without your guiding hand. That is if I haven't misunderstood what you have resigned from a year early.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was a year and a half ago! I'd be done now anyway. It was a task I wasn't cut out for at all. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of User:Jcarleo
Maybe User:Lizardlocker should make the list as well--please see their contributions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI
I didn't redact this impotent personal attack because I felt you'd be indifferent to it. If I was wrong, I apologize. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring the swipe. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at it this way. The "don't block by default" is a good rule, and I stick to it quite firmly; except in the case of clearly abusive editors. This was a clearly abusive editor, not here in any way to help build an encyclopedia, and obviously both spamming and trolling. There was no need to assume good faith with this editor. The softening of the block, with the comment "Allowing them to edit own talk page so that we can answer any questions they have about why they were blocked", seemed totally naive, based on the contribution history of the editor. Perhaps I have less tolerance for horsecrap than others? Dunno. I'll take your point regarding wheel warring under consideration; so far, any time I've noticed you talking about policy issues, you've been right, so you're probably right here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I admit I saw the exact reasoning given for the restoration of the talk page in the same light. "Restoring accidently removed talk page access" would have been my log entry. And if they posted anything other than a unblock request that specifically addressed the reasons for their block I probably would have taken it away again. While it probably was technically wheel warring, I never thought there was a malicious or disruptive intent to it, just pointing it out. Maybe it's just me, but I try to be very careful to avoid even the appearance of wheel warring because it can get soooo ugly when it is done during a dispute between two admins. talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I admit I saw the exact reasoning given for the restoration of the talk page in the same light. "Restoring accidently removed talk page access" would have been my log entry. And if they posted anything other than a unblock request that specifically addressed the reasons for their block I probably would have taken it away again. While it probably was technically wheel warring, I never thought there was a malicious or disruptive intent to it, just pointing it out. Maybe it's just me, but I try to be very careful to avoid even the appearance of wheel warring because it can get soooo ugly when it is done during a dispute between two admins.
Suspected puppetry
Dear Mr. Gordon
I'm so sorry for troubling you, so please accept my apologies in advance. I have two cases of suspected sock-puppetry to report. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is my "E-mail this user" link broken? --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- It appears to be. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please accept the apologies of a techno-peasant, who has trouble with modern technology, and thank you again for your time.--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It appears to be. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Hey Jpgordon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running a check on my account, because my edits keep being reverted as socks, but I'm not! I don't know what else to do because nobody seems to be listening. I just want to show them that I'm legit. Thank you Grignard4120 (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
User issues
There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals.76.177.47.225 (talk)
|
98.195.149.177 sock?
Hi, Josh. I noticed at User_talk:98.195.149.177 that you said this disruptive IP editor was a sock of a blocked user. I was wondering if it would be possible to identify which blocked user this is, so the fact can be mentioned on the IP address's user page. Apologies for my ignorance if there's some reason why this would not in fact be appropriate or helpful. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tend not to put such notices on IP user pages, since they are so transient. In this case, it's User:Antwerping (as well as User:Iwannadrawmohammed). --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Vermont libraries guy
Hi,
You blocked a long-term troll with an anon IP (159.105.80.141), resolving to Vermont, back in May (see Talk:David_Irving/Archive_6), and the same person is back on a slightly different IP: Special:Contributions/159.105.80.122, with the same abuse of talk pages and the same fringe views on familiar subjects. Can you block this one too? It's more of the same pointless trolling. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- If this is the same Vermont Library Guy, he's done something I've never seen before: edited a mainspace article. I'm not inclined to block, yet. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I hadn't noticed the mainspace edit. The writing style is very distinctive and I'm pretty sure its the same guy, though. I've got my hat-condiments ready in case he becomes a productive editor. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
SPI case
Hello. I was referred to you by User:PeterSymonds regarding my SPI case. I'm being completely honest with everyone. I used to frequently edit at a library down the street from me, but I recently obtained a laptop from my grandfather on Saturday, and I've been using that to edit ever since. I honestly don't know what else to do. I'm at a loss. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years, and I don't want to see that all go to waste just because of some coincidence. Please, understand. I haven't done anything wrong, and I'm not the owner of a sockpuppet. Thank you. WereWolf (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- What are we supposed to think? User:AcrossTheOcean was created at 20:07 on August 1. You commented User talk:AcrossTheOcean three minutes later, from the same IP, apparently on the same computer. You really need to be able to explain this. Put yourself in my shoes; what would you think happened? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know. This is a massive coincidence. I'm freaked out about it, too. I can't explain this because I don't know what's going on. I know this seems extremely suspicious, I can't argue with that. Please, just understand that this is a huge misunderstanding... WereWolf (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. I just can't believe it. Answer me this: how did you know User:AcrossTheOcean had created an account for you to post a welcome message to? --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Newusers. Why won't you believe me? This is just a mistake, and really bad faith on your part! WereWolf (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Facts:
- You've never put a welcome message on a new user's page.
- This user was on the same IP as you
- This user has all the same technical characteristics as you (from Checkuser)
- This user's first edit, a minute after you posted the welcome, was to support your featured list candidate
- That's why I won't believe you. Feel free to request another checkuser evaluate this; I'm standing by my conclusions. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Facts:
- Wikipedia:Newusers. Why won't you believe me? This is just a mistake, and really bad faith on your part! WereWolf (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. I just can't believe it. Answer me this: how did you know User:AcrossTheOcean had created an account for you to post a welcome message to? --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know. This is a massive coincidence. I'm freaked out about it, too. I can't explain this because I don't know what's going on. I know this seems extremely suspicious, I can't argue with that. Please, just understand that this is a huge misunderstanding... WereWolf (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
RE:Sugar
Thank you for notifying me on the actual problem and solving the issue. I appreciate it. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *YES! 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of User:Tosses
Hello, one of the IPs you have blocked as sockpuppets of Tosses is activ again. Mostly on Talk:Great Divergence, editwarring with User:Teeninvestor, which is also not easy to handle. The subject is ... dingdong ... China. Additionally is a new IP involved from the same range [12]. Maybe you can have a look on this. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Someone else got the new one. I've re-blocked the old one. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. There's now another one (81.226.72.209) from the same range editing in the same way. Kanguole 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- How boring. Blocked. --"talk"11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- How boring. Blocked. --
- Hi. There's now another one (81.226.72.209) from the same range editing in the same way. Kanguole 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like bwilkins did the IPBE thing, which is fine with me. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Name Request
I don't understand what was wrong with my requests and then for you to remove my talk page rights as well. User:FTP1690 --Rangers GSTQ (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
BigBodBad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
You recently indef blocked this user for being a sock. Who were they a sock of? I want to know so I can tag the pages appropriately.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:ANI#Block of WolfKeeper by SarekOfVulcan. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)) 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
Message added 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Talkback
Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at WikiSRW's talk page.
Message added 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Could you also clarify "as required above" tidbit. Because I don't see it either. Phearson (talk
- Yeah, I think I was misremembering seeing a usual username block notice, which would have had all those links. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Pastorwayne is back
User:Charlesdolphharding. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Gone. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am also suspicious of User:Willthacheerleader18. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Appears 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am also suspicious of User:Willthacheerleader18. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah...I'm not sure my brain was operating properly that day. I seem to have assumed there was a username block in place. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine
Have it your way, then. It was just a test edit, anyways; now I know about the sandbox, so I'll mess around with code there from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Enemies Within (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
TY
Thank You for adding your editing expertise on the Vernon article. Nader's POV was a bit over the top, on second look. Glad to make your acquaintance. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hiya! I've tightened it up a bit more. Vernon is one of my favorite peculiar topics, for some reason or another. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hiya Back! Vernon has many fascinating aspects, many yet unexplored. ( See note on talk page.) I "tightened" as much as I could. Any more suggestions? Read the "dynasty" story and tell me what you think. As we are 2 of the 3-4 people LOL interested in Vernon, I look forward to your remarks. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Harassment on my Talk Page
Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being listed as an "Admin willing to make difficult blocks," and would hope that you can warn him off, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on that list also, that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Unblock template
I see what the problem is, but it is lodged somewhere in the template itself, as the sandbox version doeds not exibit any problems. I will try and find out what it causing it. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. Lemme know what you figure out. Happy sleuthing! --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, "you're not supposed to use : anyway" was pretty much off-point; it really doesn't matter if people are not supposed to use : when they're entirely accustomed to using : on a talk page and other than in that one context it had no bad effects. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
More Brunodam
Hello Jp, warm greetings to you. I hope you are well. It's been quiet for a while, but Bruno's now operating a couple of new accounts (as far as I can tell that is, as a seasoned observer). I am certain beyond fear of contradiction that User:Everyreason1 and User:Consilinario are both naked clone alteregos of our banned former co-worker. Once again, if you think an SPI would be appropriate, please let me know, and I will gladly do the business, but I believe they may both be sent on their way without further ado. Many thanks for your attention, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- That you took a few moments or minutes of your time to attend to this is genuinely much appreciated. Those such as you that take on these tasks expose themselves to abuse and consequent burnout and so on and get little decent feedback, so I would like to take a moment to genuinely thank you for your time and trouble. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank You!
Thank for unblocking me! ^-^ Ora Stendar 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
At WP ANI, there is a discussion in which you may have an interest
Hello Jpgordon,
I would like to impart to you that user:Iaaasi, who has been blocked for indefinite time and some of whose sockpuppets were blocked by you like these for instance:[13][14], wants to request to be unblocked here:Proposed_unblock_of_User:Iaaasi.Regards--Nmate (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember ...
This nasty little anti-Semite? He's come up here. I notice he edits every day, either from 188.23.0.0/16 or 93.82.0.0/20 (pretty sure about that /20). I'm considering rangeblocking them, studying collateral damage. What do you think? Should we file an SPI, or can you take a quick look for any sockpuppets or an other IP ranges we might be missing? His daily edits are typical pro-terrorist, 9/11-conspiracy, "Wikipedia-is-Zionist", anti-Semitic crud, with occasional good edits mixed in. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone already opened a case; I mentioned this note there briefly, since you may be someone who remembers this user. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, when the same IP and username turn up at de:wiki [15] doing the same type of thing and using the same Commons image on their upages, do we have any protocol? Every wiki gets to make its own decisions, so maybe we should just leave other wikis alone? I've never come across this before... Franamax (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like someone already opened a case; I mentioned this note there briefly, since you may be someone who remembers this user. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Holocaust
Why are you specializing Japanese war crimes and deleting other countries?[16] Japanese policy was anti holocost, Japanese war crimes were no relavence to holocost.--Bukubku (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Same fool at Grand Union (supermarket)
Yep, that anon who keeps adding the list of former locations is back, having waited out the most recent page protection. I've already reverted him twice today, and will again in a moment (as 3RR doesn't apply), but it certainly could be usefull to either extend PP again and/or block this fool. Your thoughts?
Ten month old SPI case
Hi, Jpgordon. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51? You were the primary blocking admin back in December, and you've been referenced in this new case. This editor claims he was only blocked because he "played a joke on a friend", but after seeing this, it appears the block was for more extensive reasons. He admits creating another account after being blocked (a "new start" he calls it), and he admits he still edits from several IPs (he frequently "forgets to log in" he says), so proving the multiple account usage isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he is doing anything wrong; I was hoping you'd be able to offer some insight. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI -- potential SPI case
[Since your block notice is on the page of the UserID... and he can't seem to go 24hrs without writing something on WP!]— DennisDallas (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Democrat Party (phrase)
Hello,
I see you left some comments on the talk page of an article where I and some other editors had a dispute about the subject of the article. I have been putting together a formal review of the article, and clearly outlining its many problems. I intend, once completed, to again raise the issues with the editors. If they refuse to address them, and refuse a fourth request that they submit to mediation, I intend to seek administrator intervention to resolve the policy violations. I was curious if you might look at my analysis and tell me what you think. It is here User talk:Charles Edward/sandbox. I am heading to my library to obtain a couple of the books used as sources to farther check the article. If you are too busy, or averse to conflict (as I generally am) then I understand!
Thanks —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Your failure as an administrator
I would like to bring Chaser's help to your attention so you can see what you should have done. Further explanation is all I asked for, but you failed at that. Administrator's like Chaser are why Wikipedia is as good as it is. Administrator's like you are why Wikipedia will never be that good. I bring this to your attention so that you can strive to meet Chaser's example. Thank you, and have a nice day. 128.104.truth (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Barry Bonds
Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page.
WP:FOUR ) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks againFor the time you spent on my unblocking. -- talk ) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Rollback rights
Excuse meAbout trying to edit MuffinMan999's talk page, im MuffinMan999, im just blocked and i tried to contest my block because ive finally realised my mistakes and i just wanted another shot at wikipedia in which i would become a succesful contributor. I mean, sockpuppeting is very bad and can get you blocked should you abuse it. Please convey this message to Favonian and see what he makes of it, please.--89.241.166.137 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ha ha just edited!--89.241.166.137 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"New users" on my pages and JamesBWatson's.Any idea who this guy might be? HalfShadow 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet blockHello, complex 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
PingHi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Avoiding Sockpuppeteering MachnI know that word doesn't exist, but anyhow here goes. I lost my user when my computer crashed and was not able to login back in, so I created a new account and wanted to know if you would please allow me to continue to contribute to wikipedia. As I have made thousands of positive edits to wikipedia. Can I please continue to be allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Machnnn (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
RunningSooo... Any chance to convince you to try for arbcom (again)? - jc37 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Clarification requestWould you mind clarifying if this user was using a residential or a business address? I think this does not violate the privacy policy and would help determine the next steps. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi :)Fyi. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
PingJosh, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Unban request by (part of?) Thanks for your | ||||
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}. |
A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Whydelete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Σ talkcontribs 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Unprotection
I have asked Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the unprotection of User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang and they won't unprotect it. So can you please simply unprotect it for me?
I want everything to return back to before and normal as much as possible. I want to undo the changes as much as possible. I made a mistake and I want to fix it as much as possible. Please? So please? I beg you.
Can you please just deal with my desires just once? Please?
Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Bad edit
Thanks for picking up on and correcting my bad edit to User talk:Andycjp--don't know how that happened, sorry. This was the intended edit. --Macrakis (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I only noticed it because an unblock template snuck in. I wonder how that happened? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Three IPs being used by a banned user
I previously posted this to Timotheus Canens' talk page, but then I saw that Timotheus happens to be on an admin tools break.
I was looking through the edit history of the article 'Cold fusion', and found a suspicious user with a blanked userpage and talk page, named VanishedUser314159. I looked at the two pages' histories and saw that the user was previously named Joshua P. Schroeder, and ScienceApologist before that, and that he had been banned from editting by the arbitration committee earlier this year. I saw that FT2 pointed out that he had used the IP address 128.59.169.49 as a sockpuppet [51], which I noticed to be almost identical to an IP which had recently editted the cold fusion article- 128.59.169.46. Those two similar IPs are from Columbia University. I investigated further and found that the IP 128.59.169.46 has been used to edit several of the same pages that VanishedUser314159 had editted [52], and in the same way, indicating that it is clearly him. He hasn't behaved well under his new IP either, having been blocked twice for edit-warring and trolling, and having received numerous complaints on his talk page for his disruptive behavior. After digging further through the edit histories of the articles that Schroeder frequented, I found two more IP addresses that he uses: In the edit history of the article 'Parapsychology', I found the IP 128.59.168.240- another similar IP, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. In the edit history of the article 'Tired light', I found the IP 140.252.83.241, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. If there is any doubt that the latter IP is used by Schroeder (since the IP is not similar to the others), you can see in the user contributions that there are edits to the article 'Columbia University'. Rachel the nerd (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've blocked the most recent IP. The last two you listed haven't been used in months; let us know if they chime in again. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Rachel the nerd (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Upon further investigation, I believe that the user 128.59.168.240 is not Schroeder himself, but a friend of his from Columbia University, who has made only a few edits at Schroeder's request. 128.59.168.240's editting does not strongly resemble that of VanishedUser the way that the editting of the other two IPs does. Rachel the nerd (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Very observant Rachel and clever research! But it is dangerous business calling the cat a cat, owing to WIKIPEDIA:OUTING and harassment policy. An indefinite block happened to me, trying to draw attention to the same IP-user in June. And other users mainly active on the Swedish wp have recognized the VanishedUser's extreme mainstream pushing in some cosmology related articles and his being far from vanished. One pointed out the problem here and here not knowing how to check the prank. 140.252.83.232 (talk) and recently 209.2.217.202 are similar sock accounts. The problems are his many active edits that has not yet been reverted. / User:Kurtan 89.160.124.74 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)16:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Vrghs jacob again
I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob as he's started user accounts again. I've also mentioned your earlier check for range block. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff
- Very observant Rachel and clever research! But it is dangerous business calling the cat a cat, owing to
Leave my talk page alone
Pretend your mother taught you some manners. Deterence Talk 01:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Ring Cinema
User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
See link above. Does it look like this editor is Lombshi? -- Atama頭 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also I made this account to edit, just seems suspicious. Sorry to pester you but I figured you just recently did CU on Lombshi... -- Atama頭 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon. Hope you're well. A user is concerned with your recent unblock of User:08OceanBeach SD. Thought you might like to comment. For the record, I personally don't see any problems with the unblock. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
At least three IP:s being used by a banned user
You will recall your only block of 8 August. The VanishedUser is active again with 140.252.83.241 (talk) and it is just a week left until he is free to use his university IP again. 77.219.176.32 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
CU question
How much collateral damage would there be from rangeblocking 60.52.0.0/17? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looks to me like a lot -- there are many perfectly innocuous IP edits as well as new accounts who have gone on to make good edits. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Argh. We have a very persistent IP hopping vandal from that range. Oh well, thanks for the answer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it OK to blank a spoof user page?
Looking at an image used in one of my userboxen, I noticed it also appears on User:BeeKindRewind which is nearly a direct copy of my user page, as is User talk:BeeKindRewind. I see you blocked that user indefinitely, so I ask you: is it OK to blank those pages? Is there a better place to ask? cheers, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- No problem blanking such things; they're dead weight anyway. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh my, are you one of those just temperament dudes? --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually pretty easy, and would be hard pressed to tell just intonation from quarter-comma meantone or whatever else came up and bit me upon the left hand. Every now and then something strikes my ear as just plain wrong, though. I like it when singers hit their notes the way they are paid to do, and other musicians ditto. Now I will go blank those pages— thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh my, are you one of those just temperament dudes? --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Khazars
Hi! I undid my contributions, but I followed your advice: I removed the external link to the RovasPedia (despite of the fact that the RovasPedia is also correct). I also deleted the word "faulty". However, the widely acknowledged Prof. András Róna-Tas pointed out that the correct name is "Khavar" and not "Kabar". The reason of the mistake is the incorrect transcription of the original Greek text of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. Please, let me know if you see any further mistake in my contributions. I will fix them. Best Regards, --Rovasscript (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- You're edit warring. Also, please use the article talk page to discuss issues about articles. You are about to run into a brick well if you insist on referring to other editors as "vandals". --jpgordon::==( o )05:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I answered in the article talk page. --Rovasscript (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks a lot, Jpgordon for your support in helping me get unblocked. I feel great to be back to freedom on Wikipedia!!! Very happy to be unblocked. Thanks a lot. Jobin (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you sir for unblocking me. We, the new users of wikipedia, will take care that we will not violate the rules of editing... Feeling nice to see your user page... Happy editing sir...!!! Kaivalya 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaivalyas (talk • contribs)
Oingo Boingo Banjo
Josh:
Saw this in a shop window in Tokyo. Anything to do with you?
--Calton | Talk 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Unblock
Why was the account blocked? As an administrator it is your duty (and Daniel Cases') to follow Wikipedia guidelines. According to Wikipedia's policy: “Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.”
I did not engage in any problematic article editing and just started this account yesterday. Once blocked I cant communicate directly and Daniel has his discussion page blocked from editing so I cant respond to him with a new account. You and all the other editors/administrators need to respect the important work of others and if they violate a not so obvious guideline follow Wikipedia's policy not your own personal agenda.
Follow Wikipedia's guidelines by unblocking my account and encourage me to change my username (which I will). This is a community and you and the other administrators need to act in a responsible manner.
Ericwilliamh (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)murrowcenterEricwilliamh (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- First, if you wish for block evasion, which is not allowed and will not help your case. Please go back to User talk:Murrowcenter, request to be unblocked, and another admin will review your request shortly. —DoRD (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am just trying to get some important information on the site. The blocking of the username by an editor violated Wikipedia's own stated guidelines, so there is no explaining that away. It is a frustrating experience when the editors don't follow Wikiedia's own guidelines and then sit in judgment of my mistake. I could not respond directly to Daniel Case (the one who blocked the username) because he has his discussion board blocked.
I appreciate all the hard work the editors do, but the bottom line is that if they believe there is a violation they need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and clearly communicate with the user what they believe they need to do. One editor stated my entry was "promotion" and in no way shape or form did it espouse a value (the essence of promotion)...I was getting different responses from different editors. This is a community and the editors need to act in a responsible manner and communicate with users. Surely you can understand the frustration and time it takes to learn the basics of Wikipedia, create an account, post and have it all wiped away by a keystroke of an overzealous editor.
I appreciate your time please appreciate mine.
Ericwilliamh (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)EricwilliamhEricwilliamh (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to make this request, with your User:Murrowcenter account, on your user talk page; I will not be reviewing your next unblock request, nor discussing this here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Revisiting a stale issue
In an under-construction essay -- WP:Delegitimization as a tactic -- I mentioned two stale examples. I hoped that very old illustrative examples would be non-controversial.
Among those who had anything to do with a minor 2007 dispute, you appear to be the only one still active. Will you take a look at this:
- Delegitimization is a term used to describe is a kind of personal attack which is damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, e.g.,
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, 2007
Individual delegitimization. "' X ' has been relentlessly pursuing false sockpuppet investigations against me and against ' Y ' in an effort to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with him." (emphasis added)
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, 2007
Does this example make sense to you? Does it matter that I'm quoting the words of someone who is later banned as a sock puppet? Is the illustrative purpose served well enough? --
- I think it's a bad example, because X had been pursuing accurate sockpuppet investigations; there was no delegitimization occurring, just an accusation. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hadn't looked at it that way. In other words, you are telling me that this is an example of the use of the word, but not an example of what the word means. Before this, I did not recognize the conflating error. --talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC). Your unblock was lifted because he argumented that:
Edit warrior
Hello. You recently granted User:08OceanBeach SD an unblock (he was blocked for 1 week). He was blocked for edit warring and breaching the 3RR [53]
- Thank you. I hadn't looked at it that way. In other words, you are telling me that this is an example of the use of the word, but not an example of what the word means. Before this, I did not recognize the conflating error. --
- He understood the 3RR spirit and wasn't gaming the system
- He would discuss instead of reverting [54]
Now take a look at this [55]. I took the issue to the talk page after he blanked a whole section. As usual, he found a way to game with the system and stopped editing but started reverting the map, a shorcut to succeed in his intented edits. He didn't care the map was there for a reason, representing the common regions of Latin America.
He has been reverting the map to his uploaded version. Like I said, a way to game with the system, obviously thinking that the 3RR rule or his promises doesn't count there. Would you please help? Thanks. My actions seem to be futile. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, I would just like to point out, that prior to receiving Alex's notice on my talk page, I reverted to the original image. I wasn't gaming the system, I was adhering to the principles I set for myself and was discussing instead of reverting the text in question. I later asked Alex to inform me his thoughts on the map but he simply reverted the map without listing his thoughts on the talk page. The image as it stands now is in it's original format. Alex pointed out what he thought was wrong with it and I listened. I am disappointed that Alex does not assume good faith when it comes to my editing. Furthermore, my changes to the map remain with the 3RR as I only changed it twice; the other edits constituted attempts at fixing my changes. Cordially, 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I really hate cut-and-paste duplicate discussions like this. Both of you stop bothering me and also stop bothering each other. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly fond of it either. Thanks for being straightforward though. I just feel at times it is necessary to defend myself. Hopefully this wont be necessary anymore. Cordially, 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Requesting Page Un-Protection
I am asking that my user page be unrestricted as the corresponding blocks have expired.99.135.104.136 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The page wasn't restricted -- just your access to it while the block was in force. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am currently showing it as protected.99.135.104.136 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can't imagine why; the protection log for User talk:99.135.104.136 shows it has never been protected. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am currently showing it as protected.99.135.104.136 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Re:Spamming
Hi. Honestly, I'm not trying to spam anyone or anything, just trying to get an answer to my question. I'm sure you guys have enough on your plate already. I apologize if that was misinterpreted.
69.204.38.3 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Stephanie J. Stone
Did you look at the similarities between their edits and received warnings? I was just going to ask what the connection was but found you'd unblocked SJS. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just automatically lifting all autoblocks caused by bugzilla:31403. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
User 88.211.44.71
Hello, Jpgordon! The user 88.211.44.71, who was previously blocked [56] for editwarring, is currently continuing to add the same disruptive material ([57], [58] [59]). In this [60] case he adds an obviously false material. An admin's engagement will be appreciated. Gazifikator (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let's see, one edit on Charles Aznavour and one on Tamara Toumanova in the last month? Not sure what action's needed. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Steampunk help please!
Greetings, I do not know who is an admin around here, but I wish to know: could you help me with some severe trouble?
This user Republican Jacobite is attempting to start something with me, for no good reason. I see 'he' has a history, and his removal of my good-faith posting at Steampunk on the talk page is outrageous. Even admins do not do that. Can you help?
You have contributed recently and seem attentive to the article; I have no wish to alter the article in any significant way, nor do I want this editor attacking me again, and again accusing me of attacking other editors. I have no time for such juvenile trouble-makers.
Please reply, if you can, at my talk page and I would appreciate if you looked over Steampunk and commented there also. Many thanks.75.21.113.40 (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are never good-faith postings, and are appropriately removed from article talk pages. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now hold Republican to the same standards - which, by the bye, I find are applied here more often to some than to others. Do not think I am turning to you to beg for help at this point. Only suggesting you reflect on the bully you are protecting.75.21.113.40 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. I didn't look at his behavior at all; just at the stuff you're complaining about being deleted. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Aram-van
No problem; I'll try to do that in the future (of course, they could always just make it possible through the software, too, as you suggested). Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Declined unblock requests
Per the guideline du jour, I think that declined unblock requests may no longer be removed by the user.
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested, declined unblock requests, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices
This is regarding User talk:Nevoexpo. Is it OK if I put these back? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Right, which is why I first reverted his blanking (which caused an edit conflict as I was in the process of declining the request), then noticed he wasn't blanking a declined request, just an unanswered one, so I rolled it back. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
AutoCAD Article
Hello my name is David. I'm currently a freshman at Clemson University. For my English 103 class, I'm required to work on one wikipedia article and I chose the AutoCAD article. I recently added some content about the AutoCAD WS mobile app. I also created a new section "Newest Release." Technically this is only our "first draft" so I plan on added more information in the next week or so. I'm suppose to find other wikipedia users that have edited the page before and ask them for advice or any suggestions they may have. If you have anything you would like me to add or change or just a suggestion that would make the article even better I would appreciate it if you would let me know. If you go to the sandbox I created, I have bulleted points about things I plan to do and things I plan to add. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thank you! DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please look very carefully into simple matters such as grammar and sentence formation, as well as more complex issues such as neutral point of view. I'm looking at your most recent changes to AutoCAD. I see several problems:
- Since 1994, Autodesk had abandoned Apple's computers and refused to create or distribute compatible software for Mac users. "Abandoned"? "Refused"? That is perhaps language for a magazine article or a blog, but it's not encyclopedic, and it's not neutral. Neutral language would say that Autodesk stopped porting AutoCAD to the Mac in '94.
- AutoCAD 2012 for Mac provides intuitive interface that will come naturally to those use to the OX software. That's marketing-speak, not encyclopedia speak.
- With Autodesk's move to support Apple's Mac OX since 2010. That's a sentence fragment.
- do to the price limit -- "do to"?
- Regarding your sandbox;
- Autodesk officially release their iOS mobile app in September of 2010. Verb tense?
- This was the start of their mobile application adventure. "Adventure"? Whatever does that mean? Why would that be in an encyclopedia?
- but is also limited too." -- "also...too"?
- forcing them to manual input the text -- "manual"?
- Though there are lots of people on Wikipedia willing and able to correct minor spelling and grammar errors, we really prefer it when good English is used from the start. (Especially from college students!) The most important problems here aren't the spelling or grammar, but rather the non-encyclopedic language and non-neutral point of view. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay thank you very much for taking the time to point all of that out. I will fix them as soon as I get a chance. DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I guess this is why I'm an engineering major and not an english major. I'm definitely better at the math and sciences. DD-ENGL103-41 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Unblock requests
Sorry, I've been out of it all day (more like the past year) and should have checked. My mistake. Alexandria (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Havengore
In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Works for me. --long-term vandal admirably. This editor has been very recently active and shifting IPs even more unpredictably. Please feel free to add any appropriate evidence to the report and please add it to your watchlist as well, as this draft will certainly be the basis for a LTA entry in the future. Thank you! Doc talk04:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Kiko4564 requesting unblock
Hello Jpgordon. You are the admin who declined this user's last unblock request back in January, 2011. You asked him to wait a year, but here he is with a new request. Since you must be familiar with his record your opinion would be valuable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The return of NoCal100
Hey Mr Checkuser!
I don't know if you're keeping track of this sort of thing, but permabanned sockpuppeteer NoCal100 is now posting from Honduras. An IP user with shifting Honduran IP addresses keeps obsessing about me and my user page, but this edit in particular tells me who's behind it. No real need to block, but I figure if he takes up his old obsessions (other than List of fictional ducks), this might be a helpful tidbit of data for checkusers. See also
- 186.2.144.143 (talk · contribs)
- 186.2.144.239 (talk · contribs)
- 186.2.136.43 (talk · contribs)
- 186.2.144.93 (talk · contribs)
- 186.2.144.233 (talk · contribs)
--Calton | Talk 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Irving as pseudohistorian
Is it just a pusillanimous legal thing? I'm not up on legal minutiae. I'm mainly acquainted with... you know... facts, as established by courts of law. I kind of figured "pseudohistorian" would cover a man who had been deemed a Nazi liar by a major nation-state. It's not as if there's any chance of Irving suing us. His next noteworthy act will be to die. When he does, will we categorize him as a pseudohistorian? If not, then the category itself is meaningless. LANTZYTALK 07:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- He's not a historian, certainly. I don't think he's a pseudohistorian either -- rather, he's a lying sack of shit. There is a difference there; I kinda think pseudohistorians are honest but deluded. On the other hand, the pseudohistory article references Lipstadt; does she refer to him by the term? --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Does that file and other uploads still need to be protected? File is on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Obnoxious brats were screwing with it to hassle me; that's why it's protected. Dunno what policy is for userpage pics like that. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OPP
Understood ... just gets tedious typing it all the time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Vrghs Jacob
Hi, You'd done a few CUs for Vrghs jacob based on requests from MRG and me. It appears that he's back again as Ravelnine (talk · contribs) but since the old cases are stale an SPI won't be useful. Would you be able to match anything with data you might have? We have some IPs that he's used, most recently from 59.178.*.* but there are a lot more. The articles are the same and the image additions are also pretty much the same. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob are the relevant cats, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob is the relevant SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't retain any data, so I can't provide any help in that regard. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, is there anyway we can match the range with the IPsocks listed in the cat? Else, MRG and I can do duck blocks if needed. He is using the 59.178 range currently (on ) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)- You blocked the first account WP:AE
- You blocked the first account
The guy seems to have been editing as the IP 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs) since March 2011 or before. That IP is registered to Columbia University. He has also been participating on fringe science. Since you issued the last indefinite block here you may want to comment on what should be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)