User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

FYI

This edit is not visible on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Typo. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Adminly advice requested

Hi JPG you were the last to decline 68.108.23.15's unblock request on September 9 2015. I just noticed today that he was back to editing as soon as September 15th. It's clearly the same user. Both were trying to create vanity articles for Ethan Shulman [1][2]. The user is clearly disruptive and unrepentant about their disruption. What do you think? Should I indef the named account and extend the IP block for a significant length? Is that reasonable, or too harsh considering the block evasion wasn't spotted until after the block expired? My chief argument for the indef is that the kid is WP:NOTHERE and refuses to listen. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds exactly right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JPG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Green Green Wave

Green Green Wave (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - You recently blocked this user for abusing multiple accounts. I can't see an SPI or anything for them, so can only guess at any evidence, however User:Jaga Badmash popped up just after the block, and his first edit was to one of Green Green Wave's drafts, and he also seems to be editing in a similar fashion (same article types, adding spam links etc etc. Thought I'd mention it rather than open an SPI atm. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, exactly the same person. Blocked. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Flying Chick (talk · contribs · logs · block log) just started creating/editing the same articles, so suspect it's the same person again - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as well as the user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

GoosheBumpsh

Hi JPG, does GoosheBumpsh need to be templated as a sock? I couldn't find an SPI report, but your unblock decline suggested a CU had been performed. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I rarely bother, but go right ahead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you. i'm having a personal attack with the User:Knowledgebattle, a user throwing personal opinion upon the articles, so i undo his edit's. as here and here. Many of other user's undo his edit's as here, since he is pushing the Category:Christianity-related beheadings in different places even it's not related or throwig his presonal opinions upon the articles as here which been also revert and here and here, so i'm not the only one who's undo his edit.

This not the first time that i handel his harrasment as stalking and undo my edit for several times and the user:Volunteer Marek ask him to stop this clear cut evidence of harassment. and when he called uneducated. It's interesting when he called me Christian-propaganda, when his articles been deleted for being full of propaganda and i will not talking also about his inappropriate comment's in different articles or talk pages. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you've spammed enough other users with this that one will have answered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Yossiea~enwiki

Yossiea~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Jpg. See WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki. You've extended the original block and it was already marked as an AE block so it appears it will take a consensus to undo it. Do you want to make a proposal at AE on where to go from here? If you think the editor is beyond redemption then perhaps we should leave the indef in place. The guy has 4,600 edits and they are not all in the Middle East so it's possible he could still do useful work with an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA. Nonetheless some of his recent comments are beyond the pale. Perhaps AE could suggest he apply for unblock in three months, subject to a ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mafia article

Two weeks ago you banned a user from Italy who was making disruptive edits to the Mafia article (he kept adding IPAs to the lede despite a consensus that they weren't necessary). I think he's back under a new name: REDSEEKER. Can you deal with this guy?Kurzon (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at WP:AE.
Message added 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just after your explicit okay before I modify the sanction. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope this will soothe the inadvertent hurt to the grey matter

• (1) Re this
• (2) See this apropos what I have been reading and
• (3)Joseph Conrad, 'Karain, A Memory’ (1897) in Tales of Unrest (1898), reprinted in Joseph Conrad, Complete Works, (ed. Ford Madox Ford) Doubleday, 1925 Vol.8 p.45

The end of all this shall be," he went on, looking up at us—"the end of this shall be, that some day he will run amuck amongst his faithful subjects and send 'ad patres' ever so many of them before they make up their minds to the disloyalty of knocking him on the head.

I thought 'amok' as I was taught, and changed it for that reason, recent reading in a period where it was quite respectable usage. And apropos of that wiki article, suffice it to read everything Paul Johnson wrote on the period from the beginnings down to early Christian period with how Norman Cantor approaches the same matters in his The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews, HarperCollins, 1994 and the point I tried to make will be clearer. Still fuck it, it's quite pointless trying to make suggestions, and this is my last word. If editors insist on poor quality, caveat lector. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Man, are you capable of making any comments without throwing out nasties about other volunteers? It's not serving you well here at all. Regarding "amuck" vs "amok", yes, it's a misspelling with a long history. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "amuck" vs "amok", yes, it's a misspelling with a long history.

So, am I, as Henry James wrote in another context (('The Question of Our Speech' 1905)'a mighty maniac who has broken loose, and ..is running amuck alike through the spheres of sound and sense'?:) Let me then follow Alexander Pope's advice and adopt the satiric pedant mode:

Satire's my weapon, but I'm too discreet

To run amuck and tilt at all I meet.

('The First Satire of the Second Book of Horace Imitated' (1733) in John Butt (ed.) The poems of Alexander Pope Methuen 1963 p.615 ll.69-70)

Anthony Burgess was fluent in Malay, and became a great novelist. In Earthly Powers (1980:Penguin Books ed.1981 p.235) he combines his fluent expertise in both languages in writing '(nota bene)amok means running amuck'. Captain Cook, Robert Southey, Benjamin Disraeli, Herman Melville (Moby Dick ('run amuck from the bowsprit to the taffrail'. Dell Books, 1959 Chapter 54 p.287); Charles Dickens ('run amuck out of the House of Peers or Exeter Hall, as much as those vicious Malays who run amuck out of Sailors' lodginghouses in Rotherhithe' (Household Words' vol.12 1856 p.4); Joseph Conrad; Ford Madox Ford;H G Wells, (The First Men in the Moon 1901; Henry James;D.H. Lawrence ('England, My England'); Patrick White ( Happy Valley (1939) Jonathan Cape reprint 2012 p.5);John Galsworthy (Beyond 1917 p.57) etc.etc.Bref. What you persist in calling a misspelling, even in the face of a gentle nudge, is a standard English form used by great writers for centuries. If you are correct, all those writers couldn't spell for nuts.

Wikipedia is often a painful experience for the painstaking (who are, for others, a pain in the arse, of course) because too many of its contributors refuse to look at the evidence, and prefer to hunker down in a received opinion, whatever the face of the facts, unperturbed by any evidential tremor. Rather than look at evidence, they play party games in pop psychology to figure out some imaginary subtext. That is all over the talk page in question, and the I/P area generally. And who is to blame, not the chronic non-contributing reverters and monitory mugmumps (whose behavior people who censure me never stoop to remark on) but people like myself, who lack the right 'attitude', probably because I didn't have time to get one in my youth - I was too busy reading books which are more surprising that most people. My apologies for this interruption to your page, and I won't come back (especially since 'throwing out nasties (cunts) has an hilarious ring to my ear, trained as it was to antipodean slang for several years)Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ukulele

Hey! I like your ukulele symbol/ emoji. It's cool. Michael J.S. 06:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnønʘmøṑṨ (talk • contribs)

Merry Christmas!

Jpgordon, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Block Comment

The user who posted that comment on my talk page is very new, and may not understand the difference between a block and an AFC decline. I declined the submission of the user's autobiography because it contained too much peacock language, a common problem in autobiographies. I have gone to the Teahouse to ask for additional, friendly but policy-based, advice from other experienced editors to this very new user. I hope that answers your question. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

email

Hello, Jpgordon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Socks 01

I see you declined the unblock request for Socks 01 (talk · contribs). I've been aware of this user for a long time as there's an overlap in the articles we edit. While he clearly has a limited understanding of image copyright, he is in other respects a productive editor, and the vandalism spree was very much out of character. I asked another checkuser about the case in IRC and was advised there was no indication of account hijacking, so I conclude that either Socks left his computer logged in and someone else used it, or he was under the influence in some way. The edits were made after 9 pm on a Friday night, local time. I suggest we give him another chance, and I'll happily block him myself if anything like this re-occurs.-gadfium 03:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your call; feel free to unblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.-gadfium 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

Please, see this. Chronus (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what happens on Wikimedia. All I know is that you've made no use whatsoever of talk pages on Wikipedia, instead choosing to try to achieve consensus (I am assuming good faith) by edit warring and edit summaries. If I happen to unprotect the page, both of you will be blocked for edit warring the moment either of you touch that article without discussing it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize and thanks for not blocking me. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Great minds...

... as they say ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Block of User:Gateofhorn

Hello! Is there a link to a sock puppet query regarding Gateofhorn (talk · contribs)? Given that there were so many user names that popped up out of nowhere on that page and given the regular harassment and insults I've been getting from them, I'd like to know how it went down and if all of those new users were socks or what. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of other apparently related accounts, btw:

• LH Chicago (talk · contribs)
• Melatha (talk · contribs)
• Duikelmaan (talk · contribs)
• User6915 (talk · contribs)
• Scholarbyday (talk · contribs)

If nothing else, might be of interest. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a WP:SPI investigation; you might want to start up one of those, based at least partially on the socks of User:Carlraschke that I've already blocked. I won't be much help -- I'm going on vacation for about ten days and will only be sporadically available. Anyway, I did block several of these as Carlraschke socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can follow up. Enjoy your vacation! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Chemcreativity/Sandin2

From what I can see, User:Chemcreativity was softblocked and asked to drop that account and create another one. They appear to have done that, creating User:Sandin2, but then you blocked that one as a sock. I don't see what they have done wrong here to warrant the second block - have I missed anything? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Kinda maybe .Look at the language of his unblock request on User talk:Chemcreativity; maybe I was a tad oversensitive about the threatening language and overreacted to the next action. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that first unblock request was not good, but they did go on to create a new account as asked. Do you have any objection if I unblock the Sandin2 account? I'll keep an eye on their contributions (and I think it might be better to remove talk page access from the Chemcreativity account at the same time). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked Coruptia socks

Hi. You just rejected an unblock request which was "interestingly" not made by the user in question but by another username, for which my comments here are relevant. LjL (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

blocked. CU shows nothing interesting other than verifying that it's a sock of Unguriu. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like this "keep" from them to be invalidated but I'm not sure how I should go about it (sometimes sock edits are undone entirely but I think on AfD's I've seen them tagged but I don't remember how specifically). LjL (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There's some or another template to tag it, but I don't remember which...just undoing suffices, as far as I'm concerned. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, question from an interested person

Hi, I'm a frequent participant in AfD discussions. BoxOfChickens created many AfDs about Casio. I noticed some sockpuppets were voting but I didn't pay even half-attention because they're more common than sunrises at AfD. I had hovered my pointer over one's username and saw that he was blocked and then checked and it was for abusing multiple accounts. BoxOfChickens had reported him apparently. Okay, continuing with the story. I then later on happenstance hovered over BoxOfChicken's username and saw that he was blocked as well. I got curious and checked and saw that it was for abusing multiple accounts. I first thought it must've been a mistake or something. I then checked and read that two admins had verified him to have been using sockpuppets. The named sockpuppet was BowlOfChickens. I then checked this editor's talk page and saw that he was blocked for multiple accounts as well and that his listed sockpuppet was Redminivan. But Redminivan was blocked for personal attacks against the aforementioned BoxOfChickens and was part of the AfD sockpuppet gang. He was attacking himself on a sockpuppet and harassing his own AfDs and then he listed his own sockpuppets in an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malcolm's office/Archive and they were blocked and it was found out he had been using them all from the same IP as his main account? Is this all correct? What in the world, man? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's really up to BoxOfChickens to explain the situation -- perhaps it's a good hand/bad hand setup, perhaps it's someone who perhaps shares a computer lab with him or something screwing with him -- but there's no doubt that the accounts were technically indistinguishable from each other. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser?

You wrote "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts." I did not see a sock investigation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Most checkuser investigations are not public investigations. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

But this one's simply a case of me seeing that the user was checkuser-blocked, and then running a checkuser myself to verify the findings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation and confirming it was a sock. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

An unblock request

There's an unblock request for a block you placed over two and a half years ago, at User talk:HoshiNoKaabii2000. I am inclined to give the editor another chance, but do you wish to make any comment about it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've got a pretty low opinion of people who make death threats -- they're low on my list of people to give second chances to. And that he finds it necessary to continue blaming it on another user strikes me as weak, too. But you're as familiar with marginal behavior here as I am; if you think he's worthy of a second chance, I won't second-guess you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI Notification

Since you were involved in the blocking of one of the sockpuppets of User:CaptainHog, I am notifying you of yet another SPI regarding the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Length of a topic

Hello,

For the BAPS article, I removed a section under BAPS charities because the lead paragraph effectively summarizes the topic and has a linked sub article that explains everything in detail and repeats information from the original post. Would you please take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&type=revision&diff=714834663&oldid=713651508 edit and let me know if I am doing something wrong? I do not want to put a overly detailed tag on the article right now unless it is needed.

Thanks Swamiblue (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what article talk pages are for. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Too large to checkuser?

Saw your comment at ANI regarding that /20 block - you mentioned it's too large to checkuser. What's the largest range that can be checkuser'ed? I'd think if it's too large a range to check, it should probably be too large a range to block as well... SQL^{Query me!} 21:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You can range-check /16 to /32 on IPv4, and /32 to /128 on IPv6. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #15774

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #15774 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, TParis (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

TheNerdisHere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: May 12, 2016 16:40:38

Message: Please see message on UTRS.

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being a trial dummy. First time out the door and there is a serious problem. I'll get it fixed up so it doesn't do that anymore.--v/r - TP 06:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Another possible sock

Hello Jpgordon. In a recent unblock decline, you mentioned a checkuser confirmation: here

Are you able to say anything about the following editor, who has been acting as a close colleague of Théophile on the Human rights in Ukraine article, and has a similarly short tenure: User talk:Usr lI

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Unrelated as far as CU is concerned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Tzortzis

Hello, could you please take a look at the Hamza Tzortzis-article? It is edited by at least three WP:SPA's lately. The last acceptable version with third-party sources can be found here. I would suggest some kind of protection, but that is me. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to do here...but the article should be deleted a re-creation of after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

On the declining of unblock requests

Hi, Josh. I noticed your appropriate decline of JohnLloydScharf's unblock request. I've seen your wording before, and it reads like a template — it it? A tool? It describes what's wrong with a lot of unblock requests and gives useful advice, so I'd like to be able to use it myself, if there's a convenient way. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: It's the "standard" unblock request. All you do is decline without a reason and the system fills in the canned language.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ha. Even simpler than Twinkle! Thanks Beeb. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC).

I had to type decline= {{subst:decline reason here}} to get the default message. With enough patience you will also find this advice given in Template:Unblock request declined. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It took me a weirdly long time to figure this one out myself -- because I always found it easy enough to edit the decline notice, I never popped open the instructions, and wondered "how are people doing that?" --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RevDel on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Thank you for RevDeling the nasty edit that 97.76.251.91 (talk) left on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Would you mind going through their contributions, particularly on August 14 and today, and RevDeling the rest of them? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I've got 'em all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:24.119.20.133

I extended the duration of their block, since they were making legal threats both at User talk:24.119.20.133 and elsewhere, but restored talk page edit access so that they could withdraw the legal threats. If they don't, of course, then removing such access again is no problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Induction Cooking

Hello Jpgordon, I see you raised a NPOV and disregarded few lines in the page on Induction Cooking. Please note that the dropped part reads "Apart from DOE findings, little information exists on (hopefully) reliable unbiased efficiency tests and efficiency comparisons among different cooking technologies. A worldwide survey of information sources available on this matter was conducted and resumed in 2014-2015 Australian reports…"

The first sentence just says that few institutions / researchers / independent bodies have attempted to make a screening on available data on efficiency of cooking technologies and present them in an organic way. The second one suggest an Australian report that seems to met these criteria and summarises the average efficiencies coming out from this survey.

The word "hopefully" stays there to alert the reader about the need, on this matter, to rely only on figures from experts able to identify reliable data and make such a screening.

One of the two versions of the report stays on the site parliament.nsw.gov.au, that is the Parliament of New South Wales Australia. The information given herein on Induction cooking efficiencies - an on other cooking technologies - seems to have been carefully collected and analysed by experts. So I believe that the part you disregarded - despite the "hopefully" word - adds high quality information on the matter.

Please, take the time to check again the dropped part and reinsert it agin, if you agree with my observations.

Regards

 Guido from Italy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.67.216 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 

Feel free to use the article talk page to discuss this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Jpgordon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just notifying you. I mentioned you some what tangentially in the thread. The thread is located here Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bury St Churchill

What do you make of our two sparkling new arrivals: [3], only three days apart? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser-wise, they're related only in that they are both in the UK. Nothing else useful to be gleaned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. How very frustrating, as it looks far too suspicious to my eyes. I guess we can do no more. I suppose if they both use the same ISP, that's just a spooky coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If they had, I wouldn't have said there was nothing to be gleaned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh right. I must have thought you were just being "coy". Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request about the User:MehrdadFR

Hello.

The User:MehrdadFR (talk) reverted your neutral edition in the article Hijab by country, because he is constantly reverting neutral and third party information and sources about the hijab in Iran, and is almost exclusively using POV (that is pro-government) language about the hijab in Iran (that may contradict academic sources which have no internet links) and is relying on sources based in Iran that naturally favor the Iranian policy on the hijab (and not on all third party and academic sources), as you can see in the Iran section of that article as well as in the Women in Iran article. He uses weasel words (that are commonly used by Iranian government sources) such as "the official reveiling in 1984" in both articles about the mandatory hijab for women. I reverted his reverts and clarified the sentences. Could you check this user and warn him about his use of POV and almost the expropriation of this subject? As I can see from this user's talk page, he also has a history of edit warring with other users in various articles, and has received warnings (including from you [4]).

Thank you.

SednaXV (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me he's using the article talk pages to work through this; no administrative intervention is needed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ugent: User:MehrdadFR

Urgent.

Hello Jpgordon.

The User:MehrdadFR seems to have a political agenda because he is putting information that is supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran POV, and is deleting other NPOV information and references from academic sources about contemporary (and controversial) subjects about Iran such as the hijab, chador, womens' rights etc. The problem is that this user has hijacked these issues, when the articles, content and references should be NPOV and sober.

Could you do something about this user?

Thank you.

Artoxx (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Rosa

You didn't sign. I'm trying to get it to archive but no luck. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Jpgordon.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Isaiasad2

While it was tagged...in not the best way (because it was waiting for clerk action), Isaiasad2's block is definitely a valid block per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charlesvvvv. The first IP that shows up in CU right now connects the editor to Charlesvvvv (talk · contribs), and the CU log on April 10, 2016 for that IP confirms the connection to Isaiasad. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

for taking care of that "WP:Request for Respect" thingy so quickly. Shearonink (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A post I never made, just for info

An edit conflict stopped me, so here it is: "As did others, he wasn't the only one who challenged Clifford. Let us know when Rosa gets a book published by a mainstream, preferably academic publishing house. His publishers so far seem to be mainly Polish minor publishers/printers (such as Outwater, which isn't a real book publisher) and this clearly fringe publisher. My point about Duke is simply that we get a lot of posts from Duke which are either from Rosa or friends probably posting on his behalf." Doug Weller talk 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I kinda think it's all Rosa himself. The similarities between the various Rosa-promoting posts are too strong. (Do you agree that the right thing to do is simply revert and ignore?) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is getting tiresome. And there's nothing new, just the same old same old. Sure. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at Gerry1214's talk page.
Message added 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of IP talk page

Can you delete two IP talk pages User talk:123.136.106.97 and User talk:123.136.106.206? Thank you. 123.136.107.251 (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 07:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Turns out (AndyTyner is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndyTyner another sock of Harvey Carter. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kingshowman

This is clearly him - would appreciate if you could extend the block and yank TPA. Thanks, GAB^gab 05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UTRS ticket #17474

Hello,

I would appreciate your input on this ticket on UTRS as you changed the block to indefinite for the user. The user is TopherKRock and they've requested that they be unblocked. I was looking for your opinion on whether or not to give them a second chance. After all it is nearly 3 years since they were blocked.--5 albert square (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, their unblock request still doesn't seem to fully grasp the obnoxiousness of the behavior. "I edited the info on my talk page, and that's where things went very awry.". No, he did this, and needs to take ownership of his behavior. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked them for their input on that before I make a decision.--5 albert square (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Atheophobia

Hello. I see you reverted my addition to the banners, including the old RFD one. The history of such editing is complicated, so I wanted to notify those interested. By the way, {{talk page of redirect}} may also be needed. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Why would we prefer to have banners saying that a page was deleted instead of an actual, useful redirect? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-reading Talk:Discrimination against atheists/Archive 3#Requested move, the page "Discrimination against atheists" was moved to "Atheophobia" but then reverted per RM. Well, that was more than five years ago. George Ho (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I can add "old move" there as I did at Talk:Discrimination against atheists. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the value of having anything there besides a redirect? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm... for future reference... and to reduce confusion. I would explain more, but I don't want to go bureaucratic over this redirect. Instead, I can leave the decision to others. George Ho (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What confusion? Six years ago, the article was moved to a neologism without consensus or even discussion; 11 days later, it was moved back. Anyone can look at the history of both the redirect and the talk pages to see what happened: [5] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll drop the stick for now. I'll revisit this when this goes out of hand. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi jpgordon. I am a university student who has been a part of a group getting to know Wikipedia for awhile now. I am interested in pages on Nazi Germany and through that I discovered an editor with an unblock request in which you were involved in, indicating that the editor had another account and was using it as a sockpuppet. I was wondering if you could give me some insight as to how one can tell if an account is a sockpuppet and how you can tell/discover the main account operating that sockpuppet. Thank you for any info you can give me! Taylor6644 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644

See WP:SOCK; it talks some about detection, in particular the CheckUser tool. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Taylor6644 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644

Hey jpgordon! That page was very helpful and I have been looking further into the way the CheckUser tool works. I was wondering, since I am such a new editor but do have a familiarity with the pages I have been looking at with my group, is there any way for me to gain access through another editor or some kind of platform of a group of editors to use the CheckUser tool? There is a situation I have in mind that I have been following but I know that I am way too new to Wikipedia to ever have access to the tool myself. Thanks for your help. Taylor6644 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Taylor6644

No, there's no way; we highly restrict access to the CheckUser tool, and are very strict about its use, in compliance with Wikipedia's privacy policy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ref desk troll

I forget the name of this LTA, but you recently blocked Escapism lover and DarthPalpatineSidious, and I'm pretty sure Me the blue lover is the same person. Sro23 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sro23: Soft skin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? It doesn't really look like him, though... GAB^gab 01:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Soft skin the racist one? I don't think so, though it could be an imitator. Ref desk seems to attract lots of different trolls for some reason. Sro23 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also trolls the refdesks, but they tend to use UK IPs. There may be other trolls, but I wouldn't know. GAB^gab 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Am I allowed to know who this person is? CityOfSilver 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Same person as User:Bf110c4 and User:D.H.110 and User:Super SJW. Probably some other master. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Got a fresh one: P-51b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Blockhead. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jpgordon and EvergreenFir: I was trying to get a bit of a nose for their behavior since if you blocked them after four edits, they're obviously someone using all kinds of identities. So thank you both. CityOfSilver 19:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110 EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Watchlisted. Thank you again. CityOfSilver 20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Block of User:Gmfreeman619

Gmfreeman619, who you blocked as a sockpuppet, is requesting an unblock. Whose sock do you think (s)he is? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Same person as User:Champchesse, User:Gabbyd615, User:Asdfghjklqwertyuiopzxcvbnmmnbvcxzlkjhgfdsapoiuytrewq, User:BennyKing, User:Isecube. I suppose they could be middle school classmates. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cool bio!

Bryanumedina (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Hi Jpgordon, you unblocked this user, whose block log reaches well within the double digits, last December mentioning that it'd be his "last chance". However, this new textbook 3RR violation,[6], amongst others, convinces us that he simply remains WP:NOTHERE. The amount of rope that he has been given over the years is so massive, its pretty much insane. Yet the structural problems unfortunately always remained, and will always remain. I just decided to pick this example as it's the most recent one, though there are many more relevant ones from the recent past. Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Bring it up on AN/I. I certainly didn't like unblocking him, given his history, but he agreed to stop that particular bad behavior. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please Unprotect Visionaire

After reading the comments that you and several other members have left on the recent revisions to the Visionaire page, could you please remove the protection? I am planning to make some edits to help the article become more neutral and factual, but want to include more sources and would like to be able to add in new headers, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstenchen (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No. As far as I can tell, you intend to continue the exact same edits that caused the article to be protected. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for catching changes and reverting Trader Joe's. SWP13 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for reverting changes by unknown IP user on Trader Joe's article. The refs are deleting again. SWP13 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please protect German version of Ismael Ogando

The Page is target of Vandalism, could you help protect the page i n the German Wiki? The Spanish and English are ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocainaenvenenada (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, user:Cocainaenvenenada, Jpgordon is sysop at en-wiki, not at de-wiki. You are edit-warring against a number of other users so the article was protected. The discussion if you better should be blocked, also is still on, your comments are welcome over there: de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung#Benutzer:Cocainaenvenenada

Please also contribute to the deletion request for your article at de-wiki. There are different rules on what can have an article in the different language versions of Wikipedia. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

btw, Cocainaenvenenada, you really should refrain from placing uw-vblock-tags to talk pages of other users. First, this one is restricted to sysops, second, this template does not work at de-wiki, anyway. --Pentachlorphenol (talk)

Thank you, the author is working the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocainaenvenenada (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nadir Ali

You had unblocked @NadirAli: on December 2016 as last chance. He has been blocked for disruptive editing, creating sockpuppets, IP socking, edit warring, bad image uploads, he has been through indefinite block by @Ohnoitsjamie:. He is blocked again for edit-warring to push original research. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My "last chance" had to do with image uploads. I'm not going to revisit his behavior from almost a decade ago. It is quite the impressive block log, certainly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Per what you said above you may not be joining the discussion, but the issue is now at WP:AE#NadirAli. Notifying you because you are the last unblocker. Admins may consider restoring the indef block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Efaublas

Well, well. That's a slightly different unblock request reason. It is clear enough that she was and is acting in good faith; it is just that what she wants to do in good faith is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Should I have been clearer and kinder in my explanation? It does look a bit terse. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request on old block by you

FreakyLocz14, who you indeffed in 2011 for BLP vio as an IP, is requesting unblock through WP:UTRS. I'm handling the ticket, and I've requested a Checkuser to determine if there is any recent repeat of the damaging IP editing. Would you have any issues with me handling the request on my own judgement? Given the age of the block and the routine nature I doubt you would, but as a courtesy I figure you ought to be consulted. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't remember what IP or what BLP issues this was all about, and of course I didn't reveal it anywhere. I just ran a CheckUser, and it came up blank. I'd recommend asking this person if they can tell you what they got blocked for in the first place. Simply saying "It has been years since I was originally blocked and have moved beyond the behaviour that led to the block." doesn't indicate any understanding of why they were blocked. But yes, go ahead and handle it yourself. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow up on it. Since you ran the CU and you seem to have UTRS access, can you please release the ticket back to me from the CU queue? Thanks. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Automated typo

Clearing off my watchlist & removing User talk:Speedydixon1997 (thanks for dealing with that by the way) I noticed that the block notices on his block log from both you & Kudpung all include the same typo "Vandalism as reported ans also ". I guess it's embedded in some admin tool? Cabayi (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah. The original one was just a typo by me; and then when I added "cannot edit talk page" to the block, I didn't bother editing the original block reason. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, no huge bug-bounty for me then. Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent Action on Blocked User

Hey, I just saw that you declined a Joeymiskulin's request to be unblocked, and noticed your comments about them "making physical threats against other editors", which is certainly quite nasty behaviour to exhibit in an edit summary. I should point out he hasn't taken his previous two blocks seriously; as soon as they expired, he went back to disruptively editing The Lego Movie that he's been causing problems on.

But here's something interesting - Do you know that reason he gave for his Unblock? The one that goes: "You can't block me while I was trying to block Crboyer because he reverted my HIDDEN TXT that he requested me to go to the talk page!"

Well... First and foremost, that HIDDEN TXT was what I put in; it was in regards to a number of Wikipedians who edited the page, but constantly changed a setup within the article's Infobox from one to another and back again. I had to step in and put a stop to it, by opening up a discussion for users to review the changes and settle on a setupthat they could agree to use (there hasn't been much activity on it since); as far as I know, one setup was to make it out like the article page it links to (another user I know of, and who I pointed out this matter to, regarded the link article as one that had some issues with it. You can find it here, where there are a couple of discussions on its layout and setup on the article's talk page).

Secondly, Crboyer is not requesting anyone to go to the The Lego Movie's talk page; I am, mainly to have Wikipedians see the issue that was being caused by constant changing between two setups, and hoping to nip it in the bud, before they try switching between the two. I know another User agreed with me that that had gotten ridiculous. Anyway... Joeymiskulin reverted the HIDDEN TXT to begin with, along with switching out of the second format, which used the Plainlist Format, to the first format. The first time he did so, his edit summary stated: "GUtt01 told me that no one must revert this again but I'm reverting this unacceptable thing for good and no disastrous train wrecks! I warned him!!!!!" Quite frankly, I didn't tell him about not reverting this (unless he was operating as an IP User), and he never gave me a warning about it all... He did this five times, before focusing on just removing the HIDDEN TXT. When he focused on the HIDDEN TXT, he gave a quite contradictory edit summary saying: "All right, I'm never reverting this again!"

This is something you should know. It seems that apart from making a physical threat to Crboyer, he also acted like he had the permissions that an administrator has. As soon as Crboyer reverted his third edit because of his disruptive behaviour, Joeymiskulin went to his Talk Page, and slapped him with a Block Notice, claiming he was block for 36 hours. Naturally, Crboyer reverted this adddition, as he rightfully stated that Joeymiskulin was not an administrator and had no legal right to attempt to do this to him. You can see exactly what he did here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crboyer&diff=prev&oldid=794471635

Quite honestly, I'm not sure he's taking in the serious nature of why he has been blocked, and has shown extensive, aggressive behaviour with his editing and the summaries he makes. But that last part shows that he is acting in a behaviour that is unacceptable to Wikipedia.

Considering what I said, what do you think of this? Let me know your thoughts, when you can spare the time, mate. GUtt01 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think as soon as this block expires he'll do something sufficiently loathesome to get himself blocked forever. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering that they acted like an administrator and attempted to illegally put a block on Crboyer, would that behaviour constitute as a second personal attack on them, per WP:PA? GUtt01 (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

His meaningless block gesture can just be ignored, as it has no effect and no value. Don't worry. People like this rarely disappoint us. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Doug Weller talk 13:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Supporter of the Campaign

I'm sure you've gotten plenty of pings from User talk:Ｍｏｏｒ ｆｏｒ Ｓｅｎａｔｅ ｃａｍｐａｉｇｎ. The user followed through with their promise to create a new account at Supporter of the Campaign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Did you want to block that as a sock? only (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Shrug. I'd just as soon have nothing to do with it. Certainly nothing I've done has helped. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

TheNewSMG

This guy you blocked has been evading his block regularly. Please look into it. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeepoo?

Hi! You blocked Yeepoo for abusing multiple accounts. Whose sock are they, or is there an SPI case I can see? I had suspected a sock of Apollo The Logician but there wasn't much to go on. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no SPI -- I was chasing down an unblock request at User talk:ARD RI and saw the footprints of sock behavior. From there, I found what appears to me to be a sock farm including Yeepoo and about ten others. And I didn't even bother looking at a second IP in the results -- should have, because there I find Yeepoo and Apollo The Logician and one other I missed. So -- yeah. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Las Acevedo, The Weather Smells Like Oranges & Ezili Dantor

Dear Jpgordon, could you place protection over those 3 pages? A troll is having fun erasing the name of the producer out... Las Acevedo, The Weather Smells Like Oranges & Ezili Dantor 51.15.136.216 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• The IP is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada, here only to promote someone named Ismael Ogando (who has been found non-notable at AfD). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm familiar with the Ogando editor. Thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"All ARB contributions should be immediately removed without consideration"

For an account that showed up two days ago and has a total of eight contributions? What am I missing? --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

He's been being a total pain in the ass for many years at 0.999... and its subpages. If his entirely wrong posts are not accepted, he proceeds to vandalize. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:NetWitz

Hey Jpgordon - User:NetWitz, whom I blocked (and you reviewed the unblock for) appears to be evading the block with sockpuppets. I noticed User:Prison Break24 making the same type of edits immediately after the block. I've blocked that account, but could you take a look and see if you find anything more? Thanks, Prodego ^talk 23:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't find anything useful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hrm – I wonder if I may have been wrong, and it could just be coincidence? Maybe this show just aired somewhere, and people are showing up to make the same edits for that reason. Prodego ^talk 00:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Prison Break24 hasn't edited since 2016... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have been looking at the wrong user. I unblocked just in case anyhow. Prodego ^talk 22:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Getting falsely reported by other editor, need help!

Hey I could not find anyone who has fair knowledge of editing or blocking here so I decided to ask you. An editor keeps reverting my accurate edits & keeps reporting me for 'vandalism'. My IP address keeps getting blocked because of that & I can't make a new account. He's keeps accusing me of being a 'sockpuppet', but all I want to do is to contribute to the articles that I have knowledge of but he keeps reverting them. What should I do? 150.129.30.222 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you requested unblock from your original account? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I had 'bot' in my username so I got this reply

This does not address your inappropriate username, nor does it address your violations of WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC).

Yes that editor also reported me for 'sockpuppetry'. 150.129.29.154 (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Appropriately. I've blocked this IP for socking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

User in question

Jpgordon, see User talk:BU Rob13#The Citadel article for a little more information. Another user and I who have dealt with Bob80q believe they are the same person using two accounts, but the history goes further. I've asked BU Rob13 to check into all users involved [Strgzr1 (Barkballer), Bob80q (Ruffnready)]. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 22:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It was something of a trick question. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no doubt that they would've denied it but it was pretty evident to Billcasey905 and I who have been dealing with them for at least a year now. Bill first brought the new accounts up via email a month ago. Thanks for your help, it is much appreciated! Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

One of Special:Contributions/Bob80q's known IP ranges has been used to edit an article Bob80q frequents here. I've dealt with his edits many times on this and other similar articles, as Bob loves to edit the Operators sections of US military aircraft articles with his own unique style. This same IP has also been used to edit The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina article. Do I need to file an SPI? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if you see more from a range; I've blocked that IP, as well as another sock I found on it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Another IP has made the same edit, and also locates to the DC/MD area. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing other than what you can see on that IP. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

JP, Bob is at it again. IP edits vs. Bob's edits. Thanks, Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe both users are back - a known Bob IP address Special:Contributions/50.59.106.156 and an account created just after the block that reminds me of Strgzr: Special:Contributions/Sfrdude17 (see here in particular). Is there an easier way to flag suspected IPs or accounts, since they seem pretty persistent? Billcasey905 (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

IP address blocked for six months; Sfrdude indeffed; underlying IP blocked for six months. Thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: My removal of an unblock request

Apologies about doing this[7]. I saw that the editor already has an unblock request pending via the UTRS, which is why I removed the one you restored. Trying to help, and I ended up getting in the way. Sorry about any confusion my edits caused. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I greatly enjoyed

your Woody Guthrie drawings clip, hopefully you did not sell them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, hell no. Especially not for the ridiculously low price AR suggested. They're sitting here on display ten feet from where I'm typing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. I just finished adding Guthrie's Miss Pavlichenko to a CD for my daughter's collection of songs about real people. I can almost picture Woody's drawing of her. Almost. Carptrash (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixing errors?

Hi—can you help me fix errors on an entry? I am unable to use my account to fix errors, specially the Director’s name. I don’t know how to fix it. Thank you. VTSciWriter (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, since you can edit here, you can edit elsewhere. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for the block on 96.5.241.150. It's appreciated! KNHaw (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible miscarriage of justice

Your presence is urgently needed at User talk:SA 13 Bro. Looks like the block of said user was due to a stray message from a (definitely block-evading) IP. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you had make the mistaken block on me, the IP make the nonsense unblock request at my talk page is actually the sock of User:Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw, not me. Please be familiar on that, thanks. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. Sorry for the error. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for a Sockmaster

At 16:34 7 January, it appears that you banned a sock, Yrstruly. Is there any way I can look up who the sockmaster is? I have a suspicion (currently on extremely thin evidence) that another low-edit account may be related, but in the interests of decency I don't want to make an accusation. If I can find the sock-master, comparing edit histories may help me have a better idea what's going on. Alephb (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who it is. But I blocked four other accounts at the same time: User:Gazillions, User:Fullbound, User:Toastermania, and User:Pepperpicker. The interesting aspect out this is that the last two of the accounts were created in 2007, two days apart; one was created in November, and the other two in the last week. I'm not going to give away some of the other "tells", not publicly anyway; checkuser-wise ,the accounts were technically indistinguishable. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything helps. Thanks. I'll see if that gives me anything to work with. Alephb (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Franco Did Not Order Guernica Attack

Please go to the talk page before making a revision.

In paragraph 2 someone has written, “Franco personally requested of the Germans and Italians the aerial bombing of Guernica in 1937, which opened the way to the capture of Bilbao and his victory in northern Spain.” There is no cited authority for this sentence and it should be deleted.

Hugh Thomas absolved the Spaniards of responsibility for Guernica and Stanley Payne in his 2014 book Franco: A Personal and Political Biography at p. 182 writes, “ Franco had no prior knowledge of the attack , since daily operational details of the northern campaign did not necessarily come to him, though Mola’s headquarters would have known about it.” 199.227.97.254 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

deletion of ‘fake news’ story jerry lewis

you deleted my reference to JL on wait wait dont tell me. whether the story is true or not, the point of the in popular culture section is that this person is well known enough to be mentioned in a main-stream way and be recognized by the public. yes, it’s ‘trivia’, but that’s the point.... Anarchistemma (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And in what way does this help the reader gain understanding of the subject of the article? "Someone made up a story about Jerry Lewis for a funny radio show." As far as ways to show the person is well known, I think Jerry Lewis is far beyond needing a Wait Wait Don't Tell Me reference for that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock active again on Citadel pages

Another user seems to match the same profile as a previously blocked account (Strgzr1, in this case). Would you take a look at Realsnappy18? There have been several IPs as well, but NeilN has protected the page so that issue should be resolved for a little while. Billcasey905 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser finds nothing useful, mostly because the data for Strgzr1 and his socks is stale. However, behavioral evidence is pretty clear. I don't make a habit of doing checkuser and then blocking on a behavioral basis; perhaps you might ask NeilN. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll drop him a line. Billcasey905 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

user:Jamesbeboagain

Hello @BU Rob13 and Jpgordon: this is another account for (user:Jamesbebo). He made 2,288 vandal edit on ar.wiki, and he said that he'll make more and more --Alaa :)..! 07:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not an account on en.wiki, so there's nothing I can do to help, I don't think. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_3klx9i2N1WRNbxP&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Evasion

Miledisco was recently blocked but he has returned as Bayesedam on the Tog Wajaale article. He creates accounts everytime he is blocked and targets a wide range of articles, what should be done? 62.198.72.248 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I blocked him as a sock. But there's not much else to do besides vigilance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bayesedam is back as Worryscot on Somalis 2.104.247.147 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Poof. Gone. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Jpgordon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Can you give me the rundown on Machinegunmike321? They popped back up at Darkunicorn321. Is there a prolific master or is this just a young newbie who might be reasoned with? Swarm ♠ 08:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Same person as User:Meboycheese, User:Graham87sucks, and User:Darkunicorn321. Just seemed like time-wasting to me. Or, alternately, might be schoolchildren screwing around on the same 7th grade class computer. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay. I've tagged them all so we can keep tabs if more crop up. Thanks. Swarm ♠ 01:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Writer and Composer

Hi, I feel the use of 'writer and composer' for popular music on Wikipedia entries is misleading. A composer is someone who write music, a [[lyricist] is someone who writes song lyrics, and a songwriter is someone who generally both composes songs and writes their lyrics but generally does not write unaccompanied music. I am sure Joan Baez would consider herself a songwriter. I would defend using (song)writer when a single individual or group has written words and music and lyricist and composer when the words and music are by different people. Stub Mandrel (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi! Thanks for redacting this IP's edit summaries. Could you possibly do the same for this one too? They are probably the same user, too. Lordtobi (✉) 21:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• @5 albert square apparently beat you to it, haha. Have a nice day, you two. Lordtobi (✉) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you Lordtobi, they were such a charmer!--5 albert square (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ransiddk hunt

Is there a case for this? A CU on User:Giantclit turns up more Chrissymad impersonators eg Crissymad. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I found this and others when looking at an unblock request from "User:Chōd wrangler". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Why "flagu" instead of "flag"?

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edits on the article List of indoor arenas by capacity. You reverted the one with the capacity of the biggest arena, Philippine Arena, fair enough, I guess my source wasn't reliable enough, but what's up with "flagu"? It's supposed to be "flag", right? I noticed on Template:flagu that flagu is correct, but it doesn't add a link to the country if you write "flagu". But if you write "flag", it will do so. So, how is "flagu" better than "flag"?
Thanks.
Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it doesn't add the link to the country, which is the correct thing in this case, where the same link would be included dozens of time. We generally try to avoid overlinking. (By the way, local culture is that new messages go on the bottom of talk pages.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's why. I see. And about the "new messages go on the bottom of talk pages), okay, I'll remember that to the next time I post something! - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

sock

Bayesedam is back editing as ip: 84.81.77.172 on Ajuran (clan) 41.210.1.1 (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering that that IP reverted an edit by Bayesedam, how do you figure it? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe he reverted Bayesedam (his own edit) to avoid any suspicion, the reversion happened couple days after he was outed on [8]

This ip address 84.81.77.172 is Bayesedam or editing on his behalf, what points out in his edits is that, he likes to label the Ajuran sultanate as an empire, one of his socks cosbey does this here [9] [10]

Recently he is restoring original research from his previous sock haltishobes.

[11] [12] A user noticed this and reverted [13] 41.242.136.16 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Bob80q sock

Hi JPG. I've found an IP sock of User:Bob80q editing at Special:Contributions/2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3, and reverted per DENY. Do I need to file an SPI? I can't find the SPI page at the moment. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/50.59.106.156 is another long-time BobQ IP that has edited recently, in a common range used by him. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Pignetti has also been contributing to many of the same.articles as Bob80q. The duck is strong in this one. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been offline for a week. I suggest filing an WP:SPI so we can get this crap on record. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'm really good at laying out cases ij SPIs, but I'll see what I can do. - BilCat (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a start Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob80q. I also note that an IP similar to Bob's antagonist Strgzr1 appears to have surfaced. Billcasey905 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblocking two editors

I think it would be safe to assume good faith and unblock these two:

• User:Bales Dai
• User:Ross11245

CC: User:Boing! said Zebedee

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Go right ahead. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I'll keep an eye on their contribs. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing?

I told Clockback that I will transfer the points made on his talkpage to the WP:AN board. He can't reply to the points raised on WP:AN directly. This is completely standard practice -- I have done it many times before. And you go and remove his talkpage access. What the hell? Makes me despair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you aware that the "verbiage" you were talking about was him responding to stuff at WP:AN, which I specifically told him he could do, so I can transfer it over? Did you know that a block review at WP:AN was going on? What is the hurry that you couldn't wait till the block review is over? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Inglorious response

I do not think your comments at User_talk:120.17.85.26#Block_appeal give you any credit. —DIV (120.17.228.20 (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

I don't recall asking for any. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

:-)

This is a treat J. I like the phrase "pull the other one it's got bells on" as well. As a Yank I must have gotten that one from watching EastEnders back in the 80s and 90s. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Worryscott has returned as Flockatucka. Removing same material [14] [15] & [16] [17]. Using the same edit summary "fixed" [18] [19] 41.218.207.124 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done--5 albert square (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing double

Hi Jpgordon, the Special:BlockList tool like what you have cited here is unreliable when two or more blocks have been entered in the block log for the same user, IP address or range. It took me a moment to realize that it is presenting info from both of my blocks in the log (from this to this, it is using pieces from both blocks to present a bad entry). @JamesBWatson, Drmies, and Yamla: should be made aware.

See my response in a circumstance where it is two or more different admins. It will be clearer to see using that example and shows where this has been acknowledged as a bug and being tracked at the phabricator. Here it is.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oooh. That's nasty. I'm glad it is being tracked by phabricator. Short of... guessing... is there a way for me to tell when someone's being hit by multiple blocks? I assume not, at least not practically. --Yamla (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Yes, I noticed this quite a while ago, but (strange though it may seem) I just thought of it as how the Block list worked, rather than as a bug. It gives the date from which the current period of blocking dates, and the most recently updated block log reason. Obviously likely to be misleading, so I suppose it must be regarded as a bug, but I just sort of accepted it. @Yamla: What do you mean by "being hit by multiple blocks"? If an IP address is simultaneously affected by blocks on more than one range (including the trivial case of a range of one) then the block list does show them all. The only other way that I can think of where more than one block can be effective at the same time is when a blocked account is also subject to an IP block, which of course is not visible to anyone except CheckUsers. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. I need more coffee these days. Thanks. Everything's clear now. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

British Exploring Society

Hi Jpgordon,

I am trying to make revisions to the British Exploring Society page and you have cited "rv conversion from well-sourced article to something else)"

My changes are well sourced, please can you explain why you reverted the page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afj22 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Because your changes were not sourced at all. The previous version had a half-dozen references,and needed more (hence the "citation needed" tags) while your version had zero. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Montenegro

Civility calls for telling other editors why you reverted them . 23 editor (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Obvious WP:NPOV breaches are obvious. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Disputed country" is an oxymoron. 23 editor (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Jpgordon, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown

I think we should let Wikipedia readers decide what is relevant about Kamala's dating a marrie dman, and hid the truth. How about you? 08:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking our library system IP!

Thank you! We have no way to monitor all of our users - but hopefully that one bad apple user went away over the last year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.60 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

IP 64.26.97.60

Alas, the bad-apple user of the Enoch-Pratt Free Library System is back at it with the unsourced exact dates for, e.g., the introduction of different kinds of candy bars. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

RFPP

Hey JP could you please consider actioning this request. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt by anyone to discuss this on the article talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Signature Bank

Good Morning. Now that the user that was causing much of the disruption on the Signature Bank article has been banned, would it be possible to get the protection removed so that I can continue editing the page? Welltraveled (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. What's the relationship between this account and User:Infoupdates36? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Other than seeming have both updated the Signature Bank page? None that I'm aware. Welltraveled (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. Even though that account edited from the same IP as you? Interesting. I'll consider unprotecting to see what happens, but the edit warring going on there was loathesome, with problematic behavior, including apparently abuse of multiple accounts, on both sides. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it was loathsome - my hope is that, now that the adversarial user has been blocked, we can get back to editing in a civil manner, using the talk pages and open discussion to settle disputes, etc. Welltraveled (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You were also behaving in an adversarial fashion. I'm unprotected the article and will be keeping a close eye on it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Joshualeverburg1 is back on Luke Brugnara

He’s come back, as user:Monkeysoup111. Filed a SPI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaJoe123456 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

PayPal

You might want to take a look at the page. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That worked like it should, thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Since you participated in indefinite blocking of user TIAYN in May 2018, I want to ask you whether it would be appropriate to replace the content of their user page with Template:Blocked user, or leave it as it is at this moment? Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Why? Is there something objectionable about it? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I just thought whether the user page of an editor who is indefinitely banned should be just left as it is, or "erased" in a way. I am not sure if there is some particular reason to keep such user pages. --Sundostund (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite isn't infinite. TIAYN is a generally good editor who has some self-control issues -- not a vandal, not an abuser, just sure that he's right enough about something that he needs to get his way. I'd be inclined to do the opposite, if I wanted to do anything at all: reach out and see if some time away from Wikipedia has made him reconsider his approach. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Fyi. ——SerialNumber54129 17:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I did inform another admin involved in this indef block (@331dot:) about this. Check the topic at their talk page – here. --Sundostund (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, in seeing the reasoning, I think jpgordon has the right approach(I wasn't aware of this until now). 331dot (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hankook

Hello. I saw your question on my talk page! Before my edits, most of information on Hankooktire wikipedia page was incorrect or outdated. (Including crucial information such as the founder and CEO) It's true that I got most of the information from the official Hankooktire website. However, I cited everything, and the contents do not favor certain product or image of the company. They are all FACTS. The purpose of the wikipedia page is to share correct/useful information with other people. You are more than welcome to add new information to the page, or delete incorrect information. But undoing the entire edit does not seem appropriate. If you think some of the contents look like advertisement, please delete those texts only. Goodbye and I hope you have a great day! --Suhmk1025 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Suhmk1025

These are copyright violations. I am not going to examine each change to consider its sourcing, now that I've found copyvios in almost every paragraph. Your responsibility is to make the changes you want without violating policy and law. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I cited my sources to be from the official website. But from now, I only corrected 1) Founder 2) CEO 3) Revenue information. Please do not erase that.--Suhmk1025 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Suhmk1025

It's nice that you cited them; however, you still can't cut-and-paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia, regardless of your citations. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi JP, nice to meet you. (France AAA (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC))

Socking

There's a new user named peaksprite, which i believe is a sock of habar awal, his latest sock (datch71s) was blocked a month ago [20], however he seems to have returned starting with editing his favorite article Sheikh Hussein. Ironically the last registered users to edit that article are his three different socks (bayesedam, flockatucka, datch71s). peaksprite removed the very same content another sock (taskubed) had removed on Harar. [21] [22] 41.218.197.85 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious user (France AAA) with few edits just reverted you on Double Bass and left a message on your talk page after I made a post here about socking. Its interesting that one of Habar awals old socks (skyfarax} used the same usertalk introduction "hello world" like France AAA did. [23] [24]. 41.96.13.242 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Bbb23: Take a look at this please? I'm in a place with bad connectivity. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Peaksprite is confirmed to Habar Awal king (talk · contribs · count), blocked and tagged. France AAA is  Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

165.225.60.69

Could you please block user:165.225.60.69? They are persistently vandalizing. CLCStudent (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OK! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Luke Brugnara

Looks like another sock. Submitted an SPI report. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I ended up on your user page

(something I do while too lazy to really edit wikipedia) and plucked your "It should be noted" and added it to my "list of words or phrases that, to me, when I hear them or read them, or say them or write them, typically mean, "in my opinion." Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad you have amusing ways of wasting time! I'll check out yours. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think of it more as R&R (military) than waste. Carptrash (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked editor back again?

Hello JP, you have blocked User:MorningSunBright however they appear to be back in another form User talk:StopPrejudiceNow with exactly the same edits on Dog and Origin of the domestic dog. Same ISP perhaps? William Harristalk 08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Aerial

Thank you. I figured as much but I do believe it was stated to use American English. I appreciate the link. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I grew up in Northern Virginia, with NYC influences, and we called it the "aerial". So it's not something you should go about changing based on WP:ENGVAR principles. On the other hand, in LA, it was certainly "antenna". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the link you provided to me it stated it was British. Hence my response. I've lived in New Mexico and California. I have family in Florida and the northeast who I've visited frequently and I've never heard that term. Also, it was originally antenna and changed by another editor to aerial. So I was changing it back. My point was that I don't think a lot of people would understand what that meant but perhaps it had more to do with my own subjectivity. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Hello again. I responded to you on the talk page but I wanted to message you as well. I understand your concerns about the character descriptions. However, a lot of those events are referenced in the film. Also the characters aren't fictionalized but the events are. The rest was to connect dots. I'm wondering if in your opinion some of the descriptions would make more sense if there's a sentence about how it's referenced in the film? I'll also work on tightening it up. Should I add something about how the film has been criticized for not portraying the theory of Helter Skelter and The Manson Family as white supremacists in order to tie that in as well? Would that be better in the historical characters section? Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Answered in article talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I won't let you down. If I run into any problems, I'll drop you a line and seek some solutions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

15 years of editing

Hey, Jpgordon. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Jpgordon/Archive 8,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a question

Okay, let's say I've written a review of a movie. Do I, as an editor here in Wikipedia, get to add that review of the movie to an article about the movie? I feel there is a controlling guideline on this? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE probably is the guideline. Don't. If your review is special, bring it up on the talk page of the article in question; if someone else without WP:COI thinks it is appropriate, they might add it, but it looks terrible if you add it yourself. I'm surprised this isn't obvious. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jpgordon; thanks for getting back to me. I was aware of SELFCITE, but there appears to be wiggle room on how it is used. As I am trying to reform my method of editing and approaches to such, getting input from more experienced editors regarding their take on policies and guidelines seems prudent.

The situation I noted is a) not hypothetical and, b) not me.

I am talking about about. This edit was added by User: Absar 1989. Note the author of the piece being cited. I decided to ask here because three issues present themselves: first (most important), if I draw attention to the edit in article discussion or the editor's talkpage, I risk outing them. Second, the source appears to be from a self-published source. Third, it is atypical to post a review link only in the Premise section and not Critical response. The first two problems gives me the greatest pause; I don't want to out anyone, and a look at the editor's contributions note a frequent linking to reviews on the self-published source.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No thoughts. Just reverted them all. We don't get to cite ourselves on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And it's not "outing" them. He declares his ownership of the site at User:Absar.1989. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I've reverted and blocked. No big deal, just garden variety spam. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Move to ban Zombiedude101z

Over at WP:AN, I have moved to ban Zombiedude101z. You confirmed the most recent known sockpuppet, SpeedyGonzales1488. You are welcome but not obligated to participate in the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten block

I've finished the forgotten block at User talk:Green Burial Council. Cheers! -- Alexf^(talk) 10:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting promotional edits by 199.58.164.141 (talk · contribs). Since they're here for one purpose only, and considers any check on their edits to be vandalism, I've asked for a block. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

What does non-RS mean? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I realized it shortly after I asked you. Why is Wordpress unreliable? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Can we protect the page again. My edit war was in response to an editor adding an incorrect tag who refused to start an account or discuss it on the talk page. Anonymous editors are continuing to make us constructive, disruptive, and vandal edits with no knowledge of the history of the page or Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• unconstructive Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I didn't continue any edit warring. I reverted other unconstructive edits in response to concerns that the page easily was snowballing into being too long by removing content that I had originally added and removed and that was being added back by other editors, when other editors told me the page was too long. Calm down. Instead of threatening me, please have a conversation with me, so we can better understand each other. Do you have a personal issue with me? Can you please a better attempt to explain what you're talking about? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I responded to you on my page. Thank you for getting back to me. I think a lot of this had to do with you mistaking some of my edits. The edits I reverted after the block were completely different edits that had nothing to do with the edit war. I encourage you to check them if you like. Take care. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

For an admin to snark at another editor...

...in an edit summary is only a tinier bit harder than looking through page history and seeing the prior-but-one editor has been consistently reverted for adding unknown and fanciful slurs to the page without sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you and no hard feelings. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Assumptions :

Do you agree with the following statement : "An assumption is not considered a verifiable source." - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Does a dog have Buddha-nature? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, yes or no? - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Why even bother with the question? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD|Talk 04:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはJpgordonたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Luke Brugnara again

Looks like we have another COI sock at Luke Brugnara. The new sock is iriv3rrr. Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. If he does it again I'll just sockblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood / user:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy

Hi. User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy is continuing to assume ownership of the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood article. He's reverting every one of my edits and claiming that there was a previous consensus reached here (which is untrue) regarding plot length. To be clear, my edits are keeping the plot summary well under 700 words. Read this discussion, in which he tells me to "stop trying to add information" and he asserts that all edits must be approved by him ("But it is you who is attempting to make changes. I’m simply attempting to keep it as is"). An admin needs to intervene, this guy still doesn't get it. SolarFlash (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've not made any headway with him. I'd suggest bring this to the attention of WP:ANI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We'll see if discussion leads anywhere, but I have a feeling ANI is inevitable with this guy. Thanks for your time. SolarFlash (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind and blocked him for edit warring. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll see if he has a change of opinion 72 hours later. Cheers. SolarFlash (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

CU

Hope you're well JPG. Just a quickie, but, as I think you're the only CU to have commented on this increasingly bizarre scenario—apologies if I'm wrong on that to whomever else—can I ask whether CU has been run? I'm under the impression atm that the block is based on (pretty obvious!) behavioral/timing issues. It does occur to me, though, that it could be this guy's joe-jobbing fun and games, and a CU might resolve this one way or the other. Happy New Year! ——SN54129 19:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

CUs were run. I see no connection; I'm beginning to agree "joe job". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! ——SN54129 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Schumacher

Please block user:Jordan Schumacher ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ta-da! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Now she is back as user:JordanSchumacher1. CLCStudent (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Zapped and some other sox. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Help needed - vandalism

Hi Jpgordon, please take a look over this IP vandalism [25]. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [26]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Several articles have been facing removal of sourced material and what not, it's the same modus operandi [27] (see the insulting diff as well) [28] [29] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Duckwater.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Duckwater.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Zapped, thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Dear Jpgordon, I hope you are fine. Could you, as an administrator, please take a look at this discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard? The discussion is about when it is OK to remove sourced material, when there are objecions concerning the reliability of the given sources. Both parties gave their arguments, but we need a wise man to come to a judgement. I already asked User:Jayjg the same question, but since he appears to be on a break since 20 January, I thought it would be a good idea to reach out to you too. Thanks and regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Protection needed

Hi, could you protect Ivan Gundulić for a while? Is there a way to request permanent protection of the page? It's been vandalised by various IP for some years. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFPP --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Another admin has protected the page. Thank you! Would you care to take a look at this IP rants [30] ? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Louis Jordan comment

I noticed your snide comment in the edit summary of the Louis Jordan article. If you are suggesting that I am lazy, all you could have done was to look at the article history to know that I am in the middle of working on an article that has had a maintenance template for ELEVEN YEARS. You could have clicked on my name to see how much work I have done for Wikipedia overall. I have done MORE than my share. Not less. You could have stopped to consider that the piece of information you considered vital to include (Jordan's burial place) really isn't anyone's business and far from vital to the article. I will talk to you civilly if you want, on my Talk page or yours, but let's try to do the decent thing by avoiding impulsive sniping in the dark. Administrators ought to know better. Calm down and take time to think. There's no rush. Administrators ought to know how to write a proper citation, which you didn't do on that cemetery sentence.Vmavanti (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'd actually tried to back off the comment but pressed the "publish" button too quickly. I maybe shouldn't edit before coffee. I expected you here rightfully criticizing my comment, and I fully apologize for my ill manners. (If we were little kids, I'd offer to let you punch me on the arm.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that v. much. It takes a lot of courage, maturity, and wisdom to say what you just said. I wish more people could be like that.Vmavanti (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your Block

How certain are you of your block of this user: User: King_of_Scorpions? He's been nothing but a productive editor from what I've seen of his contributions so far and his interactions with his mentor heavily indicate his sincerity in improving the project. I've also helped him a bit on my talk page. -=Troop=- (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Another checkuser will need to go through this, but it's quite unambiguous that that account is technically indistinguishable from another checkuser blocked account. And there are other problems too. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher Columbus

I can't figure out what's happened to the page, but the last edit by Hello1214[31] seems odd and there's a broken template. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Took it further. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

El Paso page notice

Thank you for adding the page notice about the spelling of Feleena. I don't know if it will help, but it can't hurt. This has been a recurring problem.--Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a silly minor problem, but if you'll note on the talk page, I was skeptical about the Feleena spelling in my first edit there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)