This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't see how we sockpuppeted. If you agree, can you please unblock my accounts? 71.94.158.203 ( talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,this is Robert Parrish,for some reason ive been accused of using "multiple accounts",not sure why My account User:Rob-Oblong was banned,because that was my only account up until i made this one to inquire why the first was banned,seeing as didnt sign up an email address because i wasnt expecting to be randomly targeted and attacked).seeing as really havn't made any edits,there was another issue as well everytime ive logged on it says my ip is blocked for vandalism? I've never vandalized anything and resent this greatly,and now my account is blatantly being bannned for no reason,it seems like wikipedia is being run by a bunch of loose cannons with an itchy ban button finger who are making it quite complicated for the average joe to use wikipedia. You see, i dont have a problem,it would just be much appreciated if you unbanned my account ,thanks. RobP1989 ( talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think this User:TomasCantorFriedman might be a sockpuppet for the above. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tomas Cantor Friedman. Please unblock my account! I have not done anything wrong! Whats a sockpuppet? In any case i'm really not any puppet!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I have an explanation for that, even if it sounds kind of corny. I had a account named Tosses but I realized that "Toss" or something like that is a sexual behaviour, something &#%#%#. So I created the account Arn Cantor because I'm related to Arn, a figure like Beowulf(believe it or not). Anyway, I forgot my password and had not linked the account to any mailadress. So I created the account CantorFriedman, which is my name. Then that account was blocked indefinitely. So I created the account TomasCantorFriedman = also blocked for obvious reasons. But please, 3 of the accounts are named almost the same. Arn Cantor, CantorFriedman, TomasCantorFriedman. This just because I did not want to deceive anyone. Is there any way I can clear this and start over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No I can't remind me of creating a account named Cantor! I only altered between Tosses and CantorFriedman when I got a angry hate message(or what you call it) on my talk page. I don't recall altering on any other site except when I stopped using the Tosses account and started writing with my CantorFriedman account. Is there a way to start over or am I forever banned from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
But I don't want the account Tosses because of, you know. And secondly, I can't edit my talk page while logged in because the account are blocked indefinitely! So that means I can't appeal my block!! Moment 22! Have you got some other advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see, if I appeal the block at Tosses(and hoping for the best), is it possible to change the username afterwords? PS. Thank you for just not ignoring me! DS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The appeal is mailed to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't edit anything when logged in as Tosse, I had to mail the appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Saeedrags ( talk · contribs) left an odd note at my talk page (and some others)...I know it's hardly standard operating procedure to run a check on an account at that account's out-of-the-blue request. Frankly, I'd like to know why and have asked as such. I just wonder what you might think of the situation... Thanks, — Scien tizzle 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't this crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I am Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator. [1] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
My good fellow editor and helpful administrator: Please look at the Book of Concord page. Banned editor Mccain is again attempting to edit it. I think we need to make the article protected from editing by anonymous editors unless someone wants to lift the indefinite ban. I for one would not be in favor of lifting the ban. His latest sock puppet is the IP address: 75.8.92.141 [2]---- Drboisclair ( talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You stole my block summary without attribution. Are those covered under the GFDL? I guess it's cool, though, since I'm your sockpuppet. MastCell Talk 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, IP 188.225.180.251 continues to vandalize Rawabi even after being warned and blocked (on multiple accounts) several times. I don't know how else to convince him to stop with these disruptive edits. Breein1007 ( talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your long experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page and download the file with the questions. This would take around 20 of your time. Thanks! Aresj ( talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you locking the page from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 ( talk) 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, I hope you are well. Bruno has opened a couple more accounts recently - User:Olvenetian, User:2Lauderdale (apparently retired) - as well as the IP address 12.185.127.9. Once again I'll open an SPI case if you would prefer me to do so. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 07:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: [4]: interesting. A quick skim of that page didn't show any struck-out edits; is there a sock-puppet investigations page for the details? William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please accept my apology about "put up or shut up", but I hadn't appreciated you were an uninvolved editor nor involved in the investigation about the user concerned. It came soon after a similar comment by an involved editor on the page, who when challenged for making a similar statement had not substantiated his comment. I have had no contact with the user who has now been blocked before a request to contribute to the discussion a week or so ago. What concerns me is that this request cam from an IP within the range that have been identified, but looking at the contributions of that user, the only overlap is with the circumcision article, and there are two IPs where these requests for input come from, so one can reasonably assume they are one and the same user:
However, what strikes me as odd is that this IP user also included the user he is supposed to be the sock of in the list of people he requested to contribute. If you look at the user's comment on his own block, he seems completely oblivious of his being blocked for using IPs - but talks about an association with some other user who was not even included in the alleged sockpuppetry. I would be concerned if this user was subject to an investigation without being informed of this. I was not aware of it, and I can find no discussion of this recent investigation on his talk page, so am left wondering by the lack of response to the accusations, which if he was not aware of the procedure, how he could have responded? I have to bow to your experience in these matters, but I am left wondering how far we can be sure all of this is the same user as the one who has been blocked, and not a new user with a similar perspective? During the discussions I did not get the impression that these IP edits were the same individual as the blocked user - but I guess I wasn't looking for that at that time. Mish ( talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your balanced observations and hope you will weigh in on this. User DougHill has been inserting a conspiracy theorist category onto this page for retired FBI SAC Ted Gunderson. I'd like to clean this page up and get rid of the unreferenced material, but I think it will be an uphill climb when another editor is insisting that Mr. Gunderson's only notability is as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks! Winksatfriend ( talk) 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
Can you please unprotect User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang? Sorry. I am sorry if what I said in User talk:Bowei Huang was inappropriate. I promise that I will never say anything inappropriate there again. I promise that I will never make any more requests for unblock there again. I promise that I will either leave User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang blank or redirected if you unprotect them. So can you please simply unprotect User talk:Bowei Huang now? Can you please simply unprotect User:Bowei Huang too?
Bowei Huang 2 ( talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for unblocking me! ;-) Can you tell me what I have to do now to get my 1541 Ultimate article back, which was deleted without any discussion whatsoever? -- DeeKay64 ( talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
[5] Not really worth a sock check, it's already thrown away. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, Bruno's back, with this tomfoolery [6], and as User:Old1980s, whose user page bears an uncanny resemblence to his old sock User:DuilioM, and whose editing interest bears an uncanny resemblence to Bruno. Thanks for your attention as always, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Thank you for your efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You did unblock 1 party in the edit-war, but I had declined the other one ... you're welcome to balance things out, if you wish ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
So it seems that one day after the semiprotection you put on this article expired, the same anon editor keeps attempting to add te same unencyclopedic list of former locations. In short, I think either the anon needs a block or the page needs an extension of semiprotection. oknazevad ( talk) 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered comments earlier. I still think I was right, but you made me think a lot about it, so maybe I would take a slightly more lenient line the next time. Unlike a football referee, I am obliged to explain my administrative decisions promptly and honestly. I especially enjoyed the booger-eating salt monkeys comment. Incidentally, I noticed your user page states that you are against "ironically", "interestingly" and "it should be noted that". I share this aversion, and another one I have noticed increasingly since I started looking is "however" used as connective tissue in flabby writing.
Take care, and thanks again for your thoughtful comments. -- John ( talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you intend to block Klangranger indefinitely? I'm only asking because you tagged Klangranger as indefinitely blocked but the account hasn't been blocked yet. Elockid ( Talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Btw, did I ever share this one with you? I came across it on recent changes patrol. It's my favorite vandal thing: Look at the title of the article. [7]. Malke 2010 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jpgordon, Arunvroy ( talk · contribs) is suspicious as well. The account hadn't made an edit in over two years but showed up today at Talk:Ahatallah advancing exactly the same opinion as the recently blocked Fyodor and his socks. [8] Cheers, -- Cúchullain t/ c 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify your comments on the other accounts per my last comment at the SPI? I freely admit to the account dealing with the crazy/scarey people, but haven't created any other accounts and don't understand what you are referring to. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Could you possibly delete this GA review from the sock puppet you recently blocked? The review was incomplete, and even if it wasn't, I'd rather have a fresh one from an honest, credible reviewer. -- James26 ( talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. The unblock request was approved. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice Martin BTW, Koa? 71.108.127.244 ( talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Blackson
{{
tb|Fastily}}
S/he says to go for it (unblocking).
69.181.249.92 (
talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
One of those socks created by Checker Fred wasn't this was it? -- AussieLegend 14:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gun_Powder_Ma_repeated_NPA. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you restored the content of CullVernon's talk page, so he couldn't impede the unblock review. Well, he blanked it again... 76.123.241.114 ( talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, that I'm having an issue with this one guy User:Deconstructhis. Thought should fix the former staff page on KERO, before he goes on there and changes it. There is something on WP:TVS on this issue, if you would like to chime in on the issue. I changed it for KERO, because the user I mentioned has been changing KGET-TV former air staff to how I have KERO-TV for example. Should leave KERO-TV like that for now, until the issue is resolved. Just wanted to clue you in, in case you go on KERO-TV and wonder what happened to all the names on there. Once the issue is resolved, we'll get them on there. ( JoeCool950 ( talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
He's suddenly come out and requested unblock after almost two years. I can't the similarities to the alleged sock or puppeteer in the editing history. But since this is a direct block, was Checkuser involved? Is there something I can't see? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello
My original account (User:iaaasi) is completely blocked, consequently I cannot make a request from there. I have a dynamic IP (79.117.xxx.xxx).
A more detailed motivation for my request would be here [9]... The main reason why I had recourse to sock accounts was that I was falsely accused to be User:Bonaparte (maybe without that accusation the problem would have been simpler)... I regret a lot that I chose that way...
Please give me a new chance at User:iaaasi and I promise I will not create problems. User:Rokarudi from WikiProject Hungary can confirm that I am a good faith editor and I am not against Hungarians
I am ready to be supervised by you or another admin and my edits to be under a strict control if you think it is necessary.
I will be grateful if you will help me( 79.117.150.47 ( talk) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
Two apparent sleeper sockpuppets have emerged and are causing further disruption - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. It would be helpful if you could assist with resolving this speedily. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, I got an email from a user claiming to represent this IP, asking whether we could lift the block. I looked at the sockpuppetry discussion for the user, and I do think that a six month block is a bit heavy. I think a shorter block of say one month would be sufficient time to see if the user cools off and graduates from their current position to a become a better contributor. What do you think? -- Zippy ( talk) 04:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm working with her and, let's just call it an experience. At this point I told her if I saw some changes I would be willing to give her credit for "time served" and end it at month end but this far she's been very enthusiastic to get back at it and "fix" things. I'm going to keep at it and see where we get at I'm hopeful I can work with her but it's tough going at present for certain. -- Wgfinley ( talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Shortly after Sandstein blocked the user, an autoblock appeared in the IPBlocklist. Would it make sense to run a check to see if any light may be shed on this? – xeno talk 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Mind if I tag those sockpuppets? -- Bsadowski1 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. This user whom you blocked has requested unblock and he may have a point, in that you said he had posted the same edits twice which he appears not to have done. Would you lok at it? And if I am wrong, please accept my apologies? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for reversing the decision to block my account because of my nephew. I can assure you he's been given a good hiding and he's gone home now anyway so it certainly won't be happening again. Next time he comes here he will find my modem power cable missing unless he learns how to behave and use my computer appropriately. Thank you again. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for running this thing: [10], but what should be done now?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible for you to perform the CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin as they seem to have recieved a lot of attacks in the past two hours? Thanks. Kevin Dorwin ( talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Josh, I believe that the problem with Book of Concord has ceased, so if you would and are able, please remove the semiblock. I leave it to your discretion. I hope all is well with you in your beautiful environment.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanx, Josh, but I think that ArbCom will be the poorer without your guiding hand. That is if I haven't misunderstood what you have resigned from a year early.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe User:Lizardlocker should make the list as well--please see their contributions. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't redact this impotent personal attack because I felt you'd be indifferent to it. If I was wrong, I apologize. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring the swipe. See ya 'round Tide rolls 02:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you were not aware of this [11] admission from NW that talk page access was revoked by mistake. It's somewhat less likely that you were not aware that our blocking policy states that "This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page," and it's a virtual certainty that you are aware that undoing an admin's reversal of another admin's actions constitutes wheel warring. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this or anything, but I was a bit alarmed when I went over there to re-instate the mistakenly revoked talk page privileges to see that it had already been done and then reversed, meaning that if I turned them back on I would be wheel warring. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gordon
I'm so sorry for troubling you, so please accept my apologies in advance. I have two cases of suspected sock-puppetry to report. Thank you for your time. -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 05:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. -
Hydroxonium (
talk |
contribs) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jpgordon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running a check on my account, because my edits keep being reverted as socks, but I'm not! I don't know what else to do because nobody seems to be listening. I just want to show them that I'm legit. Thank you Grignard4120 ( talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals. 76.177.47.225 ( talk)
|
Hi, Josh. I noticed at User_talk:98.195.149.177 that you said this disruptive IP editor was a sock of a blocked user. I was wondering if it would be possible to identify which blocked user this is, so the fact can be mentioned on the IP address's user page. Apologies for my ignorance if there's some reason why this would not in fact be appropriate or helpful. Richwales ( talk · contribs · review) 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked a long-term troll with an anon IP (159.105.80.141), resolving to Vermont, back in May (see Talk:David_Irving/Archive_6), and the same person is back on a slightly different IP: Special:Contributions/159.105.80.122, with the same abuse of talk pages and the same fringe views on familiar subjects. Can you block this one too? It's more of the same pointless trolling. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I was referred to you by User:PeterSymonds regarding my SPI case. I'm being completely honest with everyone. I used to frequently edit at a library down the street from me, but I recently obtained a laptop from my grandfather on Saturday, and I've been using that to edit ever since. I honestly don't know what else to do. I'm at a loss. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years, and I don't want to see that all go to waste just because of some coincidence. Please, understand. I haven't done anything wrong, and I'm not the owner of a sockpuppet. Thank you. WereWolf ( talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me on the actual problem and solving the issue. I appreciate it. Many Regards, Yousou ( talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork * YES! 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, one of the IPs you have blocked as sockpuppets of Tosses is activ again. Mostly on Talk:Great Divergence, editwarring with User:Teeninvestor, which is also not easy to handle. The subject is ... dingdong ... China. Additionally is a new IP involved from the same range [12]. Maybe you can have a look on this. -- Ben Ben ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This editor, whose history goes back several years, appears to be repeatedly suffering from collateral damage from anti-sock rangeblocks; or else he is socking. You unblocked him recently, and Jayron32 re-unblocked him shortly afterwards. I am well able to give IP exemption, but am a little uneasy at doing so. Could you take a look? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what was wrong with my requests and then for you to remove my talk page rights as well. User:FTP1690 -- Rangers GSTQ ( talk) 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
BigBodBad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
You recently indef blocked this user for being a sock. Who were they a sock of? I want to know so I can tag the pages appropriately.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you also clarify "as required above" tidbit. Because I don't see it either. Phearson ( talk) 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Charlesdolphharding. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the decline reason here. Where was it spelled out? Was there something in particular wrong with the present account name? – xeno talk 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Have it your way, then. It was just a test edit, anyways; now I know about the sandbox, so I'll mess around with code there from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Enemies Within ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for adding your editing expertise on the Vernon article. Nader's POV was a bit over the top, on second look. Glad to make your acquaintance. Namaste... DocOfSoc ( talk) 02:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the harassment on my
talk page by
User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being listed as an "Admin willing to make difficult blocks," and would hope that you can warn him off, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on that list also, that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards,
GregJackP
Boomer! 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what the problem is, but it is lodged somewhere in the template itself, as the sandbox version doeds not exibit any problems. I will try and find out what it causing it. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jp, warm greetings to you. I hope you are well. It's been quiet for a while, but Bruno's now operating a couple of new accounts (as far as I can tell that is, as a seasoned observer). I am certain beyond fear of contradiction that User:Everyreason1 and User:Consilinario are both naked clone alteregos of our banned former co-worker. Once again, if you think an SPI would be appropriate, please let me know, and I will gladly do the business, but I believe they may both be sent on their way without further ado. Many thanks for your attention, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank for unblocking me! ^-^ Ora Stendar 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
I would like to impart to you that user:Iaaasi, who has been blocked for indefinite time and some of whose sockpuppets were blocked by you like these for instance: [13] [14], wants to request to be unblocked here: Proposed_unblock_of_User:Iaaasi.Regards-- Nmate ( talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This nasty little anti-Semite? He's come up here. I notice he edits every day, either from 188.23.0.0/16 or 93.82.0.0/20 (pretty sure about that /20). I'm considering rangeblocking them, studying collateral damage. What do you think? Should we file an SPI, or can you take a quick look for any sockpuppets or an other IP ranges we might be missing? His daily edits are typical pro-terrorist, 9/11-conspiracy, "Wikipedia-is-Zionist", anti-Semitic crud, with occasional good edits mixed in. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you specializing Japanese war crimes and deleting other countries? [16] Japanese policy was anti holocost, Japanese war crimes were no relavence to holocost.-- Bukubku ( talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that anon who keeps adding the list of former locations is back, having waited out the most recent page protection. I've already reverted him twice today, and will again in a moment (as 3RR doesn't apply), but it certainly could be usefull to either extend PP again and/or block this fool. Your thoughts?
Hi, Jpgordon. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51? You were the primary blocking admin back in December, and you've been referenced in this new case. This editor claims he was only blocked because he "played a joke on a friend", but after seeing this, it appears the block was for more extensive reasons. He admits creating another account after being blocked (a "new start" he calls it), and he admits he still edits from several IPs (he frequently "forgets to log in" he says), so proving the multiple account usage isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he is doing anything wrong; I was hoping you'd be able to offer some insight. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
[Since your block notice is on the page of the UserID... and he can't seem to go 24hrs without writing something on WP!]—
DennisDallas (
talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you left some comments on the talk page of an article where I and some other editors had a dispute about the subject of the article. I have been putting together a formal review of the article, and clearly outlining its many problems. I intend, once completed, to again raise the issues with the editors. If they refuse to address them, and refuse a fourth request that they submit to mediation, I intend to seek administrator intervention to resolve the policy violations. I was curious if you might look at my analysis and tell me what you think. It is here User talk:Charles Edward/sandbox. I am heading to my library to obtain a couple of the books used as sources to farther check the article. If you are too busy, or averse to conflict (as I generally am) then I understand!
Thanks — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to bring Chaser's help to your attention so you can see what you should have done. Further explanation is all I asked for, but you failed at that. Administrator's like Chaser are why Wikipedia is as good as it is. Administrator's like you are why Wikipedia will never be that good. I bring this to your attention so that you can strive to meet Chaser's example. Thank you, and have a nice day. 128.104.truth ( talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page.
This user helped promote Barry Bonds to good article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
For the time you spent on my unblocking. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
About trying to edit MuffinMan999's talk page, im MuffinMan999, im just blocked and i tried to contest my block because ive finally realised my mistakes and i just wanted another shot at wikipedia in which i would become a succesful contributor. I mean, sockpuppeting is very bad and can get you blocked should you abuse it. Please convey this message to Favonian and see what he makes of it, please.-- 89.241.166.137 ( talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
ha ha just edited!-- 89.241.166.137 ( talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you please look at this page and some further action. In spite of level 4 warmings, these people keep on vandalizing. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Any idea who this guy might be? Half Shadow 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I shouldn't have waded in on this one – all I did was spot the content revert through Special:RecentChanges. I gave a 3 month block, but feel free to review this (I've posted the same to User:Materialscientist as they did the original block). You two seem to have been involved with this longer than I have, so go ahead and do whatever you think is best! Regards, matt ( talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, ResearchEditor has been sockpuppeting again, please check the accounts I've tagged with "sockpuppet" in my recent contributions (Nov 9th/10th depending on your timezone). Could you block 'em for me, or should I take it up elsewhere? RFCU probably isn't a good choice since this was a month ago. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you served here, would you be willing to repeat the performance this year?. I ask because there's a call for help at the election talk page, and because you have the tools we need. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I know that word doesn't exist, but anyhow here goes. I lost my user when my computer crashed and was not able to login back in, so I created a new account and wanted to know if you would please allow me to continue to contribute to wikipedia. As I have made thousands of positive edits to wikipedia. Can I please continue to be allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Machnnn ( talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sooo... Any chance to convince you to try for arbcom (again)? - jc37 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying if this user was using a residential or a business address? I think this does not violate the privacy policy and would help determine the next steps. Regards, Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just realised that when you reviewed the unblock request made by user:LouisPhilippeCharles you forgot to sign it. Please could you do so or otherwise it may look to someone who glances at the page that I inappropriately made the review -- PBS ( talk) 03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fyi. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Josh, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards, Sandstein 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you would mind commenting on the puzzlement several of us have in this section of ANI: [17] ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you also take away 99.101.128.39's talk page privileges? WAYNE SLAM 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Maltese (dog), you may be blocked from editing. BLGM5 ( talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You have been involved with the sock puppet blocks on this article. FYI, I have made a request for page protection due to recent edits by three different IPs that have made edits identical to the puppets. Anything else you can think of would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit of yours, I was wondering if the issue in question has been resolved yet. I was thinking about trying to understand the issue, but if it's been definitively resolved to your satisfaction then I won't bother. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent> I've looked into it, and have succeeded in changing the extremely dumb policy that was the main reason for this block. [20] However, the blocking admin no longer has a "Sysop flag", and in any event still demands an apology which will almost certainly not be forthcoming. The block seems punitive at this point, because the policy now addresses the blocked user's concern. Since you previously offered to unblock the user, would you please review the situation and again consider unblocking? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Take this elsewhere, please. My sole involvement was the unblock request; I made a suggestion; it was essentially brushed off, and I thus lost interest in the discussion; and I have not regained it. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork that is in part about your deletion of User talk:Malcolm Schosha. Like others commenting there, I think that user talk page should not have been deleted, both on the merits (in view of the RFC about this issue) and also as a matter of procedure (because WP:CSD#U1, invoked by you, explicitly rules out deleting user talk pages). I appreciate the arguments raised on ANI about possible lawsuits, but as I commented there I believe that any deletions required to avoid lawsuits should be made by Foundation staff, not us. Could you please restore the page and, if you think it should be deleted, submit it to MfD? Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you helped block a sockpuppet today, now this person is back with yet another name, at least judging from targetted topics and attitude. User:Rouxsd. This IP address might be the source of several sockpuppets, I suspect. I also left this note for another editor Glen something, that maybe you can address:
Thank you. For some reason, water fluoridation really upsets people; there is an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia's articles in this area. User:Zxoxm created an article that should probably be nixed: William Marcus, the article advances User:Zxoxm's agenda of antifluoridation. I assume that articles created by sockpuppets are removed automatically, but am not sure.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know we've had the discussion in the past about changing the language of the template, or coming up with a different one, to reflect situations where a user has a combined COI and username problem but has not really violated any other policy. Where did that go? I reserve {{ uw-spamublock}} for users whose behavior more clearly comes under WP:SPAM (i.e., they post xlinks, or add mentions of their company, with a matching username to other articles). Similarly, I find {{ uw-softerblock}} to be appropriate only for those accounts whose name indicates clear role usage, which to me an organizational name alone does not ("Consolidated Amalgamated Marketing Dept.", for instance, vs. "Consolidated Amalgamated").
As inadequate as the language of ublock probably is to its current use, I still find that it preserves the assumption of good faith for a user who may have just skipped past all the other policies and started posting an article about their company or organization. By saying "Your username is the only reason for this block", we're saying that we think you could be a productive editor, just not with this username. Some of those editors, actually, we'd have no problem with their edits if they were under different usernames. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the declined unblock for this user, I was puzzled by the reference to checkuser results as there may be confusion from when this user legitimately change account name in November. Is there an SPI case that this block relates to? Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Guess you've heard by now that Don (Captain Beefheart) died yesterday. Anyway, I'm curious to know if you ever met him? (Your brother posted a nice eulogy, which is how I made the connection.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
While they were warned previously, the first warning wasn't really appropriate as WP:BLANKING doesn't prevent a user from removing block notices from their own page (although, it does stipulate against removing the unblock request which they did later).
As the duration was left the same, I don't have any intent to change the block. But, I am wondering if the revoking could be viewed as a bit harsh given it was a result of what was technically their first violation of WP:BLANKING. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, i'm lordalpha1, and I'm here to testify for my banning.
Let me explain. My Wifi Network (NOT my account) was hacked a few days ago, and my ip was blocked. so, i put up a unblock request on my talk page, not my ip's. So after I realized that my network folders were missing, I checked all of my accounts (eg email, wikipedia, deviantart, dropbox, etc...) to see if they were hacked. This took me about 1 and a half minutes. However, I accidentally put the unblock request on my talk page, not my IP's, so sorry if that was a mistake of mine. However, I got permanently banned, NOT my IP. I'm sorry if I put the template in the wrong place.
I hope you understand my situation.
Regards,
lordalpha1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.182.114 ( talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you recently blocked User:Onalgape for abusing multiple accounts. He/she left a message on my talk page prior to being blocked asking that I add a question of his/hers to my ongoing RfA. Could you let me know the background behind this block? I'm trying to determine if the request is legitimate. – Grondemar 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Then you're either a liar or insane; in either way, you're not needed here." I like it :) I do really like it. Peridon ( talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon,
My user name k247 appears to be listed on wiki - project spam for some reason with a report about the block you put in place because I blanked my user page (sorry I thought this was okay after reading the message). Is there some connection with being blocked for edit warring/page blanking and this? I am not sure why this editor has listed my user name the link at rare groove that I was trying to use to upload an audio file and my article that I am trying to develop postmodern religion here? This is the log link at wikispam next to my user name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/?page=User:Kary247%E2%80%8E -- Kary247 ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess I am just not clear as to why my article on postmodern religion and my user name have been listed at wikispam? So when you look at what links here for postmodern religion and my kary247 user account the wiki spam link comes up. I did place a link for discussion at rare groove but I did put this up on the discussion board there and I did revert the editor and was subsequently blocked for edit warring. Does this really warrant my user name being and the article I am working really hard postmodern religion on being listed at wikispam? It seems a bit harsh?-- Kary247 ( talk) 19:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, -- John ( talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. You should know much much better. Elvey ( talk) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please refamiliarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. More specifically, I [ warned you about your CoI editing and you reverted that edit. I'm a user whose edit you reverted after I noted and reverted your CoI edit. You have a CoI with respect to eBay/PayPal. Are you willing to confirm or deny that? If so, I ask that you do so here and now. -- Elvey ( talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit removed content that you claimed was at an oblique reference, and yet in fact was not at that referenced page. Specifically, you referenced a "list of processors" as containing the information you removed. There was no "list of processors", and while there was a " List of on-line payment service providers", it, as I had pointed out in fact did NOT include the competitors, eCache, and Google , that you had removed. Removing competitors from a company where there is a CoI certainly at least creates the strong appearance of bias and should not be the action of a user such as yourself who has extraordinary powers on the wiki. I ask that you undo your removal of eCache, and Google forthwith. (The discussion described above took place in edit summaries; see [21] 1,2 and 9 January 2011 ) -- Elvey ( talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Josh Gordon,
I am not sure, that I am posting at the right place. If I am in error please let me know. I got the following from you jpgordon: "Current revision as of 16:27, 9 January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Aryan race appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)"
I would like to ask why you found my alterations with regard to the page "Aryan race" non-neutral and why the present version is more neutral?
Is the following not just as neutral as the present versions? I was in fact quoting the point of view of the author mentioned, namely H. P. Blavatsky. Why have you deleted the below paragraph, which i posted on the page Aryan race?
I posted H. P. Blavatsky's words om Aryan or Arya from the Theosophical Glossary, 1892: "Ârya (Sk.) Lit., “the holy”; originally the title of Rishis, those who had mastered the “Âryasatyâni” (q.v.) and entered the Âryanimârga path to Nirvâna or Moksha, the great “four-fold” path. But now the name has become the epithet of a race, and our Orientalists, depriving the Hindu Brahmans of their birth-right, have made Aryans of all Europeans. In esotericism, as the four paths, or stages, can be entered only owing to great spiritual development and “growth in holiness ”, they are called the “four fruits”. The degrees of Arhatship, called respectively Srotâpatti, Sakridâgamin, Anâgâmin, and Arhat, or the four classes of Âryas, correspond to these four paths and truths."
-- Khidr7 ( talk) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you not think so?
I do not mind that people mention Samael Aun Weor on the page, but I find it wrong to place him in the paragraph on the subject "Theosophy", when he clearly deals with tantric yoga, - a teaching which is not the same as the most wellknown theosophical teachings given by any of the founders. It is in fact stated by the founders of the Theosophical Society that they opposed this teaching in many respects. (See Blavatsky views on the issue in The Theosophist, 1887 + 1888 and the articles by Rama Prasad - or - Blavatsky's Collected Writings, vol. XII p. 604, 611, 612-13, 621. Here she warns aganist the Tantra Yoga teachings). The word "tantra" is almost only mentioned positively when we talk about some very special Gelugpa Buddhist teachings given in some even today unknown edtions of a work called the Kalachakra Tantra. But this is not called trantra Yoga in any manner what so ever. If you call Samael Aun Weor a theosopbhist, then we aught also to call William Butler Yeats a theosophist as far as I am concerned. They spent just about the same amount of time on theosophical teachings and The Theosophical Society. But real real representatives of theosophical teachings or the Theosophical Society they were not.
I understand it, that i can post the above paragraph on Arya or Aryan by Blavatsky without you deleting it again? -- Khidr7 ( talk) 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The vandal is back at Grand Union (supermarket). Any chance we can block him this time? oknazevad ( talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Who the hell was this, again?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I'm starting the process of deletion of this article created by old1980s, a Brunodams sockpuppet, and to ask if you know of a speedier deletion procedure. Thanks, Brutal Deluxe ( talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
So you think that missleading information is better than too many clutters?! There are 15 republics in former USSR and only 6 of them uses cyrillic alphabet - that's 40% which is not "Allmost all of." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.100.149 ( talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for your work at SPI. I would like to ask though that you mark cases as checked when you have done a check so clerks know that checkusers have looked into it. Thank you! -- DQ (t) (e) 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. What was this if not canvassing based upon opinions about PayPal? Elvey ( talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have some evidence to provide for your accusation? As far as i am aware, i have never done such a thing knowingly (That is, your accussation: It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote). This last sentence is a false assertion, unless someone have hacked into my account on wikipedia. What is it actually you claim that I have been doing? - Where do I post in the future, so to avoid a one-sided debate? (In fact I asked Josh about whether this was the right place for such a debate in my first posting in the above.) -- Khidr7 ( talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I assume there would be no objection, but putting it here just in case: I reblocked this user with talk page access disabled and email disabled. They put up another unblock, deleting all previous text, saying 'nice try what?'. Not that I think anyone would unblock under those conditions, but I don't expect the user will suddenly begin making non-frivolous requests. Syrthiss ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
I wanted you to know my addition of those links to the Hi5 article wasn't so random... Hi5 is referenced in the articles of those services or has had partnerships with them. Perhaps I could have included that detail in the notes!?
Thanks, A. Ward ( talk) 23:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
User Breke did not post a fake signature on his/her talk page. S/he transfered a portion of an earlier comment I had made in response to my giving some friendly advice. (I've since done a strikeout of that advice on user's talk page.) If you blocked user for the purported and incorrect allegation of a fake signature, please unblock user Breke from editing his/her talk page. Thanks. --
S. Rich (
talk) 00:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Bavaria is not a nation, but a state in Germany. Could you please list all the states you have been to in the USA in alphabetical order (and by date), just so I can make sense of your error. I would offer, but my dog (not my life partner 'Ann Brown', don't worry!!) has problems with his glands, his anal glands. Thanks for your co-operation -- TradePlusEnterprise ( talk) 00:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Since the time that you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request (where there was some messy brainstorming about what terms are necessary for an unblock), a specific proposal has been made by Doc James about the restrictions/conditions that will come into effect upon the user being unblocked. Your comments/views on this proposal are welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the unblock. I will make good on my promise to refrain from editing that article for the next week (may be more, to be healthy about it) but I did want to continue to contribute to the productive discussions that are taking place on the talk page. You wouldn't view that as unseemly, would you? - Haymaker ( talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you seem to be changing many links from <gamename> (video game) to <gamename> (computer game), even though in each case the actual article is <gamename> (video game), while the <gamename> (computer game) is a redirect. Is there a reason for this? -- Fyrefly ( talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find the SPI page containing the evidence to support blocking this account. If it doesn't exist, could you please present evidence at the ANI thread supporting the block rationale that this account is a sockpuppet of a banned user? Cla68 ( talk) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. I just noticed "All that I have repeated before, and I'll keep repeating for as long as it takes. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)" at Talk:Theosophical Society#"Semi-protected" ???. I think there has been enough abuse to justify a long-term block of this IP for edit warring. Would you have a comment on that idea? EdJohnston ( talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
That section's been driving me crazy for a long time, but I thought I was the only one, so I never dumped it. You made my day! — HarringtonSmith ( talk) 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You've been mentioned at User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 - the IP user has a long complaint there that now mentions you: [23] JoeSperrazza ( talk) 17:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure it's the truth, but you do realize that what you added will no doubt convince the IP that a dev manipulated the database to add Bold text to his revision.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Lloyd: The least you could do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean like one out of a hundred?
Mary: More like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're tellin' me there's a chance.
Just preparing you for the next IP post where he wants someone to track down the person who "altered his edit"-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User:IvoryMeerkat as a sockpuppet of User:Joshua P. Schroeder. Was there an SPI case? (I couldn't find it.) Was it a WP:DUCK situation? (How so?) I'm just trying to understand the logistics of what happened here. Ladyof Shalott 18:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As an informal and related request, what do you think about this user? OKIsItJustMe ( talk · contribs) Haunts similar articles and seems to be pretty knowledgeable about moving around the 'Pedia and seems to have become more active right after IvoryMeerkat dropped off. Sailsbystars ( talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am trying to login to my account because I just created it but the site wont let me. help! the accounts username is grizzlybear. -- 71.104.184.11 ( talk) 15:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. -- 71.104.184.11 ( talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC) account creation successful. -- Crazymonkey1123 ( talk) 23:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
After reading this, I find that I have fallen wildly in love with you. I need you to have my electronic babies. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.-- Nmate ( talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey,
Recently you reviewed a block request for User:Monster Rancher the Great, declining the request on the grounds that because of the activity on his last account that he as a person was blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask that you please review this decision and not treat Monster Rancher with as little disregard as it superfluously seems he deserves. Monster Rancher has indeed made a number of harmful edits under his previous account, but under his current account, he has made nothing but good faith contributions and it seems he is attempting to redeem his previous action. While I agree that Monster Rancher does not maintain his cool very well and is not very in-tune with Wikipedia policies, he's reversed his previous bad faith behaviors and has done nothing but try and help improve articles, especially those related to the Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject. The problem is he doesn't entirely know what's right or wrong, thus you cannot persecute him when he doesn't even know what rules he's supposed to be playing by. Rather than leaving him blocked, wouldn't it be more beneficial to maybe give him a second chance? Multiple account are allowed on Wikipedia when making a fresh start, and this case, while not a perfect example of such conditions, in my opinion applies to that situation.
Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
218.250.143.79 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
I concede my error in discussing this users usename block, and have done so on his talk page. I note your unblock, which is clearly correct, while pointing out that the block was not mine. But, to be fair and to support my (incorrect) appraisal of his name-change request, why would it occur to anyone to check on the existence of an apparently extant library? Some days you just cannot win ! -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey jp....I noticed that you've had an issue with Moulton. I've tried reverting some vandalism on User talk:FeloniousMonk here. I don't think FM is around much these days, but I don't think Moulton should be posting private information about FM. I figured you know who Moulton is, and his background, so you might be able to protect FM's page. I haven't been around in 2 years, and Moulton seems to be obsessed with certain people. Anyways, hope all is well, and you're keeping dry up there in the mountains. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that says one person was abusing multiple accounts? CTJF83 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Blanderàmort wants you to review his block... CTJF83 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for your careful consideration in my case. I was just wondering, can I remove the denied unblock request templates from my talk page? Can I also remove the Sock puppet case from my user page, or do these things need to stay there? Stevenman ( talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a protracted thread on Noleander at AN/I - I do not recall your participating; [25] the whole case has been moved to ArbCom. [26] I regret this because I never wanted this to be a personal conflict between Noleander and myself. I did wish to get the community to discuss how to recognize and address anti-Semitic editing. I think you have made good contributions to the anti-Semitism article in the past. If you have any suggestions about how one can recognize anti-Semitic texts - in this context, how to distinguish between adding text at WP that is about anti-Semitism, or that is simply poorly-written information about Jews, and actual anti-Semitic writing, I would really appreciate your input. I think this is an issue the community has had a lot of trouble confronting, and I find it hard sometimes to explain effectively. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Me too but now the dilemma facing me is what kind of evidence to present to ArbCom, especially since I do not see any specific dispute between myself and Noleander. Any advice or ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks (do you think the idea of a policy called "No Impersonal Attacks" would help/gain community support?) Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. User:Vrghs jacob, who vowed to sock if not unblocked, has evidently followed up on that. On very clear behavioral evidence which I can detail via e-mail if needed, I've blocked User:Chindia (China-India). Considering that he never stopped editing as an IP, I'm wondering if you can do a check to see if he has any others in the drawer. I suspect that this is going to turn into a recurring issue. :/ -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi JP
I was ging back on some old edits of mine and see you deleted a section that I created on the ukulele page, Father and Son Reunion, citing that it was advertising. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ukulele&oldid=390192664 This is an event that took place 13 years ago, no-one is making money of of this it was done for historial/ musical heritage reasons - how can you call this advertising? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You blocked User:Burgas00 back in 2008, diff. I have a reasonable suspicion that he returned with various sock puppets since and has continued to cause disruption. Does checkuser work on a case that old? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon,
I'd like your opinion on something...You blocked 159.105.80.141 ( talk · contribs) for a year on 27 May 2010. The IP, one of a set that trace to the Vermont Department of Libraries, had a long history of HIV, Holocaust and global warming denialism edits (among other interests), with activities focused almost exclusively on confrontational WP:TALK violations. The individual has never really given up, though. I blocked 159.105.80.221 ( talk · contribs) on 20 July 2010 for the same thing; 159.105.80.220 ( talk · contribs) has been going steady since December 2010 (e.g., [27] [28] [29] since 2011 started). In fact, if you look at the contributions from the entire 159.105.80.0/24 range here, it's difficult to find anything that doesn't fit in this general pattern over the better part of a decade with almost no unambiguously useful mainspace edits since 2007. I think this editor is broadly disruptive and the editing patters are highly suggestive of only a single person utilizing this editing range...Would a 1-year rangeblock (anon-only, account creation allowed) be overstepping here? — Scien tizzle 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I just wanted to see if you by chance kept any information on this fella. I come to it via an OTRS complaint. There may be some kind of game afoot, given that evidently this person is the same as that one. ( Ticket:2011040910015734) I've sent a letter to the bureaucrat's mailing list about renaming some of the socks in that list. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon, I would like to let you know that Iaaasi again cropped up in an edit war at the article John Hunyadi as User:79.117.174.32 [30] and then even brazenly asked for a semi protection to that article [31]. Afterwards the user appeared at the talk page of one another Romanian user, who too takes part in the edit war and left a message on her/his talk page in Romanian [32].-- Nmate ( talk) 15:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a sock puppet investigation request anywhere regarding [
this result]. I'm assuming that means Tentontunic also mapped back to the two IPs in the latest round of edit warring with Igny. If so, should those addresses be redacted as you're confirming his IP(s)?
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 03:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
So as it turns out, Tentontunic was noted to be a sock of another banned or blocked user, so the IPs were irrelevant. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Letting you know that I mentioned your name in this ArbCom request. Cla68 ( talk) 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
Talkback|JamesBWatson|Message from Snthakur (April 2011)}}
JamesBWatson (
talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordan,
At User:Bbcesq, the user had been blocked for a username violation. He had previously created a page about an organization that he's involved with, and when he requested an unblock (saying that the username was his initials plus "esq" as he's a lawyer) you declined the unblock, telling him not to create pages about orgs that he was involved with. Since the block was indef, and the user only created the page a single time, and never had the opportunity to demonstrate his good faith to us, I've overturned the block. As you previously declined to unblock, I'm letting you (and the blocking admin) know. It seems to me that the guy has explained his username, and I see no violation there. In addition, he's been informed not to create pages based on his conflict of interest. With those things in mind, I do not believe there to be any reason to sustain an indef block. I know you do an incredible amount of work, and thank you for it. I'm not in any way questioning your judgment - we do the best we can with the information we have at the time - and you get a massive number of calls right. This is just one with which I disagree. I discussed it with a couple of admins as well, to be sure I wasn't off base. Please, if you disagree, let me know so that we can work it out. Thanks for everything you do. - Philippe 02:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please tag Theredchief ( talk · contribs) with who their other accounts were? I think I can guess, but CU confirmation is always great. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 08:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon. I'm thinking the 173.245.64.0/19 range is full of anonymisers, but I'm also seeing some unusual results. The 173.245.64/24 and 173.245.85/24 ranges are very active but I'm inclined to block throughout. See http://173.245.64.221 or http://173.245.73.63/ or http://173.245.80.10/ or http://173.245.85.171/ for example. I'd appreciate if a checkuser could cast an eye over the whole range to see if there's much abuse or collateral, or any opinion on the matter. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked DeathSlay ( talk · contribs), an account with no contributions, on 8 March, but it's not evident from the context what sock case he is related to. He now has an unblock request up. Could you clarify? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As you were the reviewing admin for U-Mos's block today, this is a courtesy notice of an ANI thread about that. WP:ANI#3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?; I don't mention you by name but you are involved to some degree. -- MASEM ( t) 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
I wrote something at WP ANI ,to which I would like to bring your attention: [33] Could this be amount to a renewed Ip range block?-- Nmate ( talk) 10:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you granted an unblock request from User:Jacob Peters because, apparently you believe that "three years is a long time"... did you actually ASK anyone familiar with this guy's activities before making that decision? Did you bother to review the case in detail? Did you actually ask any of the blocking administrators for input? Let's see:
As late as June 2010, the user was caught using multiple sockpuppets which were ban hammered by User:Alison - might want to ask her about it. Here's the account and the block log [34]. Note the block description: with an expiry time of indefinite (Personal attacks or harassment: A rather obvious single-purpose account used for 'outting'). How did he get caught that time? By posting people's personal information to harass and out them (hence the oversighted edits at Sandstein's talk page). And along with that account several more got busted [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. So just at that one point in time he was running a sock farm of at least six socks - and that's just the ones that got caught at that point. "Three years" my ass. He's had been sock puppeting in a disruptive way as recently as less than a year ago. And I'd be willing to bet he has been doing since then.
Hell, people used to GIVE BARNSTARS for catching sock puppets of this guy - not just because he was sock puppeting so much but because his activities were so extremely damaging to the encyclopedia. [41]
Or you could've actually asked someone who's familiar with this guy's activities, like User:Moreschi [42]. Or User:Alex Bakharev. Here's another sock farm the guy had [43], from May 2009 (do a search for Jacob Peters).
Or you could've clicked on the "confirmed sockpuppets" link from his user page [44] which lists thirty freakin three sockpuppets of this guy. or the "suspected sockpuppets" link, which has more sockpuppets than I can count.
Did you really buy the regret my behavior from 2006-07 that led to my being banned, (how about his behavior from 2007-2010????) line. Did you just not bother reading the message right above the unblock request which very clearly states:
As a banned vandal, you are not entitled to regular unblock consideration. This page has been protected for six months due to your abuse of the unblock template. If you believe your ban was inappropriate, you can contest it by emailing a person on WP:ARBCOM. Given your long history of abuse, it is extremely unlikely that the ban would be overturned. You have exhausted Wikipedia's patience and are no longer welcome here. Wikipedia's invitation for anyone to edit does not apply to you.
which is pretty explicit about the fact that only ArbCom can overturn the block?
This is one of the most notorious sockpuppeteers and abusive users to have ever gotten banned from Wikipedia, and I'm not just engaging in hyperbole. And this is one of the most misguided unblocks I have ever seen.
And guess, what, as soon as you ublocked him he jumped right into controversy, editing at the notorious battleground of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.
Since you had no authority to unblock this user, how about reblocking him and letting ArbCom decide? It's gonna wind up with them anyway. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reblocked this user, he was obviously lying in his unblock request. If you feel that he should be unblocked anyway and given another chance, I would urge you to start a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI about this first. Fram ( talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiyas there Jp,
I noticed you just did a CU request on user talk:Vintageceilingfans, which hopefully means you have a spare minite for another one (You seem to be the only checkuser around this evening.). The problem page is Jimbo's user talk, which has been targeted by multiple vandalism account before i protected it - It seems this has happened before as well. Do you happen to have a minute to run a CU on the accounts to see if there is some range / sleepers about? Thanks in advance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Several of us appear to have been accused of an abuse of power, at WP:AN#Abuse of powers?, without being notified -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
Iaaasi is back: [48] -- Nmate ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the duration of this block needs to be reconsidered. If you look at the users "sockpuppets" only two of them, User:Woodenmetal, and User:Mujahid Ahmad have done any harm. Then there is also the recent case of User:BabbaQ who was found (checkuser confirmed) to be using sockpuppets to influence content going up on the main page and they only got a one week block for that. In comparison to the BabbaQ case an indefinite block for User:Omer123hussain seems very excessive - moreso than admin discretion should reasonably allow.
Can the block term be reconsidered please? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block of User:Omer123hussain.The discussion is about the topic User:Omer123hussain. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Josh. A discussion has arisen regarding Jewish ethnicity at Talk:Ed Miliband#Ethnicity in infobox. I thought you might be able to provide some insight. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought you'd be interested, thus. It, not surprisingly, coincided with a period of low editing activity by yours truly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How is Posting Block or Addition Removed Due to Posting Copyrighted Materials Without Permission a blantent lies? MBGuyCasey ( talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm using a the code below in my userboxes and it says I been a member for 5 years, 5 months, and 2 days. MBGuyCasey ( talk)
{Template:User Wikipedian for}}
{User Wikipedian for|year=2001|month=1|day=15}}
, which is even more not true. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)I don't know why it's not true, but I removed the code or any code relating to how long I been a member since it is causing problems. MBGuyCasey ( talk) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I meant I don't know why it (the code) is saying I have been Wikipedian since 2001/01/15 as I don't remember when I even joined Wikipedia. MBGuyCasey ( talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Remember this guy User talk:KakMassoudMustHang ? You blocked him in March [49]. It looks like he's back ( Special:Contributions/93.91.196.124) editing via NEWROZ Telecom in Iraqi Kurdistan. It's Ledenierhomme ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Re this comment. I think we must have crossed each other... I quickly reversed some of the worst spam, but haven't entirely finished the cleanup. Was there anything that needed to be address specifically? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon,
Long time ago, you proceeded to this block :
[50]. I could not find trace of any discussion that would explain this. Wasn't this a mistake ? Could you please indicate me where sockpuppetry of this contributor was discussed ?
Noisetier (
talk) 09:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this is far too pathetic for a talkback notice so I'll just throw it out there: User talk:Kci357. Toddst1 ( talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Josh. Chester Markel has filed an ANI in relation to OM concerning "personal attacks". It also refers to evidence from the vacated decision and recent comments between OM and FT2 in relation to that vacated decision. I suspect you will need to step in in some way to resolve this, so I thought I'd let you know about the ANI if you weren't already aware. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Hi, Moonriddengirl had approached you about this sockfarm a while back. I've now had to block another sock -- Goldfinger123 ( talk · contribs) for introducing similar copyvios and there are many of his IPs that are introducing copyvios too (in addition he now has three accounts on Commons, but they don't seem to mind there as was mentioned at at an AN discussion there), but this is resulting in the need for a lot more copyvios and therefore protections of articles. Can you check to see if the collateral damage is minimal in the case of range block? Also, I haven't come across another sock yet, but his editing interests are quite wide, so it's difficult to monitor. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You have just declined an unblock request at User_talk:Paglakahinka. Might it not now make sense to block talk page access? There have been numerous requests and the message appears not to be sinking in. - Sitush ( talk) 15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Jpg, could you take a look at this section at ANI. There are two relevant SPIs: this and that; since then I've had to protect TP a couple of times and now I see this. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just declined a request for unblock at User talk:FreakyLocz14. You made the block, giving "Block evasion: Blocked for BLP violations as IP address" as the reason. I certainly agree that there are grounds for a block (hence my unblock decline) but I wonder whether it is necessary for the block to be indefinite. Do you have any comment? JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I left a question at the SPI case for you (or another CU) asking what the relationship between the two found groups is. If you have a minute, could you swing by? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Josh, I noticed that recently you removed nearly all the external links on Peter Deunov. While I definitely agree it was a linkfarm, I think each link should be considered based on the value it adds to the article. After carefully looking through all the links and considering their value-add, I have put back 4 out of the 12 deleted. They represent different perspectives and are useful resources for anyone interested in Peter Deunov's legacy. I hope you'll agree with my choices. I would suggest new links to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Quartz ( talk) 03:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You have 660th place in most edits (45233). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}. |
A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Whydelete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Σ talk contribs 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the unprotection of User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang and they won't unprotect it. So can you please simply unprotect it for me?
I want everything to return back to before and normal as much as possible. I want to undo the changes as much as possible. I made a mistake and I want to fix it as much as possible. Please? So please? I beg you.
Can you please just deal with my desires just once? Please?
Bowei Huang 2 ( talk) 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up on and correcting my bad edit to User talk:Andycjp--don't know how that happened, sorry. This was the intended edit. -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I previously posted this to Timotheus Canens' talk page, but then I saw that Timotheus happens to be on an admin tools break.
I was looking through the edit history of the article 'Cold fusion', and found a suspicious user with a blanked userpage and talk page, named VanishedUser314159. I looked at the two pages' histories and saw that the user was previously named Joshua P. Schroeder, and ScienceApologist before that, and that he had been banned from editting by the arbitration committee earlier this year. I saw that FT2 pointed out that he had used the IP address 128.59.169.49 as a sockpuppet [51], which I noticed to be almost identical to an IP which had recently editted the cold fusion article- 128.59.169.46. Those two similar IPs are from Columbia University. I investigated further and found that the IP 128.59.169.46 has been used to edit several of the same pages that VanishedUser314159 had editted [52], and in the same way, indicating that it is clearly him. He hasn't behaved well under his new IP either, having been blocked twice for edit-warring and trolling, and having received numerous complaints on his talk page for his disruptive behavior. After digging further through the edit histories of the articles that Schroeder frequented, I found two more IP addresses that he uses: In the edit history of the article 'Parapsychology', I found the IP 128.59.168.240- another similar IP, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. In the edit history of the article 'Tired light', I found the IP 140.252.83.241, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. If there is any doubt that the latter IP is used by Schroeder (since the IP is not similar to the others), you can see in the user contributions that there are edits to the article 'Columbia University'. Rachel the nerd ( talk) 15:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob as he's started user accounts again. I've also mentioned your earlier check for range block. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 16:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Pretend your mother taught you some manners. Deterence Talk 01:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
See link above. Does it look like this editor is Lombshi? -- Atama 頭 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon. Hope you're well. A user is concerned with your recent unblock of User:08OceanBeach SD. Thought you might like to comment. For the record, I personally don't see any problems with the unblock. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You will recall your only block of 8 August. The VanishedUser is active again with 140.252.83.241 ( talk) and it is just a week left until he is free to use his university IP again. 77.219.176.32 ( talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
How much collateral damage would there be from rangeblocking 60.52.0.0/17? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at an image used in one of my userboxen, I noticed it also appears on User:BeeKindRewind which is nearly a direct copy of my user page, as is User talk:BeeKindRewind. I see you blocked that user indefinitely, so I ask you: is it OK to blank those pages? Is there a better place to ask? cheers, __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I undid my contributions, but I followed your advice: I removed the external link to the RovasPedia (despite of the fact that the RovasPedia is also correct). I also deleted the word "faulty". However, the widely acknowledged Prof. András Róna-Tas pointed out that the correct name is "Khavar" and not "Kabar". The reason of the mistake is the incorrect transcription of the original Greek text of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. Please, let me know if you see any further mistake in my contributions. I will fix them. Best Regards, -- Rovasscript ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Jpgordon for your support in helping me get unblocked. I feel great to be back to freedom on Wikipedia!!! Very happy to be unblocked. Thanks a lot. Jobin ( talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you sir for unblocking me. We, the new users of wikipedia, will take care that we will not violate the rules of editing... Feeling nice to see your user page... Happy editing sir...!!! Kaivalya 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaivalyas ( talk • contribs)
Josh:
Saw this in a shop window in Tokyo. Anything to do with you?
-- Calton | Talk 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Why was the account blocked? As an administrator it is your duty (and Daniel Cases') to follow Wikipedia guidelines. According to Wikipedia's policy: “Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.”
I did not engage in any problematic article editing and just started this account yesterday. Once blocked I cant communicate directly and Daniel has his discussion page blocked from editing so I cant respond to him with a new account. You and all the other editors/administrators need to respect the important work of others and if they violate a not so obvious guideline follow Wikipedia's policy not your own personal agenda.
Follow Wikipedia's guidelines by unblocking my account and encourage me to change my username (which I will). This is a community and you and the other administrators need to act in a responsible manner.
Ericwilliamh ( talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)murrowcenter Ericwilliamh ( talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am just trying to get some important information on the site. The blocking of the username by an editor violated Wikipedia's own stated guidelines, so there is no explaining that away. It is a frustrating experience when the editors don't follow Wikiedia's own guidelines and then sit in judgment of my mistake. I could not respond directly to Daniel Case (the one who blocked the username) because he has his discussion board blocked.
I appreciate all the hard work the editors do, but the bottom line is that if they believe there is a violation they need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and clearly communicate with the user what they believe they need to do. One editor stated my entry was "promotion" and in no way shape or form did it espouse a value (the essence of promotion)...I was getting different responses from different editors. This is a community and the editors need to act in a responsible manner and communicate with users. Surely you can understand the frustration and time it takes to learn the basics of Wikipedia, create an account, post and have it all wiped away by a keystroke of an overzealous editor.
I appreciate your time please appreciate mine.
Ericwilliamh ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Ericwilliamh Ericwilliamh ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
In an under-construction essay -- WP:Delegitimization as a tactic -- I mentioned two stale examples. I hoped that very old illustrative examples would be non-controversial.
Among those who had anything to do with a minor 2007 dispute, you appear to be the only one still active. Will you take a look at this:
Individual delegitimization. "' X ' has been relentlessly pursuing false sockpuppet investigations against me and against ' Y ' in an effort to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with him." (emphasis added)
Does this example make sense to you? Does it matter that I'm quoting the words of someone who is later banned as a sock puppet? Is the illustrative purpose served well enough? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You recently granted User:08OceanBeach SD an unblock (he was blocked for 1 week). He was blocked for edit warring and breaching the 3RR [53]. Your unblock was lifted because he argumented that:
Now take a look at this [55]. I took the issue to the talk page after he blanked a whole section. As usual, he found a way to game with the system and stopped editing but started reverting the map, a shorcut to succeed in his intented edits. He didn't care the map was there for a reason, representing the common regions of Latin America.
He has been reverting the map to his uploaded version. Like I said, a way to game with the system, obviously thinking that the 3RR rule or his promises doesn't count there. Would you please help? Thanks. My actions seem to be futile. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I really hate cut-and-paste duplicate discussions like this. Both of you stop bothering me and also stop bothering each other. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am asking that my user page be unrestricted as the corresponding blocks have expired. 99.135.104.136 ( talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Honestly, I'm not trying to spam anyone or anything, just trying to get an answer to my question. I'm sure you guys have enough on your plate already. I apologize if that was misinterpreted.
69.204.38.3 ( talk) 00:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you look at the similarities between their edits and received warnings? I was just going to ask what the connection was but found you'd unblocked SJS. Peridon ( talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon! The user 88.211.44.71, who was previously blocked [56] for editwarring, is currently continuing to add the same disruptive material ( [57], [58] [59]). In this [60] case he adds an obviously false material. An admin's engagement will be appreciated. Gazifikator ( talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I do not know who is an admin around here, but I wish to know: could you help me with some severe trouble?
This user Republican Jacobite is attempting to start something with me, for no good reason. I see 'he' has a history, and his removal of my good-faith posting at Steampunk on the talk page is outrageous. Even admins do not do that. Can you help?
You have contributed recently and seem attentive to the article; I have no wish to alter the article in any significant way, nor do I want this editor attacking me again, and again accusing me of attacking other editors. I have no time for such juvenile trouble-makers.
Please reply, if you can, at my talk page and I would appreciate if you looked over Steampunk and commented there also. Many thanks. 75.21.113.40 ( talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now hold Republican to the same standards - which, by the bye, I find are applied here more often to some than to others. Do not think I am turning to you to beg for help at this point. Only suggesting you reflect on the bully you are protecting. 75.21.113.40 ( talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem; I'll try to do that in the future (of course, they could always just make it possible through the software, too, as you suggested). Daniel Case ( talk) 21:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Per the guideline du jour, I think that declined unblock requests may no longer be removed by the user.
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested, declined unblock requests, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices
This is regarding User talk:Nevoexpo. Is it OK if I put these back? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello my name is David. I'm currently a freshman at Clemson University. For my English 103 class, I'm required to work on one wikipedia article and I chose the AutoCAD article. I recently added some content about the AutoCAD WS mobile app. I also created a new section "Newest Release." Technically this is only our "first draft" so I plan on added more information in the next week or so. I'm suppose to find other wikipedia users that have edited the page before and ask them for advice or any suggestions they may have. If you have anything you would like me to add or change or just a suggestion that would make the article even better I would appreciate it if you would let me know. If you go to the sandbox I created, I have bulleted points about things I plan to do and things I plan to add. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thank you! DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay thank you very much for taking the time to point all of that out. I will fix them as soon as I get a chance. DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I guess this is why I'm an engineering major and not an english major. I'm definitely better at the math and sciences. DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been out of it all day (more like the past year) and should have checked. My mistake. Alexandria (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Nyttend ( talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon! Just to let you know I have listed your name here as you have fought the edits of this long-term vandal admirably. This editor has been very recently active and shifting IPs even more unpredictably. Please feel free to add any appropriate evidence to the report and please add it to your watchlist as well, as this draft will certainly be the basis for a LTA entry in the future. Thank you! Doc talk 04:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. You are the admin who declined this user's last unblock request back in January, 2011. You asked him to wait a year, but here he is with a new request. Since you must be familiar with his record your opinion would be valuable. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mr Checkuser!
I don't know if you're keeping track of this sort of thing, but permabanned sockpuppeteer NoCal100 is now posting from Honduras. An IP user with shifting Honduran IP addresses keeps obsessing about me and my user page, but this edit in particular tells me who's behind it. No real need to block, but I figure if he takes up his old obsessions (other than List of fictional ducks), this might be a helpful tidbit of data for checkusers. See also
-- Calton | Talk 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it just a pusillanimous legal thing? I'm not up on legal minutiae. I'm mainly acquainted with... you know... facts, as established by courts of law. I kind of figured "pseudohistorian" would cover a man who had been deemed a Nazi liar by a major nation-state. It's not as if there's any chance of Irving suing us. His next noteworthy act will be to die. When he does, will we categorize him as a pseudohistorian? If not, then the category itself is meaningless. LANTZY TALK 07:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Does that file and other uploads still need to be protected? File is on Commons. -- MGA73 ( talk) 11:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Understood ... just gets tedious typing it all the time. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You'd done a few CUs for Vrghs jacob based on requests from MRG and me. It appears that he's back again as Ravelnine ( talk · contribs) but since the old cases are stale an SPI won't be useful. Would you be able to match anything with data you might have? We have some IPs that he's used, most recently from 59.178.*.* but there are a lot more. The articles are the same and the image additions are also pretty much the same. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob are the relevant cats, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob is the relevant SPI. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 12:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've brought up some of the issues being discussed on User Talk:Ostreicher in the already open ANI thread on the issue, WP:ANI#Threat of legal action. I mentioned your name in that process, so your comments are welcome. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block Evasion. Thank you. Mt king (edits) 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The guy seems to have been editing as the IP 128.59.171.194 ( talk · contribs) since March 2011 or before. That IP is registered to Columbia University. He has also been participating on fringe science. Since you issued the last indefinite block here you may want to comment on what should be done. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't see how we sockpuppeted. If you agree, can you please unblock my accounts? 71.94.158.203 ( talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,this is Robert Parrish,for some reason ive been accused of using "multiple accounts",not sure why My account User:Rob-Oblong was banned,because that was my only account up until i made this one to inquire why the first was banned,seeing as didnt sign up an email address because i wasnt expecting to be randomly targeted and attacked).seeing as really havn't made any edits,there was another issue as well everytime ive logged on it says my ip is blocked for vandalism? I've never vandalized anything and resent this greatly,and now my account is blatantly being bannned for no reason,it seems like wikipedia is being run by a bunch of loose cannons with an itchy ban button finger who are making it quite complicated for the average joe to use wikipedia. You see, i dont have a problem,it would just be much appreciated if you unbanned my account ,thanks. RobP1989 ( talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think this User:TomasCantorFriedman might be a sockpuppet for the above. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tomas Cantor Friedman. Please unblock my account! I have not done anything wrong! Whats a sockpuppet? In any case i'm really not any puppet!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I have an explanation for that, even if it sounds kind of corny. I had a account named Tosses but I realized that "Toss" or something like that is a sexual behaviour, something &#%#%#. So I created the account Arn Cantor because I'm related to Arn, a figure like Beowulf(believe it or not). Anyway, I forgot my password and had not linked the account to any mailadress. So I created the account CantorFriedman, which is my name. Then that account was blocked indefinitely. So I created the account TomasCantorFriedman = also blocked for obvious reasons. But please, 3 of the accounts are named almost the same. Arn Cantor, CantorFriedman, TomasCantorFriedman. This just because I did not want to deceive anyone. Is there any way I can clear this and start over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No I can't remind me of creating a account named Cantor! I only altered between Tosses and CantorFriedman when I got a angry hate message(or what you call it) on my talk page. I don't recall altering on any other site except when I stopped using the Tosses account and started writing with my CantorFriedman account. Is there a way to start over or am I forever banned from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
But I don't want the account Tosses because of, you know. And secondly, I can't edit my talk page while logged in because the account are blocked indefinitely! So that means I can't appeal my block!! Moment 22! Have you got some other advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see, if I appeal the block at Tosses(and hoping for the best), is it possible to change the username afterwords? PS. Thank you for just not ignoring me! DS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The appeal is mailed to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't edit anything when logged in as Tosse, I had to mail the appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 ( talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Saeedrags ( talk · contribs) left an odd note at my talk page (and some others)...I know it's hardly standard operating procedure to run a check on an account at that account's out-of-the-blue request. Frankly, I'd like to know why and have asked as such. I just wonder what you might think of the situation... Thanks, — Scien tizzle 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't this crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I am Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator. [1] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
My good fellow editor and helpful administrator: Please look at the Book of Concord page. Banned editor Mccain is again attempting to edit it. I think we need to make the article protected from editing by anonymous editors unless someone wants to lift the indefinite ban. I for one would not be in favor of lifting the ban. His latest sock puppet is the IP address: 75.8.92.141 [2]---- Drboisclair ( talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You stole my block summary without attribution. Are those covered under the GFDL? I guess it's cool, though, since I'm your sockpuppet. MastCell Talk 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, IP 188.225.180.251 continues to vandalize Rawabi even after being warned and blocked (on multiple accounts) several times. I don't know how else to convince him to stop with these disruptive edits. Breein1007 ( talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your long experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page and download the file with the questions. This would take around 20 of your time. Thanks! Aresj ( talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you locking the page from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 ( talk) 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, I hope you are well. Bruno has opened a couple more accounts recently - User:Olvenetian, User:2Lauderdale (apparently retired) - as well as the IP address 12.185.127.9. Once again I'll open an SPI case if you would prefer me to do so. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 07:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: [4]: interesting. A quick skim of that page didn't show any struck-out edits; is there a sock-puppet investigations page for the details? William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please accept my apology about "put up or shut up", but I hadn't appreciated you were an uninvolved editor nor involved in the investigation about the user concerned. It came soon after a similar comment by an involved editor on the page, who when challenged for making a similar statement had not substantiated his comment. I have had no contact with the user who has now been blocked before a request to contribute to the discussion a week or so ago. What concerns me is that this request cam from an IP within the range that have been identified, but looking at the contributions of that user, the only overlap is with the circumcision article, and there are two IPs where these requests for input come from, so one can reasonably assume they are one and the same user:
However, what strikes me as odd is that this IP user also included the user he is supposed to be the sock of in the list of people he requested to contribute. If you look at the user's comment on his own block, he seems completely oblivious of his being blocked for using IPs - but talks about an association with some other user who was not even included in the alleged sockpuppetry. I would be concerned if this user was subject to an investigation without being informed of this. I was not aware of it, and I can find no discussion of this recent investigation on his talk page, so am left wondering by the lack of response to the accusations, which if he was not aware of the procedure, how he could have responded? I have to bow to your experience in these matters, but I am left wondering how far we can be sure all of this is the same user as the one who has been blocked, and not a new user with a similar perspective? During the discussions I did not get the impression that these IP edits were the same individual as the blocked user - but I guess I wasn't looking for that at that time. Mish ( talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your balanced observations and hope you will weigh in on this. User DougHill has been inserting a conspiracy theorist category onto this page for retired FBI SAC Ted Gunderson. I'd like to clean this page up and get rid of the unreferenced material, but I think it will be an uphill climb when another editor is insisting that Mr. Gunderson's only notability is as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks! Winksatfriend ( talk) 04:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
Can you please unprotect User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang? Sorry. I am sorry if what I said in User talk:Bowei Huang was inappropriate. I promise that I will never say anything inappropriate there again. I promise that I will never make any more requests for unblock there again. I promise that I will either leave User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang blank or redirected if you unprotect them. So can you please simply unprotect User talk:Bowei Huang now? Can you please simply unprotect User:Bowei Huang too?
Bowei Huang 2 ( talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for unblocking me! ;-) Can you tell me what I have to do now to get my 1541 Ultimate article back, which was deleted without any discussion whatsoever? -- DeeKay64 ( talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
[5] Not really worth a sock check, it's already thrown away. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello JP, Bruno's back, with this tomfoolery [6], and as User:Old1980s, whose user page bears an uncanny resemblence to his old sock User:DuilioM, and whose editing interest bears an uncanny resemblence to Bruno. Thanks for your attention as always, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Thank you for your efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You did unblock 1 party in the edit-war, but I had declined the other one ... you're welcome to balance things out, if you wish ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
So it seems that one day after the semiprotection you put on this article expired, the same anon editor keeps attempting to add te same unencyclopedic list of former locations. In short, I think either the anon needs a block or the page needs an extension of semiprotection. oknazevad ( talk) 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered comments earlier. I still think I was right, but you made me think a lot about it, so maybe I would take a slightly more lenient line the next time. Unlike a football referee, I am obliged to explain my administrative decisions promptly and honestly. I especially enjoyed the booger-eating salt monkeys comment. Incidentally, I noticed your user page states that you are against "ironically", "interestingly" and "it should be noted that". I share this aversion, and another one I have noticed increasingly since I started looking is "however" used as connective tissue in flabby writing.
Take care, and thanks again for your thoughtful comments. -- John ( talk) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you intend to block Klangranger indefinitely? I'm only asking because you tagged Klangranger as indefinitely blocked but the account hasn't been blocked yet. Elockid ( Talk) 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. Btw, did I ever share this one with you? I came across it on recent changes patrol. It's my favorite vandal thing: Look at the title of the article. [7]. Malke 2010 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jpgordon, Arunvroy ( talk · contribs) is suspicious as well. The account hadn't made an edit in over two years but showed up today at Talk:Ahatallah advancing exactly the same opinion as the recently blocked Fyodor and his socks. [8] Cheers, -- Cúchullain t/ c 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify your comments on the other accounts per my last comment at the SPI? I freely admit to the account dealing with the crazy/scarey people, but haven't created any other accounts and don't understand what you are referring to. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Could you possibly delete this GA review from the sock puppet you recently blocked? The review was incomplete, and even if it wasn't, I'd rather have a fresh one from an honest, credible reviewer. -- James26 ( talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. The unblock request was approved. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice Martin BTW, Koa? 71.108.127.244 ( talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Blackson
{{
tb|Fastily}}
S/he says to go for it (unblocking).
69.181.249.92 (
talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
One of those socks created by Checker Fred wasn't this was it? -- AussieLegend 14:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gun_Powder_Ma_repeated_NPA. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you restored the content of CullVernon's talk page, so he couldn't impede the unblock review. Well, he blanked it again... 76.123.241.114 ( talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, that I'm having an issue with this one guy User:Deconstructhis. Thought should fix the former staff page on KERO, before he goes on there and changes it. There is something on WP:TVS on this issue, if you would like to chime in on the issue. I changed it for KERO, because the user I mentioned has been changing KGET-TV former air staff to how I have KERO-TV for example. Should leave KERO-TV like that for now, until the issue is resolved. Just wanted to clue you in, in case you go on KERO-TV and wonder what happened to all the names on there. Once the issue is resolved, we'll get them on there. ( JoeCool950 ( talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
He's suddenly come out and requested unblock after almost two years. I can't the similarities to the alleged sock or puppeteer in the editing history. But since this is a direct block, was Checkuser involved? Is there something I can't see? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello
My original account (User:iaaasi) is completely blocked, consequently I cannot make a request from there. I have a dynamic IP (79.117.xxx.xxx).
A more detailed motivation for my request would be here [9]... The main reason why I had recourse to sock accounts was that I was falsely accused to be User:Bonaparte (maybe without that accusation the problem would have been simpler)... I regret a lot that I chose that way...
Please give me a new chance at User:iaaasi and I promise I will not create problems. User:Rokarudi from WikiProject Hungary can confirm that I am a good faith editor and I am not against Hungarians
I am ready to be supervised by you or another admin and my edits to be under a strict control if you think it is necessary.
I will be grateful if you will help me( 79.117.150.47 ( talk) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
Two apparent sleeper sockpuppets have emerged and are causing further disruption - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. It would be helpful if you could assist with resolving this speedily. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, I got an email from a user claiming to represent this IP, asking whether we could lift the block. I looked at the sockpuppetry discussion for the user, and I do think that a six month block is a bit heavy. I think a shorter block of say one month would be sufficient time to see if the user cools off and graduates from their current position to a become a better contributor. What do you think? -- Zippy ( talk) 04:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm working with her and, let's just call it an experience. At this point I told her if I saw some changes I would be willing to give her credit for "time served" and end it at month end but this far she's been very enthusiastic to get back at it and "fix" things. I'm going to keep at it and see where we get at I'm hopeful I can work with her but it's tough going at present for certain. -- Wgfinley ( talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Shortly after Sandstein blocked the user, an autoblock appeared in the IPBlocklist. Would it make sense to run a check to see if any light may be shed on this? – xeno talk 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Mind if I tag those sockpuppets? -- Bsadowski1 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. This user whom you blocked has requested unblock and he may have a point, in that you said he had posted the same edits twice which he appears not to have done. Would you lok at it? And if I am wrong, please accept my apologies? -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for reversing the decision to block my account because of my nephew. I can assure you he's been given a good hiding and he's gone home now anyway so it certainly won't be happening again. Next time he comes here he will find my modem power cable missing unless he learns how to behave and use my computer appropriately. Thank you again. Crazy-dancing ( talk) 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for running this thing: [10], but what should be done now?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible for you to perform the CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin as they seem to have recieved a lot of attacks in the past two hours? Thanks. Kevin Dorwin ( talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Josh, I believe that the problem with Book of Concord has ceased, so if you would and are able, please remove the semiblock. I leave it to your discretion. I hope all is well with you in your beautiful environment.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanx, Josh, but I think that ArbCom will be the poorer without your guiding hand. That is if I haven't misunderstood what you have resigned from a year early.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe User:Lizardlocker should make the list as well--please see their contributions. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't redact this impotent personal attack because I felt you'd be indifferent to it. If I was wrong, I apologize. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring the swipe. See ya 'round Tide rolls 02:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you were not aware of this [11] admission from NW that talk page access was revoked by mistake. It's somewhat less likely that you were not aware that our blocking policy states that "This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page," and it's a virtual certainty that you are aware that undoing an admin's reversal of another admin's actions constitutes wheel warring. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this or anything, but I was a bit alarmed when I went over there to re-instate the mistakenly revoked talk page privileges to see that it had already been done and then reversed, meaning that if I turned them back on I would be wheel warring. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gordon
I'm so sorry for troubling you, so please accept my apologies in advance. I have two cases of suspected sock-puppetry to report. Thank you for your time. -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 05:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. -
Hydroxonium (
talk |
contribs) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jpgordon, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running a check on my account, because my edits keep being reverted as socks, but I'm not! I don't know what else to do because nobody seems to be listening. I just want to show them that I'm legit. Thank you Grignard4120 ( talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals. 76.177.47.225 ( talk)
|
Hi, Josh. I noticed at User_talk:98.195.149.177 that you said this disruptive IP editor was a sock of a blocked user. I was wondering if it would be possible to identify which blocked user this is, so the fact can be mentioned on the IP address's user page. Apologies for my ignorance if there's some reason why this would not in fact be appropriate or helpful. Richwales ( talk · contribs · review) 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked a long-term troll with an anon IP (159.105.80.141), resolving to Vermont, back in May (see Talk:David_Irving/Archive_6), and the same person is back on a slightly different IP: Special:Contributions/159.105.80.122, with the same abuse of talk pages and the same fringe views on familiar subjects. Can you block this one too? It's more of the same pointless trolling. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I was referred to you by User:PeterSymonds regarding my SPI case. I'm being completely honest with everyone. I used to frequently edit at a library down the street from me, but I recently obtained a laptop from my grandfather on Saturday, and I've been using that to edit ever since. I honestly don't know what else to do. I'm at a loss. I've been editing Wikipedia for four years, and I don't want to see that all go to waste just because of some coincidence. Please, understand. I haven't done anything wrong, and I'm not the owner of a sockpuppet. Thank you. WereWolf ( talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me on the actual problem and solving the issue. I appreciate it. Many Regards, Yousou ( talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork * YES! 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, one of the IPs you have blocked as sockpuppets of Tosses is activ again. Mostly on Talk:Great Divergence, editwarring with User:Teeninvestor, which is also not easy to handle. The subject is ... dingdong ... China. Additionally is a new IP involved from the same range [12]. Maybe you can have a look on this. -- Ben Ben ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This editor, whose history goes back several years, appears to be repeatedly suffering from collateral damage from anti-sock rangeblocks; or else he is socking. You unblocked him recently, and Jayron32 re-unblocked him shortly afterwards. I am well able to give IP exemption, but am a little uneasy at doing so. Could you take a look? -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what was wrong with my requests and then for you to remove my talk page rights as well. User:FTP1690 -- Rangers GSTQ ( talk) 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
BigBodBad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
You recently indef blocked this user for being a sock. Who were they a sock of? I want to know so I can tag the pages appropriately.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you also clarify "as required above" tidbit. Because I don't see it either. Phearson ( talk) 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Charlesdolphharding. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the decline reason here. Where was it spelled out? Was there something in particular wrong with the present account name? – xeno talk 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Have it your way, then. It was just a test edit, anyways; now I know about the sandbox, so I'll mess around with code there from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Enemies Within ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for adding your editing expertise on the Vernon article. Nader's POV was a bit over the top, on second look. Glad to make your acquaintance. Namaste... DocOfSoc ( talk) 02:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the harassment on my
talk page by
User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being listed as an "Admin willing to make difficult blocks," and would hope that you can warn him off, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on that list also, that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards,
GregJackP
Boomer! 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what the problem is, but it is lodged somewhere in the template itself, as the sandbox version doeds not exibit any problems. I will try and find out what it causing it. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jp, warm greetings to you. I hope you are well. It's been quiet for a while, but Bruno's now operating a couple of new accounts (as far as I can tell that is, as a seasoned observer). I am certain beyond fear of contradiction that User:Everyreason1 and User:Consilinario are both naked clone alteregos of our banned former co-worker. Once again, if you think an SPI would be appropriate, please let me know, and I will gladly do the business, but I believe they may both be sent on their way without further ado. Many thanks for your attention, AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank for unblocking me! ^-^ Ora Stendar 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
I would like to impart to you that user:Iaaasi, who has been blocked for indefinite time and some of whose sockpuppets were blocked by you like these for instance: [13] [14], wants to request to be unblocked here: Proposed_unblock_of_User:Iaaasi.Regards-- Nmate ( talk) 16:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This nasty little anti-Semite? He's come up here. I notice he edits every day, either from 188.23.0.0/16 or 93.82.0.0/20 (pretty sure about that /20). I'm considering rangeblocking them, studying collateral damage. What do you think? Should we file an SPI, or can you take a quick look for any sockpuppets or an other IP ranges we might be missing? His daily edits are typical pro-terrorist, 9/11-conspiracy, "Wikipedia-is-Zionist", anti-Semitic crud, with occasional good edits mixed in. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you specializing Japanese war crimes and deleting other countries? [16] Japanese policy was anti holocost, Japanese war crimes were no relavence to holocost.-- Bukubku ( talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that anon who keeps adding the list of former locations is back, having waited out the most recent page protection. I've already reverted him twice today, and will again in a moment (as 3RR doesn't apply), but it certainly could be usefull to either extend PP again and/or block this fool. Your thoughts?
Hi, Jpgordon. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51? You were the primary blocking admin back in December, and you've been referenced in this new case. This editor claims he was only blocked because he "played a joke on a friend", but after seeing this, it appears the block was for more extensive reasons. He admits creating another account after being blocked (a "new start" he calls it), and he admits he still edits from several IPs (he frequently "forgets to log in" he says), so proving the multiple account usage isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he is doing anything wrong; I was hoping you'd be able to offer some insight. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 06:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
[Since your block notice is on the page of the UserID... and he can't seem to go 24hrs without writing something on WP!]—
DennisDallas (
talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you left some comments on the talk page of an article where I and some other editors had a dispute about the subject of the article. I have been putting together a formal review of the article, and clearly outlining its many problems. I intend, once completed, to again raise the issues with the editors. If they refuse to address them, and refuse a fourth request that they submit to mediation, I intend to seek administrator intervention to resolve the policy violations. I was curious if you might look at my analysis and tell me what you think. It is here User talk:Charles Edward/sandbox. I am heading to my library to obtain a couple of the books used as sources to farther check the article. If you are too busy, or averse to conflict (as I generally am) then I understand!
Thanks — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to bring Chaser's help to your attention so you can see what you should have done. Further explanation is all I asked for, but you failed at that. Administrator's like Chaser are why Wikipedia is as good as it is. Administrator's like you are why Wikipedia will never be that good. I bring this to your attention so that you can strive to meet Chaser's example. Thank you, and have a nice day. 128.104.truth ( talk) 12:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page.
This user helped promote Barry Bonds to good article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
For the time you spent on my unblocking. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
About trying to edit MuffinMan999's talk page, im MuffinMan999, im just blocked and i tried to contest my block because ive finally realised my mistakes and i just wanted another shot at wikipedia in which i would become a succesful contributor. I mean, sockpuppeting is very bad and can get you blocked should you abuse it. Please convey this message to Favonian and see what he makes of it, please.-- 89.241.166.137 ( talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
ha ha just edited!-- 89.241.166.137 ( talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you please look at this page and some further action. In spite of level 4 warmings, these people keep on vandalizing. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Any idea who this guy might be? Half Shadow 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I shouldn't have waded in on this one – all I did was spot the content revert through Special:RecentChanges. I gave a 3 month block, but feel free to review this (I've posted the same to User:Materialscientist as they did the original block). You two seem to have been involved with this longer than I have, so go ahead and do whatever you think is best! Regards, matt ( talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, ResearchEditor has been sockpuppeting again, please check the accounts I've tagged with "sockpuppet" in my recent contributions (Nov 9th/10th depending on your timezone). Could you block 'em for me, or should I take it up elsewhere? RFCU probably isn't a good choice since this was a month ago. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you served here, would you be willing to repeat the performance this year?. I ask because there's a call for help at the election talk page, and because you have the tools we need. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I know that word doesn't exist, but anyhow here goes. I lost my user when my computer crashed and was not able to login back in, so I created a new account and wanted to know if you would please allow me to continue to contribute to wikipedia. As I have made thousands of positive edits to wikipedia. Can I please continue to be allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Machnnn ( talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sooo... Any chance to convince you to try for arbcom (again)? - jc37 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying if this user was using a residential or a business address? I think this does not violate the privacy policy and would help determine the next steps. Regards, Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just realised that when you reviewed the unblock request made by user:LouisPhilippeCharles you forgot to sign it. Please could you do so or otherwise it may look to someone who glances at the page that I inappropriately made the review -- PBS ( talk) 03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fyi. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Josh, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards, Sandstein 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you would mind commenting on the puzzlement several of us have in this section of ANI: [17] ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you also take away 99.101.128.39's talk page privileges? WAYNE SLAM 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Maltese (dog), you may be blocked from editing. BLGM5 ( talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You have been involved with the sock puppet blocks on this article. FYI, I have made a request for page protection due to recent edits by three different IPs that have made edits identical to the puppets. Anything else you can think of would be appreciated. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit of yours, I was wondering if the issue in question has been resolved yet. I was thinking about trying to understand the issue, but if it's been definitively resolved to your satisfaction then I won't bother. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent> I've looked into it, and have succeeded in changing the extremely dumb policy that was the main reason for this block. [20] However, the blocking admin no longer has a "Sysop flag", and in any event still demands an apology which will almost certainly not be forthcoming. The block seems punitive at this point, because the policy now addresses the blocked user's concern. Since you previously offered to unblock the user, would you please review the situation and again consider unblocking? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Take this elsewhere, please. My sole involvement was the unblock request; I made a suggestion; it was essentially brushed off, and I thus lost interest in the discussion; and I have not regained it. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork that is in part about your deletion of User talk:Malcolm Schosha. Like others commenting there, I think that user talk page should not have been deleted, both on the merits (in view of the RFC about this issue) and also as a matter of procedure (because WP:CSD#U1, invoked by you, explicitly rules out deleting user talk pages). I appreciate the arguments raised on ANI about possible lawsuits, but as I commented there I believe that any deletions required to avoid lawsuits should be made by Foundation staff, not us. Could you please restore the page and, if you think it should be deleted, submit it to MfD? Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you helped block a sockpuppet today, now this person is back with yet another name, at least judging from targetted topics and attitude. User:Rouxsd. This IP address might be the source of several sockpuppets, I suspect. I also left this note for another editor Glen something, that maybe you can address:
Thank you. For some reason, water fluoridation really upsets people; there is an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia's articles in this area. User:Zxoxm created an article that should probably be nixed: William Marcus, the article advances User:Zxoxm's agenda of antifluoridation. I assume that articles created by sockpuppets are removed automatically, but am not sure.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know we've had the discussion in the past about changing the language of the template, or coming up with a different one, to reflect situations where a user has a combined COI and username problem but has not really violated any other policy. Where did that go? I reserve {{ uw-spamublock}} for users whose behavior more clearly comes under WP:SPAM (i.e., they post xlinks, or add mentions of their company, with a matching username to other articles). Similarly, I find {{ uw-softerblock}} to be appropriate only for those accounts whose name indicates clear role usage, which to me an organizational name alone does not ("Consolidated Amalgamated Marketing Dept.", for instance, vs. "Consolidated Amalgamated").
As inadequate as the language of ublock probably is to its current use, I still find that it preserves the assumption of good faith for a user who may have just skipped past all the other policies and started posting an article about their company or organization. By saying "Your username is the only reason for this block", we're saying that we think you could be a productive editor, just not with this username. Some of those editors, actually, we'd have no problem with their edits if they were under different usernames. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the declined unblock for this user, I was puzzled by the reference to checkuser results as there may be confusion from when this user legitimately change account name in November. Is there an SPI case that this block relates to? Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Guess you've heard by now that Don (Captain Beefheart) died yesterday. Anyway, I'm curious to know if you ever met him? (Your brother posted a nice eulogy, which is how I made the connection.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
While they were warned previously, the first warning wasn't really appropriate as WP:BLANKING doesn't prevent a user from removing block notices from their own page (although, it does stipulate against removing the unblock request which they did later).
As the duration was left the same, I don't have any intent to change the block. But, I am wondering if the revoking could be viewed as a bit harsh given it was a result of what was technically their first violation of WP:BLANKING. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, i'm lordalpha1, and I'm here to testify for my banning.
Let me explain. My Wifi Network (NOT my account) was hacked a few days ago, and my ip was blocked. so, i put up a unblock request on my talk page, not my ip's. So after I realized that my network folders were missing, I checked all of my accounts (eg email, wikipedia, deviantart, dropbox, etc...) to see if they were hacked. This took me about 1 and a half minutes. However, I accidentally put the unblock request on my talk page, not my IP's, so sorry if that was a mistake of mine. However, I got permanently banned, NOT my IP. I'm sorry if I put the template in the wrong place.
I hope you understand my situation.
Regards,
lordalpha1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.182.114 ( talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you recently blocked User:Onalgape for abusing multiple accounts. He/she left a message on my talk page prior to being blocked asking that I add a question of his/hers to my ongoing RfA. Could you let me know the background behind this block? I'm trying to determine if the request is legitimate. – Grondemar 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Then you're either a liar or insane; in either way, you're not needed here." I like it :) I do really like it. Peridon ( talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon,
My user name k247 appears to be listed on wiki - project spam for some reason with a report about the block you put in place because I blanked my user page (sorry I thought this was okay after reading the message). Is there some connection with being blocked for edit warring/page blanking and this? I am not sure why this editor has listed my user name the link at rare groove that I was trying to use to upload an audio file and my article that I am trying to develop postmodern religion here? This is the log link at wikispam next to my user name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/?page=User:Kary247%E2%80%8E -- Kary247 ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess I am just not clear as to why my article on postmodern religion and my user name have been listed at wikispam? So when you look at what links here for postmodern religion and my kary247 user account the wiki spam link comes up. I did place a link for discussion at rare groove but I did put this up on the discussion board there and I did revert the editor and was subsequently blocked for edit warring. Does this really warrant my user name being and the article I am working really hard postmodern religion on being listed at wikispam? It seems a bit harsh?-- Kary247 ( talk) 19:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, -- John ( talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. You should know much much better. Elvey ( talk) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please refamiliarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. More specifically, I [ warned you about your CoI editing and you reverted that edit. I'm a user whose edit you reverted after I noted and reverted your CoI edit. You have a CoI with respect to eBay/PayPal. Are you willing to confirm or deny that? If so, I ask that you do so here and now. -- Elvey ( talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit removed content that you claimed was at an oblique reference, and yet in fact was not at that referenced page. Specifically, you referenced a "list of processors" as containing the information you removed. There was no "list of processors", and while there was a " List of on-line payment service providers", it, as I had pointed out in fact did NOT include the competitors, eCache, and Google , that you had removed. Removing competitors from a company where there is a CoI certainly at least creates the strong appearance of bias and should not be the action of a user such as yourself who has extraordinary powers on the wiki. I ask that you undo your removal of eCache, and Google forthwith. (The discussion described above took place in edit summaries; see [21] 1,2 and 9 January 2011 ) -- Elvey ( talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Josh Gordon,
I am not sure, that I am posting at the right place. If I am in error please let me know. I got the following from you jpgordon: "Current revision as of 16:27, 9 January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Aryan race appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)"
I would like to ask why you found my alterations with regard to the page "Aryan race" non-neutral and why the present version is more neutral?
Is the following not just as neutral as the present versions? I was in fact quoting the point of view of the author mentioned, namely H. P. Blavatsky. Why have you deleted the below paragraph, which i posted on the page Aryan race?
I posted H. P. Blavatsky's words om Aryan or Arya from the Theosophical Glossary, 1892: "Ârya (Sk.) Lit., “the holy”; originally the title of Rishis, those who had mastered the “Âryasatyâni” (q.v.) and entered the Âryanimârga path to Nirvâna or Moksha, the great “four-fold” path. But now the name has become the epithet of a race, and our Orientalists, depriving the Hindu Brahmans of their birth-right, have made Aryans of all Europeans. In esotericism, as the four paths, or stages, can be entered only owing to great spiritual development and “growth in holiness ”, they are called the “four fruits”. The degrees of Arhatship, called respectively Srotâpatti, Sakridâgamin, Anâgâmin, and Arhat, or the four classes of Âryas, correspond to these four paths and truths."
-- Khidr7 ( talk) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you not think so?
I do not mind that people mention Samael Aun Weor on the page, but I find it wrong to place him in the paragraph on the subject "Theosophy", when he clearly deals with tantric yoga, - a teaching which is not the same as the most wellknown theosophical teachings given by any of the founders. It is in fact stated by the founders of the Theosophical Society that they opposed this teaching in many respects. (See Blavatsky views on the issue in The Theosophist, 1887 + 1888 and the articles by Rama Prasad - or - Blavatsky's Collected Writings, vol. XII p. 604, 611, 612-13, 621. Here she warns aganist the Tantra Yoga teachings). The word "tantra" is almost only mentioned positively when we talk about some very special Gelugpa Buddhist teachings given in some even today unknown edtions of a work called the Kalachakra Tantra. But this is not called trantra Yoga in any manner what so ever. If you call Samael Aun Weor a theosopbhist, then we aught also to call William Butler Yeats a theosophist as far as I am concerned. They spent just about the same amount of time on theosophical teachings and The Theosophical Society. But real real representatives of theosophical teachings or the Theosophical Society they were not.
I understand it, that i can post the above paragraph on Arya or Aryan by Blavatsky without you deleting it again? -- Khidr7 ( talk) 17:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The vandal is back at Grand Union (supermarket). Any chance we can block him this time? oknazevad ( talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Who the hell was this, again?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I'm starting the process of deletion of this article created by old1980s, a Brunodams sockpuppet, and to ask if you know of a speedier deletion procedure. Thanks, Brutal Deluxe ( talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
So you think that missleading information is better than too many clutters?! There are 15 republics in former USSR and only 6 of them uses cyrillic alphabet - that's 40% which is not "Allmost all of." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.100.149 ( talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for your work at SPI. I would like to ask though that you mark cases as checked when you have done a check so clerks know that checkusers have looked into it. Thank you! -- DQ (t) (e) 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited andnonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. What was this if not canvassing based upon opinions about PayPal? Elvey ( talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have some evidence to provide for your accusation? As far as i am aware, i have never done such a thing knowingly (That is, your accussation: It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote). This last sentence is a false assertion, unless someone have hacked into my account on wikipedia. What is it actually you claim that I have been doing? - Where do I post in the future, so to avoid a one-sided debate? (In fact I asked Josh about whether this was the right place for such a debate in my first posting in the above.) -- Khidr7 ( talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I assume there would be no objection, but putting it here just in case: I reblocked this user with talk page access disabled and email disabled. They put up another unblock, deleting all previous text, saying 'nice try what?'. Not that I think anyone would unblock under those conditions, but I don't expect the user will suddenly begin making non-frivolous requests. Syrthiss ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
I wanted you to know my addition of those links to the Hi5 article wasn't so random... Hi5 is referenced in the articles of those services or has had partnerships with them. Perhaps I could have included that detail in the notes!?
Thanks, A. Ward ( talk) 23:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
User Breke did not post a fake signature on his/her talk page. S/he transfered a portion of an earlier comment I had made in response to my giving some friendly advice. (I've since done a strikeout of that advice on user's talk page.) If you blocked user for the purported and incorrect allegation of a fake signature, please unblock user Breke from editing his/her talk page. Thanks. --
S. Rich (
talk) 00:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Bavaria is not a nation, but a state in Germany. Could you please list all the states you have been to in the USA in alphabetical order (and by date), just so I can make sense of your error. I would offer, but my dog (not my life partner 'Ann Brown', don't worry!!) has problems with his glands, his anal glands. Thanks for your co-operation -- TradePlusEnterprise ( talk) 00:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Since the time that you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request (where there was some messy brainstorming about what terms are necessary for an unblock), a specific proposal has been made by Doc James about the restrictions/conditions that will come into effect upon the user being unblocked. Your comments/views on this proposal are welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the unblock. I will make good on my promise to refrain from editing that article for the next week (may be more, to be healthy about it) but I did want to continue to contribute to the productive discussions that are taking place on the talk page. You wouldn't view that as unseemly, would you? - Haymaker ( talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you seem to be changing many links from <gamename> (video game) to <gamename> (computer game), even though in each case the actual article is <gamename> (video game), while the <gamename> (computer game) is a redirect. Is there a reason for this? -- Fyrefly ( talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find the SPI page containing the evidence to support blocking this account. If it doesn't exist, could you please present evidence at the ANI thread supporting the block rationale that this account is a sockpuppet of a banned user? Cla68 ( talk) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. I just noticed "All that I have repeated before, and I'll keep repeating for as long as it takes. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)" at Talk:Theosophical Society#"Semi-protected" ???. I think there has been enough abuse to justify a long-term block of this IP for edit warring. Would you have a comment on that idea? EdJohnston ( talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 JoeSperrazza ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
That section's been driving me crazy for a long time, but I thought I was the only one, so I never dumped it. You made my day! — HarringtonSmith ( talk) 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You've been mentioned at User_talk:Ultraexactzz#User_68.198.135.130 - the IP user has a long complaint there that now mentions you: [23] JoeSperrazza ( talk) 17:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure it's the truth, but you do realize that what you added will no doubt convince the IP that a dev manipulated the database to add Bold text to his revision.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Lloyd: The least you could do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean like one out of a hundred?
Mary: More like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're tellin' me there's a chance.
Just preparing you for the next IP post where he wants someone to track down the person who "altered his edit"-- Cube lurker ( talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked User:IvoryMeerkat as a sockpuppet of User:Joshua P. Schroeder. Was there an SPI case? (I couldn't find it.) Was it a WP:DUCK situation? (How so?) I'm just trying to understand the logistics of what happened here. Ladyof Shalott 18:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As an informal and related request, what do you think about this user? OKIsItJustMe ( talk · contribs) Haunts similar articles and seems to be pretty knowledgeable about moving around the 'Pedia and seems to have become more active right after IvoryMeerkat dropped off. Sailsbystars ( talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am trying to login to my account because I just created it but the site wont let me. help! the accounts username is grizzlybear. -- 71.104.184.11 ( talk) 15:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. -- 71.104.184.11 ( talk) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC) account creation successful. -- Crazymonkey1123 ( talk) 23:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
After reading this, I find that I have fallen wildly in love with you. I need you to have my electronic babies. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.-- Nmate ( talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey,
Recently you reviewed a block request for User:Monster Rancher the Great, declining the request on the grounds that because of the activity on his last account that he as a person was blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask that you please review this decision and not treat Monster Rancher with as little disregard as it superfluously seems he deserves. Monster Rancher has indeed made a number of harmful edits under his previous account, but under his current account, he has made nothing but good faith contributions and it seems he is attempting to redeem his previous action. While I agree that Monster Rancher does not maintain his cool very well and is not very in-tune with Wikipedia policies, he's reversed his previous bad faith behaviors and has done nothing but try and help improve articles, especially those related to the Avatar: The Last Airbender WikiProject. The problem is he doesn't entirely know what's right or wrong, thus you cannot persecute him when he doesn't even know what rules he's supposed to be playing by. Rather than leaving him blocked, wouldn't it be more beneficial to maybe give him a second chance? Multiple account are allowed on Wikipedia when making a fresh start, and this case, while not a perfect example of such conditions, in my opinion applies to that situation.
Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
218.250.143.79 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
I concede my error in discussing this users usename block, and have done so on his talk page. I note your unblock, which is clearly correct, while pointing out that the block was not mine. But, to be fair and to support my (incorrect) appraisal of his name-change request, why would it occur to anyone to check on the existence of an apparently extant library? Some days you just cannot win ! -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey jp....I noticed that you've had an issue with Moulton. I've tried reverting some vandalism on User talk:FeloniousMonk here. I don't think FM is around much these days, but I don't think Moulton should be posting private information about FM. I figured you know who Moulton is, and his background, so you might be able to protect FM's page. I haven't been around in 2 years, and Moulton seems to be obsessed with certain people. Anyways, hope all is well, and you're keeping dry up there in the mountains. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that says one person was abusing multiple accounts? CTJF83 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Blanderàmort wants you to review his block... CTJF83 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for your careful consideration in my case. I was just wondering, can I remove the denied unblock request templates from my talk page? Can I also remove the Sock puppet case from my user page, or do these things need to stay there? Stevenman ( talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a protracted thread on Noleander at AN/I - I do not recall your participating; [25] the whole case has been moved to ArbCom. [26] I regret this because I never wanted this to be a personal conflict between Noleander and myself. I did wish to get the community to discuss how to recognize and address anti-Semitic editing. I think you have made good contributions to the anti-Semitism article in the past. If you have any suggestions about how one can recognize anti-Semitic texts - in this context, how to distinguish between adding text at WP that is about anti-Semitism, or that is simply poorly-written information about Jews, and actual anti-Semitic writing, I would really appreciate your input. I think this is an issue the community has had a lot of trouble confronting, and I find it hard sometimes to explain effectively. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Me too but now the dilemma facing me is what kind of evidence to present to ArbCom, especially since I do not see any specific dispute between myself and Noleander. Any advice or ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks (do you think the idea of a policy called "No Impersonal Attacks" would help/gain community support?) Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. User:Vrghs jacob, who vowed to sock if not unblocked, has evidently followed up on that. On very clear behavioral evidence which I can detail via e-mail if needed, I've blocked User:Chindia (China-India). Considering that he never stopped editing as an IP, I'm wondering if you can do a check to see if he has any others in the drawer. I suspect that this is going to turn into a recurring issue. :/ -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi JP
I was ging back on some old edits of mine and see you deleted a section that I created on the ukulele page, Father and Son Reunion, citing that it was advertising. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ukulele&oldid=390192664 This is an event that took place 13 years ago, no-one is making money of of this it was done for historial/ musical heritage reasons - how can you call this advertising? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You blocked User:Burgas00 back in 2008, diff. I have a reasonable suspicion that he returned with various sock puppets since and has continued to cause disruption. Does checkuser work on a case that old? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon,
I'd like your opinion on something...You blocked 159.105.80.141 ( talk · contribs) for a year on 27 May 2010. The IP, one of a set that trace to the Vermont Department of Libraries, had a long history of HIV, Holocaust and global warming denialism edits (among other interests), with activities focused almost exclusively on confrontational WP:TALK violations. The individual has never really given up, though. I blocked 159.105.80.221 ( talk · contribs) on 20 July 2010 for the same thing; 159.105.80.220 ( talk · contribs) has been going steady since December 2010 (e.g., [27] [28] [29] since 2011 started). In fact, if you look at the contributions from the entire 159.105.80.0/24 range here, it's difficult to find anything that doesn't fit in this general pattern over the better part of a decade with almost no unambiguously useful mainspace edits since 2007. I think this editor is broadly disruptive and the editing patters are highly suggestive of only a single person utilizing this editing range...Would a 1-year rangeblock (anon-only, account creation allowed) be overstepping here? — Scien tizzle 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I just wanted to see if you by chance kept any information on this fella. I come to it via an OTRS complaint. There may be some kind of game afoot, given that evidently this person is the same as that one. ( Ticket:2011040910015734) I've sent a letter to the bureaucrat's mailing list about renaming some of the socks in that list. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon, I would like to let you know that Iaaasi again cropped up in an edit war at the article John Hunyadi as User:79.117.174.32 [30] and then even brazenly asked for a semi protection to that article [31]. Afterwards the user appeared at the talk page of one another Romanian user, who too takes part in the edit war and left a message on her/his talk page in Romanian [32].-- Nmate ( talk) 15:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a sock puppet investigation request anywhere regarding [
this result]. I'm assuming that means Tentontunic also mapped back to the two IPs in the latest round of edit warring with Igny. If so, should those addresses be redacted as you're confirming his IP(s)?
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 03:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
So as it turns out, Tentontunic was noted to be a sock of another banned or blocked user, so the IPs were irrelevant. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Letting you know that I mentioned your name in this ArbCom request. Cla68 ( talk) 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
Talkback|JamesBWatson|Message from Snthakur (April 2011)}}
JamesBWatson (
talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordan,
At User:Bbcesq, the user had been blocked for a username violation. He had previously created a page about an organization that he's involved with, and when he requested an unblock (saying that the username was his initials plus "esq" as he's a lawyer) you declined the unblock, telling him not to create pages about orgs that he was involved with. Since the block was indef, and the user only created the page a single time, and never had the opportunity to demonstrate his good faith to us, I've overturned the block. As you previously declined to unblock, I'm letting you (and the blocking admin) know. It seems to me that the guy has explained his username, and I see no violation there. In addition, he's been informed not to create pages based on his conflict of interest. With those things in mind, I do not believe there to be any reason to sustain an indef block. I know you do an incredible amount of work, and thank you for it. I'm not in any way questioning your judgment - we do the best we can with the information we have at the time - and you get a massive number of calls right. This is just one with which I disagree. I discussed it with a couple of admins as well, to be sure I wasn't off base. Please, if you disagree, let me know so that we can work it out. Thanks for everything you do. - Philippe 02:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please tag Theredchief ( talk · contribs) with who their other accounts were? I think I can guess, but CU confirmation is always great. Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 08:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon. I'm thinking the 173.245.64.0/19 range is full of anonymisers, but I'm also seeing some unusual results. The 173.245.64/24 and 173.245.85/24 ranges are very active but I'm inclined to block throughout. See http://173.245.64.221 or http://173.245.73.63/ or http://173.245.80.10/ or http://173.245.85.171/ for example. I'd appreciate if a checkuser could cast an eye over the whole range to see if there's much abuse or collateral, or any opinion on the matter. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked DeathSlay ( talk · contribs), an account with no contributions, on 8 March, but it's not evident from the context what sock case he is related to. He now has an unblock request up. Could you clarify? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As you were the reviewing admin for U-Mos's block today, this is a courtesy notice of an ANI thread about that. WP:ANI#3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?; I don't mention you by name but you are involved to some degree. -- MASEM ( t) 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
I wrote something at WP ANI ,to which I would like to bring your attention: [33] Could this be amount to a renewed Ip range block?-- Nmate ( talk) 10:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you granted an unblock request from User:Jacob Peters because, apparently you believe that "three years is a long time"... did you actually ASK anyone familiar with this guy's activities before making that decision? Did you bother to review the case in detail? Did you actually ask any of the blocking administrators for input? Let's see:
As late as June 2010, the user was caught using multiple sockpuppets which were ban hammered by User:Alison - might want to ask her about it. Here's the account and the block log [34]. Note the block description: with an expiry time of indefinite (Personal attacks or harassment: A rather obvious single-purpose account used for 'outting'). How did he get caught that time? By posting people's personal information to harass and out them (hence the oversighted edits at Sandstein's talk page). And along with that account several more got busted [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. So just at that one point in time he was running a sock farm of at least six socks - and that's just the ones that got caught at that point. "Three years" my ass. He's had been sock puppeting in a disruptive way as recently as less than a year ago. And I'd be willing to bet he has been doing since then.
Hell, people used to GIVE BARNSTARS for catching sock puppets of this guy - not just because he was sock puppeting so much but because his activities were so extremely damaging to the encyclopedia. [41]
Or you could've actually asked someone who's familiar with this guy's activities, like User:Moreschi [42]. Or User:Alex Bakharev. Here's another sock farm the guy had [43], from May 2009 (do a search for Jacob Peters).
Or you could've clicked on the "confirmed sockpuppets" link from his user page [44] which lists thirty freakin three sockpuppets of this guy. or the "suspected sockpuppets" link, which has more sockpuppets than I can count.
Did you really buy the regret my behavior from 2006-07 that led to my being banned, (how about his behavior from 2007-2010????) line. Did you just not bother reading the message right above the unblock request which very clearly states:
As a banned vandal, you are not entitled to regular unblock consideration. This page has been protected for six months due to your abuse of the unblock template. If you believe your ban was inappropriate, you can contest it by emailing a person on WP:ARBCOM. Given your long history of abuse, it is extremely unlikely that the ban would be overturned. You have exhausted Wikipedia's patience and are no longer welcome here. Wikipedia's invitation for anyone to edit does not apply to you.
which is pretty explicit about the fact that only ArbCom can overturn the block?
This is one of the most notorious sockpuppeteers and abusive users to have ever gotten banned from Wikipedia, and I'm not just engaging in hyperbole. And this is one of the most misguided unblocks I have ever seen.
And guess, what, as soon as you ublocked him he jumped right into controversy, editing at the notorious battleground of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.
Since you had no authority to unblock this user, how about reblocking him and letting ArbCom decide? It's gonna wind up with them anyway. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reblocked this user, he was obviously lying in his unblock request. If you feel that he should be unblocked anyway and given another chance, I would urge you to start a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI about this first. Fram ( talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiyas there Jp,
I noticed you just did a CU request on user talk:Vintageceilingfans, which hopefully means you have a spare minite for another one (You seem to be the only checkuser around this evening.). The problem page is Jimbo's user talk, which has been targeted by multiple vandalism account before i protected it - It seems this has happened before as well. Do you happen to have a minute to run a CU on the accounts to see if there is some range / sleepers about? Thanks in advance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Several of us appear to have been accused of an abuse of power, at WP:AN#Abuse of powers?, without being notified -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon,
Iaaasi is back: [48] -- Nmate ( talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the duration of this block needs to be reconsidered. If you look at the users "sockpuppets" only two of them, User:Woodenmetal, and User:Mujahid Ahmad have done any harm. Then there is also the recent case of User:BabbaQ who was found (checkuser confirmed) to be using sockpuppets to influence content going up on the main page and they only got a one week block for that. In comparison to the BabbaQ case an indefinite block for User:Omer123hussain seems very excessive - moreso than admin discretion should reasonably allow.
Can the block term be reconsidered please? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block of User:Omer123hussain.The discussion is about the topic User:Omer123hussain. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Josh. A discussion has arisen regarding Jewish ethnicity at Talk:Ed Miliband#Ethnicity in infobox. I thought you might be able to provide some insight. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought you'd be interested, thus. It, not surprisingly, coincided with a period of low editing activity by yours truly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How is Posting Block or Addition Removed Due to Posting Copyrighted Materials Without Permission a blantent lies? MBGuyCasey ( talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm using a the code below in my userboxes and it says I been a member for 5 years, 5 months, and 2 days. MBGuyCasey ( talk)
{Template:User Wikipedian for}}
{User Wikipedian for|year=2001|month=1|day=15}}
, which is even more not true. --
jpgordon
::==( o ) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)I don't know why it's not true, but I removed the code or any code relating to how long I been a member since it is causing problems. MBGuyCasey ( talk) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I meant I don't know why it (the code) is saying I have been Wikipedian since 2001/01/15 as I don't remember when I even joined Wikipedia. MBGuyCasey ( talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Remember this guy User talk:KakMassoudMustHang ? You blocked him in March [49]. It looks like he's back ( Special:Contributions/93.91.196.124) editing via NEWROZ Telecom in Iraqi Kurdistan. It's Ledenierhomme ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme/Archive). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Re this comment. I think we must have crossed each other... I quickly reversed some of the worst spam, but haven't entirely finished the cleanup. Was there anything that needed to be address specifically? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon,
Long time ago, you proceeded to this block :
[50]. I could not find trace of any discussion that would explain this. Wasn't this a mistake ? Could you please indicate me where sockpuppetry of this contributor was discussed ?
Noisetier (
talk) 09:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this is far too pathetic for a talkback notice so I'll just throw it out there: User talk:Kci357. Toddst1 ( talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Josh. Chester Markel has filed an ANI in relation to OM concerning "personal attacks". It also refers to evidence from the vacated decision and recent comments between OM and FT2 in relation to that vacated decision. I suspect you will need to step in in some way to resolve this, so I thought I'd let you know about the ANI if you weren't already aware. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Hi, Moonriddengirl had approached you about this sockfarm a while back. I've now had to block another sock -- Goldfinger123 ( talk · contribs) for introducing similar copyvios and there are many of his IPs that are introducing copyvios too (in addition he now has three accounts on Commons, but they don't seem to mind there as was mentioned at at an AN discussion there), but this is resulting in the need for a lot more copyvios and therefore protections of articles. Can you check to see if the collateral damage is minimal in the case of range block? Also, I haven't come across another sock yet, but his editing interests are quite wide, so it's difficult to monitor. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You have just declined an unblock request at User_talk:Paglakahinka. Might it not now make sense to block talk page access? There have been numerous requests and the message appears not to be sinking in. - Sitush ( talk) 15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Jpg, could you take a look at this section at ANI. There are two relevant SPIs: this and that; since then I've had to protect TP a couple of times and now I see this. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just declined a request for unblock at User talk:FreakyLocz14. You made the block, giving "Block evasion: Blocked for BLP violations as IP address" as the reason. I certainly agree that there are grounds for a block (hence my unblock decline) but I wonder whether it is necessary for the block to be indefinite. Do you have any comment? JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I left a question at the SPI case for you (or another CU) asking what the relationship between the two found groups is. If you have a minute, could you swing by? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Josh, I noticed that recently you removed nearly all the external links on Peter Deunov. While I definitely agree it was a linkfarm, I think each link should be considered based on the value it adds to the article. After carefully looking through all the links and considering their value-add, I have put back 4 out of the 12 deleted. They represent different perspectives and are useful resources for anyone interested in Peter Deunov's legacy. I hope you'll agree with my choices. I would suggest new links to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Quartz ( talk) 03:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You have 660th place in most edits (45233). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:
Hello! Since 10.28.2010 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}. |
A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:Whydelete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Σ talk contribs 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the unprotection of User:Bowei Huang and User talk:Bowei Huang and they won't unprotect it. So can you please simply unprotect it for me?
I want everything to return back to before and normal as much as possible. I want to undo the changes as much as possible. I made a mistake and I want to fix it as much as possible. Please? So please? I beg you.
Can you please just deal with my desires just once? Please?
Bowei Huang 2 ( talk) 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up on and correcting my bad edit to User talk:Andycjp--don't know how that happened, sorry. This was the intended edit. -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I previously posted this to Timotheus Canens' talk page, but then I saw that Timotheus happens to be on an admin tools break.
I was looking through the edit history of the article 'Cold fusion', and found a suspicious user with a blanked userpage and talk page, named VanishedUser314159. I looked at the two pages' histories and saw that the user was previously named Joshua P. Schroeder, and ScienceApologist before that, and that he had been banned from editting by the arbitration committee earlier this year. I saw that FT2 pointed out that he had used the IP address 128.59.169.49 as a sockpuppet [51], which I noticed to be almost identical to an IP which had recently editted the cold fusion article- 128.59.169.46. Those two similar IPs are from Columbia University. I investigated further and found that the IP 128.59.169.46 has been used to edit several of the same pages that VanishedUser314159 had editted [52], and in the same way, indicating that it is clearly him. He hasn't behaved well under his new IP either, having been blocked twice for edit-warring and trolling, and having received numerous complaints on his talk page for his disruptive behavior. After digging further through the edit histories of the articles that Schroeder frequented, I found two more IP addresses that he uses: In the edit history of the article 'Parapsychology', I found the IP 128.59.168.240- another similar IP, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. In the edit history of the article 'Tired light', I found the IP 140.252.83.241, which edits the same pages that VanishedUser did, and in the same way. If there is any doubt that the latter IP is used by Schroeder (since the IP is not similar to the others), you can see in the user contributions that there are edits to the article 'Columbia University'. Rachel the nerd ( talk) 15:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob as he's started user accounts again. I've also mentioned your earlier check for range block. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 16:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Pretend your mother taught you some manners. Deterence Talk 01:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Ring Cinema seems to be up to his old ways, now with an editing dispute regarding the name of the article The Beatles (album). Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
See link above. Does it look like this editor is Lombshi? -- Atama 頭 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon. Hope you're well. A user is concerned with your recent unblock of User:08OceanBeach SD. Thought you might like to comment. For the record, I personally don't see any problems with the unblock. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You will recall your only block of 8 August. The VanishedUser is active again with 140.252.83.241 ( talk) and it is just a week left until he is free to use his university IP again. 77.219.176.32 ( talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
How much collateral damage would there be from rangeblocking 60.52.0.0/17? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at an image used in one of my userboxen, I noticed it also appears on User:BeeKindRewind which is nearly a direct copy of my user page, as is User talk:BeeKindRewind. I see you blocked that user indefinitely, so I ask you: is it OK to blank those pages? Is there a better place to ask? cheers, __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I undid my contributions, but I followed your advice: I removed the external link to the RovasPedia (despite of the fact that the RovasPedia is also correct). I also deleted the word "faulty". However, the widely acknowledged Prof. András Róna-Tas pointed out that the correct name is "Khavar" and not "Kabar". The reason of the mistake is the incorrect transcription of the original Greek text of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. Please, let me know if you see any further mistake in my contributions. I will fix them. Best Regards, -- Rovasscript ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Jpgordon for your support in helping me get unblocked. I feel great to be back to freedom on Wikipedia!!! Very happy to be unblocked. Thanks a lot. Jobin ( talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you sir for unblocking me. We, the new users of wikipedia, will take care that we will not violate the rules of editing... Feeling nice to see your user page... Happy editing sir...!!! Kaivalya 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaivalyas ( talk • contribs)
Josh:
Saw this in a shop window in Tokyo. Anything to do with you?
-- Calton | Talk 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Why was the account blocked? As an administrator it is your duty (and Daniel Cases') to follow Wikipedia guidelines. According to Wikipedia's policy: “Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.”
I did not engage in any problematic article editing and just started this account yesterday. Once blocked I cant communicate directly and Daniel has his discussion page blocked from editing so I cant respond to him with a new account. You and all the other editors/administrators need to respect the important work of others and if they violate a not so obvious guideline follow Wikipedia's policy not your own personal agenda.
Follow Wikipedia's guidelines by unblocking my account and encourage me to change my username (which I will). This is a community and you and the other administrators need to act in a responsible manner.
Ericwilliamh ( talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)murrowcenter Ericwilliamh ( talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am just trying to get some important information on the site. The blocking of the username by an editor violated Wikipedia's own stated guidelines, so there is no explaining that away. It is a frustrating experience when the editors don't follow Wikiedia's own guidelines and then sit in judgment of my mistake. I could not respond directly to Daniel Case (the one who blocked the username) because he has his discussion board blocked.
I appreciate all the hard work the editors do, but the bottom line is that if they believe there is a violation they need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and clearly communicate with the user what they believe they need to do. One editor stated my entry was "promotion" and in no way shape or form did it espouse a value (the essence of promotion)...I was getting different responses from different editors. This is a community and the editors need to act in a responsible manner and communicate with users. Surely you can understand the frustration and time it takes to learn the basics of Wikipedia, create an account, post and have it all wiped away by a keystroke of an overzealous editor.
I appreciate your time please appreciate mine.
Ericwilliamh ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Ericwilliamh Ericwilliamh ( talk) 00:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
In an under-construction essay -- WP:Delegitimization as a tactic -- I mentioned two stale examples. I hoped that very old illustrative examples would be non-controversial.
Among those who had anything to do with a minor 2007 dispute, you appear to be the only one still active. Will you take a look at this:
Individual delegitimization. "' X ' has been relentlessly pursuing false sockpuppet investigations against me and against ' Y ' in an effort to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with him." (emphasis added)
Does this example make sense to you? Does it matter that I'm quoting the words of someone who is later banned as a sock puppet? Is the illustrative purpose served well enough? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You recently granted User:08OceanBeach SD an unblock (he was blocked for 1 week). He was blocked for edit warring and breaching the 3RR [53]. Your unblock was lifted because he argumented that:
Now take a look at this [55]. I took the issue to the talk page after he blanked a whole section. As usual, he found a way to game with the system and stopped editing but started reverting the map, a shorcut to succeed in his intented edits. He didn't care the map was there for a reason, representing the common regions of Latin America.
He has been reverting the map to his uploaded version. Like I said, a way to game with the system, obviously thinking that the 3RR rule or his promises doesn't count there. Would you please help? Thanks. My actions seem to be futile. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 23:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I really hate cut-and-paste duplicate discussions like this. Both of you stop bothering me and also stop bothering each other. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am asking that my user page be unrestricted as the corresponding blocks have expired. 99.135.104.136 ( talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Honestly, I'm not trying to spam anyone or anything, just trying to get an answer to my question. I'm sure you guys have enough on your plate already. I apologize if that was misinterpreted.
69.204.38.3 ( talk) 00:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you look at the similarities between their edits and received warnings? I was just going to ask what the connection was but found you'd unblocked SJS. Peridon ( talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon! The user 88.211.44.71, who was previously blocked [56] for editwarring, is currently continuing to add the same disruptive material ( [57], [58] [59]). In this [60] case he adds an obviously false material. An admin's engagement will be appreciated. Gazifikator ( talk) 17:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I do not know who is an admin around here, but I wish to know: could you help me with some severe trouble?
This user Republican Jacobite is attempting to start something with me, for no good reason. I see 'he' has a history, and his removal of my good-faith posting at Steampunk on the talk page is outrageous. Even admins do not do that. Can you help?
You have contributed recently and seem attentive to the article; I have no wish to alter the article in any significant way, nor do I want this editor attacking me again, and again accusing me of attacking other editors. I have no time for such juvenile trouble-makers.
Please reply, if you can, at my talk page and I would appreciate if you looked over Steampunk and commented there also. Many thanks. 75.21.113.40 ( talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now hold Republican to the same standards - which, by the bye, I find are applied here more often to some than to others. Do not think I am turning to you to beg for help at this point. Only suggesting you reflect on the bully you are protecting. 75.21.113.40 ( talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem; I'll try to do that in the future (of course, they could always just make it possible through the software, too, as you suggested). Daniel Case ( talk) 21:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Per the guideline du jour, I think that declined unblock requests may no longer be removed by the user.
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested, declined unblock requests, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices
This is regarding User talk:Nevoexpo. Is it OK if I put these back? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello my name is David. I'm currently a freshman at Clemson University. For my English 103 class, I'm required to work on one wikipedia article and I chose the AutoCAD article. I recently added some content about the AutoCAD WS mobile app. I also created a new section "Newest Release." Technically this is only our "first draft" so I plan on added more information in the next week or so. I'm suppose to find other wikipedia users that have edited the page before and ask them for advice or any suggestions they may have. If you have anything you would like me to add or change or just a suggestion that would make the article even better I would appreciate it if you would let me know. If you go to the sandbox I created, I have bulleted points about things I plan to do and things I plan to add. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thank you! DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay thank you very much for taking the time to point all of that out. I will fix them as soon as I get a chance. DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I guess this is why I'm an engineering major and not an english major. I'm definitely better at the math and sciences. DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been out of it all day (more like the past year) and should have checked. My mistake. Alexandria (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
In response to a report at WP:ANI, I've removed talk page access from Havengore, who has been refactoring others' comments on his/her talk page while blocked. Since you've been conversing with Havengore since the original block was levied, I'd like to suggest that you restore the talk page access if you believe it warranted, without bothering to ask me. Nyttend ( talk) 03:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon! Just to let you know I have listed your name here as you have fought the edits of this long-term vandal admirably. This editor has been very recently active and shifting IPs even more unpredictably. Please feel free to add any appropriate evidence to the report and please add it to your watchlist as well, as this draft will certainly be the basis for a LTA entry in the future. Thank you! Doc talk 04:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. You are the admin who declined this user's last unblock request back in January, 2011. You asked him to wait a year, but here he is with a new request. Since you must be familiar with his record your opinion would be valuable. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mr Checkuser!
I don't know if you're keeping track of this sort of thing, but permabanned sockpuppeteer NoCal100 is now posting from Honduras. An IP user with shifting Honduran IP addresses keeps obsessing about me and my user page, but this edit in particular tells me who's behind it. No real need to block, but I figure if he takes up his old obsessions (other than List of fictional ducks), this might be a helpful tidbit of data for checkusers. See also
-- Calton | Talk 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it just a pusillanimous legal thing? I'm not up on legal minutiae. I'm mainly acquainted with... you know... facts, as established by courts of law. I kind of figured "pseudohistorian" would cover a man who had been deemed a Nazi liar by a major nation-state. It's not as if there's any chance of Irving suing us. His next noteworthy act will be to die. When he does, will we categorize him as a pseudohistorian? If not, then the category itself is meaningless. LANTZY TALK 07:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Does that file and other uploads still need to be protected? File is on Commons. -- MGA73 ( talk) 11:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Understood ... just gets tedious typing it all the time. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You'd done a few CUs for Vrghs jacob based on requests from MRG and me. It appears that he's back again as Ravelnine ( talk · contribs) but since the old cases are stale an SPI won't be useful. Would you be able to match anything with data you might have? We have some IPs that he's used, most recently from 59.178.*.* but there are a lot more. The articles are the same and the image additions are also pretty much the same. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob are the relevant cats, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob is the relevant SPI. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 12:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've brought up some of the issues being discussed on User Talk:Ostreicher in the already open ANI thread on the issue, WP:ANI#Threat of legal action. I mentioned your name in that process, so your comments are welcome. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block Evasion. Thank you. Mt king (edits) 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The guy seems to have been editing as the IP 128.59.171.194 ( talk · contribs) since March 2011 or before. That IP is registered to Columbia University. He has also been participating on fringe science. Since you issued the last indefinite block here you may want to comment on what should be done. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)