![]() | 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. |
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
This edit is not visible on the page. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi JPG you were the last to decline 68.108.23.15's unblock request on September 9 2015. I just noticed today that he was back to editing as soon as September 15th. It's clearly the same user. Both were trying to create vanity articles for Ethan Shulman [1] [2]. The user is clearly disruptive and unrepentant about their disruption. What do you think? Should I indef the named account and extend the IP block for a significant length? Is that reasonable, or too harsh considering the block evasion wasn't spotted until after the block expired? My chief argument for the indef is that the kid is WP:NOTHERE and refuses to listen. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Green Green Wave ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) - You recently blocked this user for abusing multiple accounts. I can't see an SPI or anything for them, so can only guess at any evidence, however User:Jaga Badmash popped up just after the block, and his first edit was to one of Green Green Wave's drafts, and he also seems to be editing in a similar fashion (same article types, adding spam links etc etc. Thought I'd mention it rather than open an SPI atm. - Happysailor (Talk) 16:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi JPG, does GoosheBumpsh need to be templated as a sock? I couldn't find an SPI report, but your unblock decline suggested a CU had been performed. Regards! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello how are you. i'm having a personal attack with the User:Knowledgebattle, a user throwing personal opinion upon the articles, so i undo his edit's. as here and here. Many of other user's undo his edit's as here, since he is pushing the Category:Christianity-related beheadings in different places even it's not related or throwig his presonal opinions upon the articles as here which been also revert and here and here, so i'm not the only one who's undo his edit.
This not the first time that i handel his harrasment as stalking and undo my edit for several times and the user:Volunteer Marek ask him to stop this clear cut evidence of harassment. and when he called uneducated. It's interesting when he called me Christian-propaganda, when his articles been deleted for being full of propaganda and i will not talking also about his inappropriate comment's in different articles or talk pages. Have a nice day. Jobas ( talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yossiea~enwiki ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello Jpg. See WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki. You've extended the original block and it was already marked as an AE block so it appears it will take a consensus to undo it. Do you want to make a proposal at AE on where to go from here? If you think the editor is beyond redemption then perhaps we should leave the indef in place. The guy has 4,600 edits and they are not all in the Middle East so it's possible he could still do useful work with an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA. Nonetheless some of his recent comments are beyond the pale. Perhaps AE could suggest he apply for unblock in three months, subject to a ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Two weeks ago you banned a user from Italy who was making disruptive edits to the Mafia article (he kept adding IPAs to the lede despite a consensus that they weren't necessary). I think he's back under a new name: REDSEEKER. Can you deal with this guy? Kurzon ( talk) 10:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Just after your explicit okay before I modify the sanction. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The end of all this shall be," he went on, looking up at us—"the end of this shall be, that some day he will run amuck amongst his faithful subjects and send 'ad patres' ever so many of them before they make up their minds to the disloyalty of knocking him on the head.
I thought 'amok' as I was taught, and changed it for that reason, recent reading in a period where it was quite respectable usage. And apropos of that wiki article, suffice it to read everything Paul Johnson wrote on the period from the beginnings down to early Christian period with how Norman Cantor approaches the same matters in his The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews, HarperCollins, 1994 and the point I tried to make will be clearer. Still fuck it, it's quite pointless trying to make suggestions, and this is my last word. If editors insist on poor quality, caveat lector. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "amuck" vs "amok", yes, it's a misspelling with a long history.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I like your ukulele symbol/ emoji. It's cool. Michael J.S. 06:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnønʘmøṑṨ ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
Jpgordon, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Savvyjack23 (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Savvyjack23 ( talk) 07:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The user who posted that comment on my talk page is very new, and may not understand the difference between a block and an AFC decline. I declined the submission of the user's autobiography because it contained too much peacock language, a common problem in autobiographies. I have gone to the Teahouse to ask for additional, friendly but policy-based, advice from other experienced editors to this very new user. I hope that answers your question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you declined the unblock request for Socks 01 ( talk · contribs). I've been aware of this user for a long time as there's an overlap in the articles we edit. While he clearly has a limited understanding of image copyright, he is in other respects a productive editor, and the vandalism spree was very much out of character. I asked another checkuser about the case in IRC and was advised there was no indication of account hijacking, so I conclude that either Socks left his computer logged in and someone else used it, or he was under the influence in some way. The edits were made after 9 pm on a Friday night, local time. I suggest we give him another chance, and I'll happily block him myself if anything like this re-occurs.- gadfium 03:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Please, see this. Chronus ( talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize and thanks for not blocking me. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 11:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
... as they say ;-) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 23:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Is there a link to a sock puppet query regarding Gateofhorn ( talk · contribs)? Given that there were so many user names that popped up out of nowhere on that page and given the regular harassment and insults I've been getting from them, I'd like to know how it went down and if all of those new users were socks or what. Thanks! :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see, User:Chemcreativity was softblocked and asked to drop that account and create another one. They appear to have done that, creating User:Sandin2, but then you blocked that one as a sock. I don't see what they have done wrong here to warrant the second block - have I missed anything? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. You just rejected an unblock request which was "interestingly" not made by the user in question but by another username, for which my comments here are relevant. LjL ( talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a frequent participant in AfD discussions. BoxOfChickens created many AfDs about Casio. I noticed some sockpuppets were voting but I didn't pay even half-attention because they're more common than sunrises at AfD. I had hovered my pointer over one's username and saw that he was blocked and then checked and it was for abusing multiple accounts. BoxOfChickens had reported him apparently. Okay, continuing with the story. I then later on happenstance hovered over BoxOfChicken's username and saw that he was blocked as well. I got curious and checked and saw that it was for abusing multiple accounts. I first thought it must've been a mistake or something. I then checked and read that two admins had verified him to have been using sockpuppets. The named sockpuppet was BowlOfChickens. I then checked this editor's talk page and saw that he was blocked for multiple accounts as well and that his listed sockpuppet was Redminivan. But Redminivan was blocked for personal attacks against the aforementioned BoxOfChickens and was part of the AfD sockpuppet gang. He was attacking himself on a sockpuppet and harassing his own AfDs and then he listed his own sockpuppets in an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malcolm's office/Archive and they were blocked and it was found out he had been using them all from the same IP as his main account? Is this all correct? What in the world, man? -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
You wrote "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts." I did not see a sock investigation. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an unblock request for a block you placed over two and a half years ago, at User talk:HoshiNoKaabii2000. I am inclined to give the editor another chance, but do you wish to make any comment about it? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you were involved in the blocking of one of the sockpuppets of User:CaptainHog, I am notifying you of yet another SPI regarding the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
For the BAPS article, I removed a section under BAPS charities because the lead paragraph effectively summarizes the topic and has a linked sub article that explains everything in detail and repeats information from the original post. Would you please take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&type=revision&diff=714834663&oldid=713651508 edit and let me know if I am doing something wrong? I do not want to put a overly detailed tag on the article right now unless it is needed.
Thanks Swamiblue ( talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Saw your comment at ANI regarding that /20 block - you mentioned it's too large to checkuser. What's the largest range that can be checkuser'ed? I'd think if it's too large a range to check, it should probably be too large a range to block as well... SQL Query me! 21:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
TheNerdisHere ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Time: May 12, 2016 16:40:38
Message: Please see message on UTRS.
Notes:
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. In a recent unblock decline, you mentioned a checkuser confirmation: here
Are you able to say anything about the following editor, who has been acting as a close colleague of Théophile on the Human rights in Ukraine article, and has a similarly short tenure: User talk:Usr lI
Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, could you please take a look at the Hamza Tzortzis-article? It is edited by at least three WP:SPA's lately. The last acceptable version with third-party sources can be found here. I would suggest some kind of protection, but that is me. Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Josh. I noticed your appropriate decline of JohnLloydScharf's unblock request. I've seen your wording before, and it reads like a template — it it? A tool? It describes what's wrong with a lot of unblock requests and gives useful advice, so I'd like to be able to use it myself, if there's a convenient way. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
Thank you for RevDeling the nasty edit that 97.76.251.91 ( talk) left on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Would you mind going through their contributions, particularly on August 14 and today, and RevDeling the rest of them? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I extended the duration of their block, since they were making legal threats both at User talk:24.119.20.133 and elsewhere, but restored talk page edit access so that they could withdraw the legal threats. If they don't, of course, then removing such access again is no problem. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon, I see you raised a NPOV and disregarded few lines in the page on Induction Cooking. Please note that the dropped part reads "Apart from DOE findings, little information exists on (hopefully) reliable unbiased efficiency tests and efficiency comparisons among different cooking technologies. A worldwide survey of information sources available on this matter was conducted and resumed in 2014-2015 Australian reports…"
The first sentence just says that few institutions / researchers / independent bodies have attempted to make a screening on available data on efficiency of cooking technologies and present them in an organic way. The second one suggest an Australian report that seems to met these criteria and summarises the average efficiencies coming out from this survey.
The word "hopefully" stays there to alert the reader about the need, on this matter, to rely only on figures from experts able to identify reliable data and make such a screening.
One of the two versions of the report stays on the site parliament.nsw.gov.au, that is the Parliament of New South Wales Australia. The information given herein on Induction cooking efficiencies - an on other cooking technologies - seems to have been carefully collected and analysed by experts. So I believe that the part you disregarded - despite the "hopefully" word - adds high quality information on the matter.
Please, take the time to check again the dropped part and reinsert it agin, if you agree with my observations.
Regards
Guido from Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.67.216 ( talk) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
What do you make of our two sparkling new arrivals: [3], only three days apart? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
The User:MehrdadFR ( talk) reverted your neutral edition in the article Hijab by country, because he is constantly reverting neutral and third party information and sources about the hijab in Iran, and is almost exclusively using POV (that is pro-government) language about the hijab in Iran (that may contradict academic sources which have no internet links) and is relying on sources based in Iran that naturally favor the Iranian policy on the hijab (and not on all third party and academic sources), as you can see in the Iran section of that article as well as in the Women in Iran article. He uses weasel words (that are commonly used by Iranian government sources) such as "the official reveiling in 1984" in both articles about the mandatory hijab for women. I reverted his reverts and clarified the sentences. Could you check this user and warn him about his use of POV and almost the expropriation of this subject? As I can see from this user's talk page, he also has a history of edit warring with other users in various articles, and has received warnings (including from you [4]).
Thank you.
SednaXV ( talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Urgent.
Hello Jpgordon.
The User:MehrdadFR seems to have a political agenda because he is putting information that is supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran POV, and is deleting other NPOV information and references from academic sources about contemporary (and controversial) subjects about Iran such as the hijab, chador, womens' rights etc. The problem is that this user has hijacked these issues, when the articles, content and references should be NPOV and sober.
Could you do something about this user?
Thank you.
Artoxx ( talk) 15:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You didn't sign. I'm trying to get it to archive but no luck. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
While it was tagged...in not the best way (because it was waiting for clerk action), Isaiasad2's block is definitely a valid block per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charlesvvvv. The first IP that shows up in CU right now connects the editor to Charlesvvvv ( talk · contribs), and the CU log on April 10, 2016 for that IP confirms the connection to Isaiasad. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
for taking care of that "WP:Request for Respect" thingy so quickly. Shearonink ( talk) 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
An edit conflict stopped me, so here it is: "As did others, he wasn't the only one who challenged Clifford. Let us know when Rosa gets a book published by a mainstream, preferably academic publishing house. His publishers so far seem to be mainly Polish minor publishers/printers (such as Outwater, which isn't a real book publisher) and this clearly fringe publisher. My point about Duke is simply that we get a lot of posts from Duke which are either from Rosa or friends probably posting on his behalf." Doug Weller talk 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you delete two IP talk pages User talk:123.136.106.97 and User talk:123.136.106.206? Thank you. 123.136.107.251 ( talk) 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Turns out (AndyTyner is /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndyTyner another sock of Harvey Carter. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly him - would appreciate if you could extend the block and yank TPA. Thanks, GAB gab 05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I would appreciate your input on this ticket on UTRS as you changed the block to indefinite for the user. The user is TopherKRock and they've requested that they be unblocked. I was looking for your opinion on whether or not to give them a second chance. After all it is nearly 3 years since they were blocked.-- 5 albert square ( talk) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see you reverted my addition to the banners, including the old RFD one. The history of such editing is complicated, so I wanted to notify those interested. By the way, {{ talk page of redirect}} may also be needed. George Ho ( talk) 18:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll drop the stick for now. I'll revisit this when this goes out of hand. George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi jpgordon. I am a university student who has been a part of a group getting to know Wikipedia for awhile now. I am interested in pages on Nazi Germany and through that I discovered an editor with an unblock request in which you were involved in, indicating that the editor had another account and was using it as a sockpuppet. I was wondering if you could give me some insight as to how one can tell if an account is a sockpuppet and how you can tell/discover the main account operating that sockpuppet. Thank you for any info you can give me! Taylor6644 ( talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644
Thanks! Taylor6644 ( talk) 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644
I forget the name of this LTA, but you recently blocked Escapism lover and DarthPalpatineSidious, and I'm pretty sure Me the blue lover is the same person. Sro23 ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Am I allowed to know who this person is? City Of Silver 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Gmfreeman619, who you blocked as a sockpuppet, is requesting an unblock. Whose sock do you think (s)he is? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool bio!
Bryanumedina (
talk)
20:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, you unblocked this user, whose block log reaches well within the double digits, last December mentioning that it'd be his "last chance". However, this new textbook 3RR violation, [6], amongst others, convinces us that he simply remains WP:NOTHERE. The amount of rope that he has been given over the years is so massive, its pretty much insane. Yet the structural problems unfortunately always remained, and will always remain. I just decided to pick this example as it's the most recent one, though there are many more relevant ones from the recent past. Your thoughts? - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
After reading the comments that you and several other members have left on the recent revisions to the Visionaire page, could you please remove the protection? I am planning to make some edits to help the article become more neutral and factual, but want to include more sources and would like to be able to add in new headers, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstenchen ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for catching changes and reverting Trader Joe's. SWP13 ( talk) 14:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thanks for reverting changes by unknown IP user on Trader Joe's article. The refs are deleting again. SWP13 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) |
The Page is target of Vandalism, could you help protect the page i n the German Wiki? The Spanish and English are ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocainaenvenenada ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, the author is working the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocainaenvenenada ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
You had unblocked @ NadirAli: on December 2016 as last chance. He has been blocked for disruptive editing, creating sockpuppets, IP socking, edit warring, bad image uploads, he has been through indefinite block by @ Ohnoitsjamie:. He is blocked again for edit-warring to push original research. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 12:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, well. That's a slightly different unblock request reason. It is clear enough that she was and is acting in good faith; it is just that what she wants to do in good faith is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14, who you indeffed in 2011 for BLP vio as an IP, is requesting unblock through WP:UTRS. I'm handling the ticket, and I've requested a Checkuser to determine if there is any recent repeat of the damaging IP editing. Would you have any issues with me handling the request on my own judgement? Given the age of the block and the routine nature I doubt you would, but as a courtesy I figure you ought to be consulted. Regards, The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearing off my watchlist & removing User talk:Speedydixon1997 (thanks for dealing with that by the way) I noticed that the block notices on his block log from both you & Kudpung all include the same typo "Vandalism as reported ans also ". I guess it's embedded in some admin tool? Cabayi ( talk) 07:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw that you declined a Joeymiskulin's request to be unblocked, and noticed your comments about them "making physical threats against other editors", which is certainly quite nasty behaviour to exhibit in an edit summary. I should point out he hasn't taken his previous two blocks seriously; as soon as they expired, he went back to disruptively editing The Lego Movie that he's been causing problems on.
But here's something interesting - Do you know that reason he gave for his Unblock? The one that goes: "You can't block me while I was trying to block Crboyer because he reverted my HIDDEN TXT that he requested me to go to the talk page!"
Well... First and foremost, that HIDDEN TXT was what I put in; it was in regards to a number of Wikipedians who edited the page, but constantly changed a setup within the article's Infobox from one to another and back again. I had to step in and put a stop to it, by opening up a discussion for users to review the changes and settle on a setupthat they could agree to use (there hasn't been much activity on it since); as far as I know, one setup was to make it out like the article page it links to (another user I know of, and who I pointed out this matter to, regarded the link article as one that had some issues with it. You can find it here, where there are a couple of discussions on its layout and setup on the article's talk page).
Secondly, Crboyer is not requesting anyone to go to the The Lego Movie's talk page; I am, mainly to have Wikipedians see the issue that was being caused by constant changing between two setups, and hoping to nip it in the bud, before they try switching between the two. I know another User agreed with me that that had gotten ridiculous. Anyway... Joeymiskulin reverted the HIDDEN TXT to begin with, along with switching out of the second format, which used the Plainlist Format, to the first format. The first time he did so, his edit summary stated: "GUtt01 told me that no one must revert this again but I'm reverting this unacceptable thing for good and no disastrous train wrecks! I warned him!!!!!" Quite frankly, I didn't tell him about not reverting this (unless he was operating as an IP User), and he never gave me a warning about it all... He did this five times, before focusing on just removing the HIDDEN TXT. When he focused on the HIDDEN TXT, he gave a quite contradictory edit summary saying: "All right, I'm never reverting this again!"
This is something you should know. It seems that apart from making a physical threat to Crboyer, he also acted like he had the permissions that an administrator has. As soon as Crboyer reverted his third edit because of his disruptive behaviour, Joeymiskulin went to his Talk Page, and slapped him with a Block Notice, claiming he was block for 36 hours. Naturally, Crboyer reverted this adddition, as he rightfully stated that Joeymiskulin was not an administrator and had no legal right to attempt to do this to him. You can see exactly what he did here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Crboyer&diff=prev&oldid=794471635
Quite honestly, I'm not sure he's taking in the serious nature of why he has been blocked, and has shown extensive, aggressive behaviour with his editing and the summaries he makes. But that last part shows that he is acting in a behaviour that is unacceptable to Wikipedia.
Considering what I said, what do you think of this? Let me know your thoughts, when you can spare the time, mate. GUtt01 ( talk) 14:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 13:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you've gotten plenty of pings from User talk:Moor for Senate campaign. The user followed through with their promise to create a new account at Supporter of the Campaign ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Did you want to block that as a sock? only ( talk) 20:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This guy you blocked has been evading his block regularly. Please look into it. Thanks.— Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 08:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi! You blocked Yeepoo for abusing multiple accounts. Whose sock are they, or is there an SPI case I can see? I had suspected a sock of Apollo The Logician but there wasn't much to go on. Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon, could you place protection over those 3 pages? A troll is having fun erasing the name of the producer out... Las Acevedo, The Weather Smells Like Oranges & Ezili Dantor 51.15.136.216 ( talk) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For an account that showed up two days ago and has a total of eight contributions? What am I missing? -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Jpgordon - User:NetWitz, whom I blocked (and you reviewed the unblock for) appears to be evading the block with sockpuppets. I noticed User:Prison Break24 making the same type of edits immediately after the block. I've blocked that account, but could you take a look and see if you find anything more? Thanks, Prodego talk 23:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey I could not find anyone who has fair knowledge of editing or blocking here so I decided to ask you. An editor keeps reverting my accurate edits & keeps reporting me for 'vandalism'. My IP address keeps getting blocked because of that & I can't make a new account. He's keeps accusing me of being a 'sockpuppet', but all I want to do is to contribute to the articles that I have knowledge of but he keeps reverting them. What should I do? 150.129.30.222 ( talk) 17:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes that editor also reported me for 'sockpuppetry'. 150.129.29.154 ( talk) 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Jpgordon, see User talk:BU Rob13#The Citadel article for a little more information. Another user and I who have dealt with Bob80q believe they are the same person using two accounts, but the history goes further. I've asked BU Rob13 to check into all users involved [Strgzr1 (Barkballer), Bob80q (Ruffnready)]. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 22:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
One of Special:Contributions/Bob80q's known IP ranges has been used to edit an article Bob80q frequents here. I've dealt with his edits many times on this and other similar articles, as Bob loves to edit the Operators sections of US military aircraft articles with his own unique style. This same IP has also been used to edit The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina article. Do I need to file an SPI? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies about doing this [7]. I saw that the editor already has an unblock request pending via the UTRS, which is why I removed the one you restored. Trying to help, and I ended up getting in the way. Sorry about any confusion my edits caused. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 03:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
your Woody Guthrie drawings clip, hopefully you did not sell them. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi—can you help me fix errors on an entry? I am unable to use my account to fix errors, specially the Director’s name. I don’t know how to fix it. Thank you. VTSciWriter ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the block on 96.5.241.150. It's appreciated! KNHaw (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
Your presence is urgently needed at User talk:SA 13 Bro. Looks like the block of said user was due to a stray message from a (definitely block-evading) IP. Favonian ( talk) 19:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
At 16:34 7 January, it appears that you banned a sock, Yrstruly. Is there any way I can look up who the sockmaster is? I have a suspicion (currently on extremely thin evidence) that another low-edit account may be related, but in the interests of decency I don't want to make an accusation. If I can find the sock-master, comparing edit histories may help me have a better idea what's going on. Alephb ( talk) 01:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please go to the talk page before making a revision.
In paragraph 2 someone has written, “Franco personally requested of the Germans and Italians the aerial bombing of Guernica in 1937, which opened the way to the capture of Bilbao and his victory in northern Spain.” There is no cited authority for this sentence and it should be deleted.
Hugh Thomas absolved the Spaniards of responsibility for Guernica [1] and Stanley Payne in his 2014 book Franco: A Personal and Political Biography at p. 182 writes, “ Franco had no prior knowledge of the attack , since daily operational details of the northern campaign did not necessarily come to him, though Mola’s headquarters would have known about it.” 199.227.97.254 ( talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
References
you deleted my reference to JL on wait wait dont tell me. whether the story is true or not, the point of the in popular culture section is that this person is well known enough to be mentioned in a main-stream way and be recognized by the public. yes, it’s ‘trivia’, but that’s the point.... Anarchistemma ( talk) 02:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Another user seems to match the same profile as a previously blocked account (Strgzr1, in this case). Would you take a look at Realsnappy18? There have been several IPs as well, but NeilN has protected the page so that issue should be resolved for a little while. Billcasey905 ( talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello @
BU Rob13 and
Jpgordon: this is another account for (user:Jamesbebo). He made
2,288 vandal edit on ar.wiki, and he
said that he'll make more and more
--
Alaa
:)..!
07:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_3klx9i2N1WRNbxP&Q_CHL=gl
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs ( talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Miledisco was recently blocked but he has returned as Bayesedam on the Tog Wajaale article. He creates accounts everytime he is blocked and targets a wide range of articles, what should be done? 62.198.72.248 ( talk) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Bayesedam is back as Worryscot on Somalis 2.104.247.147 ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you give me the rundown on Machinegunmike321? They popped back up at Darkunicorn321. Is there a prolific master or is this just a young newbie who might be reasoned with? Swarm ♠ 08:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I feel the use of 'writer and composer' for popular music on Wikipedia entries is misleading. A composer is someone who write music, a [[lyricist] is someone who writes song lyrics, and a songwriter is someone who generally both composes songs and writes their lyrics but generally does not write unaccompanied music. I am sure Joan Baez would consider herself a songwriter. I would defend using (song)writer when a single individual or group has written words and music and lyricist and composer when the words and music are by different people. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 14:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for redacting this IP's edit summaries. Could you possibly do the same for this one too? They are probably the same user, too. Lordtobi ( ✉) 21:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there a case for this? A CU on User:Giantclit turns up more Chrissymad impersonators eg Crissymad. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edits on the article
List of indoor arenas by capacity. You reverted the one with the capacity of the biggest arena,
Philippine Arena, fair enough, I guess my source wasn't reliable enough, but what's up with "flagu"? It's supposed to be "flag", right? I noticed on
Template:flagu that flagu is correct, but it doesn't add a link to the country if you write "flagu". But if you write "flag", it will do so. So, how is "flagu" better than "flag"?
Thanks.
Biscuit-in-Chief (
talk)
16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's why. I see. And about the "new messages go on the bottom of talk pages), okay, I'll remember that to the next time I post something! - Biscuit-in-Chief ( talk) 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Bayesedam is back editing as ip: 84.81.77.172 on Ajuran (clan) 41.210.1.1 ( talk) 09:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
[11] [12] A user noticed this and reverted [13] 41.242.136.16 ( talk) 00:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi JPG. I've found an IP sock of User:Bob80q editing at Special:Contributions/2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3, and reverted per DENY. Do I need to file an SPI? I can't find the SPI page at the moment. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/50.59.106.156 is another long-time BobQ IP that has edited recently, in a common range used by him. - BilCat ( talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be safe to assume good faith and unblock these two:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I told Clockback that I will transfer the points made on his talkpage to the WP:AN board. He can't reply to the points raised on WP:AN directly. This is completely standard practice -- I have done it many times before. And you go and remove his talkpage access. What the hell? Makes me despair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not think your comments at User_talk:120.17.85.26#Block_appeal give you any credit. —DIV ( 120.17.228.20 ( talk) 03:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC))
This is a treat J. I like the phrase "pull the other one it's got bells on" as well. As a Yank I must have gotten that one from watching EastEnders back in the 80s and 90s. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD| Talk 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Worryscott has returned as Flockatucka. Removing same material [14] [15] & [16] [17]. Using the same edit summary "fixed" [18] [19] 41.218.207.124 ( talk) 15:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, the Special:BlockList tool like what you have cited here is unreliable when two or more blocks have been entered in the block log for the same user, IP address or range. It took me a moment to realize that it is presenting info from both of my blocks in the log (from this to this, it is using pieces from both blocks to present a bad entry). @ JamesBWatson, Drmies, and Yamla: should be made aware.
See
my response in a circumstance where it is two or more different admins. It will be clearer to see using that example and shows where this has been acknowledged as a bug and being tracked at the phabricator. Here
it is.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Hi Jpgordon,
I am trying to make revisions to the British Exploring Society page and you have cited "rv conversion from well-sourced article to something else)"
My changes are well sourced, please can you explain why you reverted the page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afj22 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Civility calls for telling other editors why you reverted them . 23 editor ( talk) 19:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello Jpgordon, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
I think we should let Wikipedia readers decide what is relevant about Kamala's dating a marrie dman, and hid the truth. How about you? 08:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! We have no way to monitor all of our users - but hopefully that one bad apple user went away over the last year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.60 ( talk) 19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Alas, the bad-apple user of the Enoch-Pratt Free Library System is back at it with the unsourced exact dates for, e.g., the introduction of different kinds of candy bars. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey JP could you please consider actioning this request. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 23:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Good Morning. Now that the user that was causing much of the disruption on the Signature Bank article has been banned, would it be possible to get the protection removed so that I can continue editing the page? Welltraveled ( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jpgordon: Other than seeming have both updated the Signature Bank page? None that I'm aware. Welltraveled ( talk) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it was loathsome - my hope is that, now that the adversarial user has been blocked, we can get back to editing in a civil manner, using the talk pages and open discussion to settle disputes, etc. Welltraveled ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
![]()
|
He’s come back, as user:Monkeysoup111. Filed a SPI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaJoe123456 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at the page. -- Calton | Talk 14:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you participated in indefinite blocking of user TIAYN in May 2018, I want to ask you whether it would be appropriate to replace the content of their user page with Template:Blocked user, or leave it as it is at this moment? Cheers! -- Sundostund ( talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
![]()
|
Hello. I saw your question on my talk page! Before my edits, most of information on Hankooktire wikipedia page was incorrect or outdated. (Including crucial information such as the founder and CEO) It's true that I got most of the information from the official Hankooktire website. However, I cited everything, and the contents do not favor certain product or image of the company. They are all FACTS. The purpose of the wikipedia page is to share correct/useful information with other people. You are more than welcome to add new information to the page, or delete incorrect information. But undoing the entire edit does not seem appropriate. If you think some of the contents look like advertisement, please delete those texts only. Goodbye and I hope you have a great day! -- Suhmk1025 ( talk) 07:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Suhmk1025
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Hi JP, nice to meet you. ( France AAA ( talk) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC))
There's a new user named peaksprite, which i believe is a sock of habar awal, his latest sock (datch71s) was blocked a month ago [20], however he seems to have returned starting with editing his favorite article Sheikh Hussein. Ironically the last registered users to edit that article are his three different socks (bayesedam, flockatucka, datch71s). peaksprite removed the very same content another sock (taskubed) had removed on Harar. [21] [22] 41.218.197.85 ( talk) 04:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Suspicious user (France AAA) with few edits just reverted you on Double Bass and left a message on your talk page after I made a post here about socking. Its interesting that one of Habar awals old socks (skyfarax} used the same usertalk introduction "hello world" like France AAA did. [23] [24]. 41.96.13.242 ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Could you please block user:165.225.60.69? They are persistently vandalizing. CLCStudent ( talk) 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
Looks like another sock. Submitted an SPI report. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 12:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
![]()
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
(something I do while too lazy to really edit wikipedia) and plucked your "It should be noted" and added it to my "list of words or phrases that, to me, when I hear them or read them, or say them or write them, typically mean, "in my opinion." Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello JP, you have blocked
User:MorningSunBright however they appear to be back in another form
User talk:StopPrejudiceNow with exactly the same edits on
Dog and
Origin of the domestic dog. Same ISP perhaps?
William Harris
talk
08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I figured as much but I do believe it was stated to use American English. I appreciate the link. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 20:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In the link you provided to me it stated it was British. Hence my response. I've lived in New Mexico and California. I have family in Florida and the northeast who I've visited frequently and I've never heard that term. Also, it was originally antenna and changed by another editor to aerial. So I was changing it back. My point was that I don't think a lot of people would understand what that meant but perhaps it had more to do with my own subjectivity. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 16:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello again. I responded to you on the talk page but I wanted to message you as well. I understand your concerns about the character descriptions. However, a lot of those events are referenced in the film. Also the characters aren't fictionalized but the events are. The rest was to connect dots. I'm wondering if in your opinion some of the descriptions would make more sense if there's a sentence about how it's referenced in the film? I'll also work on tightening it up. Should I add something about how the film has been criticized for not portraying the theory of Helter Skelter and The Manson Family as white supremacists in order to tie that in as well? Would that be better in the historical characters section? Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 16:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 20:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I won't let you down. If I run into any problems, I'll drop you a line and seek some solutions. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon/Archive 8,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let's say I've written a review of a movie. Do I, as an editor here in Wikipedia, get to add that review of the movie to an article about the movie? I feel there is a controlling guideline on this? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 09:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I've reverted and blocked. No big deal, just garden variety spam. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Over at WP:AN, I have moved to ban Zombiedude101z. You confirmed the most recent known sockpuppet, SpeedyGonzales1488. You are welcome but not obligated to participate in the discussion. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
![]()
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
![]()
|
I've finished the forgotten block at User talk:Green Burial Council. Cheers! -- Alexf (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
For reverting promotional edits by 199.58.164.141 ( talk · contribs). Since they're here for one purpose only, and considers any check on their edits to be vandalism, I've asked for a block. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
What does non-RS mean? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 15:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
...in an edit summary is only a tinier bit harder than looking through page history and seeing the prior-but-one editor has been consistently reverted for adding unknown and fanciful slurs to the page without sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you agree with the following statement : "An assumption is not considered a verifiable source." - 100.14.80.135 ( talk) 18:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Damon Runyon's short story
"Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the
hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD| Talk 04:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはJpgordonたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P
03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like we have another COI sock at Luke Brugnara. The new sock is iriv3rrr. Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 03:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy is continuing to assume ownership of the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood article. He's reverting every one of my edits and claiming that there was a previous consensus reached here (which is untrue) regarding plot length. To be clear, my edits are keeping the plot summary well under 700 words. Read this discussion, in which he tells me to "stop trying to add information" and he asserts that all edits must be approved by him ("But it is you who is attempting to make changes. I’m simply attempting to keep it as is"). An admin needs to intervene, this guy still doesn't get it. SolarFlash ( talk) 00:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hope you're well JPG. Just a quickie, but, as I think you're the only CU to have commented on this increasingly bizarre scenario—apologies if I'm wrong on that to whomever else—can I ask whether CU has been run? I'm under the impression atm that the block is based on (pretty obvious!) behavioral/timing issues. It does occur to me, though, that it could be this guy's joe-jobbing fun and games, and a CU might resolve this one way or the other. Happy New Year! —— SN 54129 19:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
![]()
|
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpretedrather than
reasonably construed.
Please block user:Jordan Schumacher ASAP. CLCStudent ( talk) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, please take a look over this IP vandalism [25]. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
![]()
|
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Several articles have been facing removal of sourced material and what not, it's the same modus operandi [27] (see the insulting diff as well) [28] [29] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Duckwater.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 ( talk) 19:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon, I hope you are fine. Could you, as an administrator, please take a look at this discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard? The discussion is about when it is OK to remove sourced material, when there are objecions concerning the reliability of the given sources. Both parties gave their arguments, but we need a wise man to come to a judgement. I already asked User:Jayjg the same question, but since he appears to be on a break since 20 January, I thought it would be a good idea to reach out to you too. Thanks and regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you protect Ivan Gundulić for a while? Is there a way to request permanent protection of the page? It's been vandalised by various IP for some years. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
must notundo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than
should not.
I noticed your snide comment in the edit summary of the Louis Jordan article. If you are suggesting that I am lazy, all you could have done was to look at the article history to know that I am in the middle of working on an article that has had a maintenance template for ELEVEN YEARS. You could have clicked on my name to see how much work I have done for Wikipedia overall. I have done MORE than my share. Not less. You could have stopped to consider that the piece of information you considered vital to include (Jordan's burial place) really isn't anyone's business and far from vital to the article. I will talk to you civilly if you want, on my Talk page or yours, but let's try to do the decent thing by avoiding impulsive sniping in the dark. Administrators ought to know better. Calm down and take time to think. There's no rush. Administrators ought to know how to write a proper citation, which you didn't do on that cemetery sentence. Vmavanti ( talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
How certain are you of your block of this user: User: King_of_Scorpions? He's been nothing but a productive editor from what I've seen of his contributions so far and his interactions with his mentor heavily indicate his sincerity in improving the project. I've also helped him a bit on my talk page. -=Troop=- ( talk) 01:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's happened to the page, but the last edit by Hello1214 [31] seems odd and there's a broken template. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the page notice about the spelling of Feleena. I don't know if it will help, but it can't hurt. This has been a recurring problem.-- Khajidha ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
This edit is not visible on the page. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi JPG you were the last to decline 68.108.23.15's unblock request on September 9 2015. I just noticed today that he was back to editing as soon as September 15th. It's clearly the same user. Both were trying to create vanity articles for Ethan Shulman [1] [2]. The user is clearly disruptive and unrepentant about their disruption. What do you think? Should I indef the named account and extend the IP block for a significant length? Is that reasonable, or too harsh considering the block evasion wasn't spotted until after the block expired? My chief argument for the indef is that the kid is WP:NOTHERE and refuses to listen. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Green Green Wave ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) - You recently blocked this user for abusing multiple accounts. I can't see an SPI or anything for them, so can only guess at any evidence, however User:Jaga Badmash popped up just after the block, and his first edit was to one of Green Green Wave's drafts, and he also seems to be editing in a similar fashion (same article types, adding spam links etc etc. Thought I'd mention it rather than open an SPI atm. - Happysailor (Talk) 16:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi JPG, does GoosheBumpsh need to be templated as a sock? I couldn't find an SPI report, but your unblock decline suggested a CU had been performed. Regards! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello how are you. i'm having a personal attack with the User:Knowledgebattle, a user throwing personal opinion upon the articles, so i undo his edit's. as here and here. Many of other user's undo his edit's as here, since he is pushing the Category:Christianity-related beheadings in different places even it's not related or throwig his presonal opinions upon the articles as here which been also revert and here and here, so i'm not the only one who's undo his edit.
This not the first time that i handel his harrasment as stalking and undo my edit for several times and the user:Volunteer Marek ask him to stop this clear cut evidence of harassment. and when he called uneducated. It's interesting when he called me Christian-propaganda, when his articles been deleted for being full of propaganda and i will not talking also about his inappropriate comment's in different articles or talk pages. Have a nice day. Jobas ( talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yossiea~enwiki ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello Jpg. See WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki. You've extended the original block and it was already marked as an AE block so it appears it will take a consensus to undo it. Do you want to make a proposal at AE on where to go from here? If you think the editor is beyond redemption then perhaps we should leave the indef in place. The guy has 4,600 edits and they are not all in the Middle East so it's possible he could still do useful work with an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA. Nonetheless some of his recent comments are beyond the pale. Perhaps AE could suggest he apply for unblock in three months, subject to a ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Two weeks ago you banned a user from Italy who was making disruptive edits to the Mafia article (he kept adding IPAs to the lede despite a consensus that they weren't necessary). I think he's back under a new name: REDSEEKER. Can you deal with this guy? Kurzon ( talk) 10:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Just after your explicit okay before I modify the sanction. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The end of all this shall be," he went on, looking up at us—"the end of this shall be, that some day he will run amuck amongst his faithful subjects and send 'ad patres' ever so many of them before they make up their minds to the disloyalty of knocking him on the head.
I thought 'amok' as I was taught, and changed it for that reason, recent reading in a period where it was quite respectable usage. And apropos of that wiki article, suffice it to read everything Paul Johnson wrote on the period from the beginnings down to early Christian period with how Norman Cantor approaches the same matters in his The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews, HarperCollins, 1994 and the point I tried to make will be clearer. Still fuck it, it's quite pointless trying to make suggestions, and this is my last word. If editors insist on poor quality, caveat lector. Regards Nishidani ( talk) 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "amuck" vs "amok", yes, it's a misspelling with a long history.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I like your ukulele symbol/ emoji. It's cool. Michael J.S. 06:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnønʘmøṑṨ ( talk • contribs)
![]() |
Jpgordon, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Savvyjack23 (
talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Savvyjack23 ( talk) 07:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The user who posted that comment on my talk page is very new, and may not understand the difference between a block and an AFC decline. I declined the submission of the user's autobiography because it contained too much peacock language, a common problem in autobiographies. I have gone to the Teahouse to ask for additional, friendly but policy-based, advice from other experienced editors to this very new user. I hope that answers your question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you declined the unblock request for Socks 01 ( talk · contribs). I've been aware of this user for a long time as there's an overlap in the articles we edit. While he clearly has a limited understanding of image copyright, he is in other respects a productive editor, and the vandalism spree was very much out of character. I asked another checkuser about the case in IRC and was advised there was no indication of account hijacking, so I conclude that either Socks left his computer logged in and someone else used it, or he was under the influence in some way. The edits were made after 9 pm on a Friday night, local time. I suggest we give him another chance, and I'll happily block him myself if anything like this re-occurs.- gadfium 03:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Please, see this. Chronus ( talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize and thanks for not blocking me. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 11:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
... as they say ;-) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 23:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Is there a link to a sock puppet query regarding Gateofhorn ( talk · contribs)? Given that there were so many user names that popped up out of nowhere on that page and given the regular harassment and insults I've been getting from them, I'd like to know how it went down and if all of those new users were socks or what. Thanks! :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see, User:Chemcreativity was softblocked and asked to drop that account and create another one. They appear to have done that, creating User:Sandin2, but then you blocked that one as a sock. I don't see what they have done wrong here to warrant the second block - have I missed anything? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. You just rejected an unblock request which was "interestingly" not made by the user in question but by another username, for which my comments here are relevant. LjL ( talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a frequent participant in AfD discussions. BoxOfChickens created many AfDs about Casio. I noticed some sockpuppets were voting but I didn't pay even half-attention because they're more common than sunrises at AfD. I had hovered my pointer over one's username and saw that he was blocked and then checked and it was for abusing multiple accounts. BoxOfChickens had reported him apparently. Okay, continuing with the story. I then later on happenstance hovered over BoxOfChicken's username and saw that he was blocked as well. I got curious and checked and saw that it was for abusing multiple accounts. I first thought it must've been a mistake or something. I then checked and read that two admins had verified him to have been using sockpuppets. The named sockpuppet was BowlOfChickens. I then checked this editor's talk page and saw that he was blocked for multiple accounts as well and that his listed sockpuppet was Redminivan. But Redminivan was blocked for personal attacks against the aforementioned BoxOfChickens and was part of the AfD sockpuppet gang. He was attacking himself on a sockpuppet and harassing his own AfDs and then he listed his own sockpuppets in an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malcolm's office/Archive and they were blocked and it was found out he had been using them all from the same IP as his main account? Is this all correct? What in the world, man? -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
You wrote "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts." I did not see a sock investigation. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an unblock request for a block you placed over two and a half years ago, at User talk:HoshiNoKaabii2000. I am inclined to give the editor another chance, but do you wish to make any comment about it? The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you were involved in the blocking of one of the sockpuppets of User:CaptainHog, I am notifying you of yet another SPI regarding the user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
For the BAPS article, I removed a section under BAPS charities because the lead paragraph effectively summarizes the topic and has a linked sub article that explains everything in detail and repeats information from the original post. Would you please take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&type=revision&diff=714834663&oldid=713651508 edit and let me know if I am doing something wrong? I do not want to put a overly detailed tag on the article right now unless it is needed.
Thanks Swamiblue ( talk) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Saw your comment at ANI regarding that /20 block - you mentioned it's too large to checkuser. What's the largest range that can be checkuser'ed? I'd think if it's too large a range to check, it should probably be too large a range to block as well... SQL Query me! 21:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
TheNerdisHere ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Time: May 12, 2016 16:40:38
Message: Please see message on UTRS.
Notes:
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon. In a recent unblock decline, you mentioned a checkuser confirmation: here
Are you able to say anything about the following editor, who has been acting as a close colleague of Théophile on the Human rights in Ukraine article, and has a similarly short tenure: User talk:Usr lI
Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, could you please take a look at the Hamza Tzortzis-article? It is edited by at least three WP:SPA's lately. The last acceptable version with third-party sources can be found here. I would suggest some kind of protection, but that is me. Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Josh. I noticed your appropriate decline of JohnLloydScharf's unblock request. I've seen your wording before, and it reads like a template — it it? A tool? It describes what's wrong with a lot of unblock requests and gives useful advice, so I'd like to be able to use it myself, if there's a convenient way. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
Thank you for RevDeling the nasty edit that 97.76.251.91 ( talk) left on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Would you mind going through their contributions, particularly on August 14 and today, and RevDeling the rest of them? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I extended the duration of their block, since they were making legal threats both at User talk:24.119.20.133 and elsewhere, but restored talk page edit access so that they could withdraw the legal threats. If they don't, of course, then removing such access again is no problem. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jpgordon, I see you raised a NPOV and disregarded few lines in the page on Induction Cooking. Please note that the dropped part reads "Apart from DOE findings, little information exists on (hopefully) reliable unbiased efficiency tests and efficiency comparisons among different cooking technologies. A worldwide survey of information sources available on this matter was conducted and resumed in 2014-2015 Australian reports…"
The first sentence just says that few institutions / researchers / independent bodies have attempted to make a screening on available data on efficiency of cooking technologies and present them in an organic way. The second one suggest an Australian report that seems to met these criteria and summarises the average efficiencies coming out from this survey.
The word "hopefully" stays there to alert the reader about the need, on this matter, to rely only on figures from experts able to identify reliable data and make such a screening.
One of the two versions of the report stays on the site parliament.nsw.gov.au, that is the Parliament of New South Wales Australia. The information given herein on Induction cooking efficiencies - an on other cooking technologies - seems to have been carefully collected and analysed by experts. So I believe that the part you disregarded - despite the "hopefully" word - adds high quality information on the matter.
Please, take the time to check again the dropped part and reinsert it agin, if you agree with my observations.
Regards
Guido from Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.67.216 ( talk) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
What do you make of our two sparkling new arrivals: [3], only three days apart? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
The User:MehrdadFR ( talk) reverted your neutral edition in the article Hijab by country, because he is constantly reverting neutral and third party information and sources about the hijab in Iran, and is almost exclusively using POV (that is pro-government) language about the hijab in Iran (that may contradict academic sources which have no internet links) and is relying on sources based in Iran that naturally favor the Iranian policy on the hijab (and not on all third party and academic sources), as you can see in the Iran section of that article as well as in the Women in Iran article. He uses weasel words (that are commonly used by Iranian government sources) such as "the official reveiling in 1984" in both articles about the mandatory hijab for women. I reverted his reverts and clarified the sentences. Could you check this user and warn him about his use of POV and almost the expropriation of this subject? As I can see from this user's talk page, he also has a history of edit warring with other users in various articles, and has received warnings (including from you [4]).
Thank you.
SednaXV ( talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Urgent.
Hello Jpgordon.
The User:MehrdadFR seems to have a political agenda because he is putting information that is supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran POV, and is deleting other NPOV information and references from academic sources about contemporary (and controversial) subjects about Iran such as the hijab, chador, womens' rights etc. The problem is that this user has hijacked these issues, when the articles, content and references should be NPOV and sober.
Could you do something about this user?
Thank you.
Artoxx ( talk) 15:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You didn't sign. I'm trying to get it to archive but no luck. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
While it was tagged...in not the best way (because it was waiting for clerk action), Isaiasad2's block is definitely a valid block per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charlesvvvv. The first IP that shows up in CU right now connects the editor to Charlesvvvv ( talk · contribs), and the CU log on April 10, 2016 for that IP confirms the connection to Isaiasad. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
for taking care of that "WP:Request for Respect" thingy so quickly. Shearonink ( talk) 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
An edit conflict stopped me, so here it is: "As did others, he wasn't the only one who challenged Clifford. Let us know when Rosa gets a book published by a mainstream, preferably academic publishing house. His publishers so far seem to be mainly Polish minor publishers/printers (such as Outwater, which isn't a real book publisher) and this clearly fringe publisher. My point about Duke is simply that we get a lot of posts from Duke which are either from Rosa or friends probably posting on his behalf." Doug Weller talk 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you delete two IP talk pages User talk:123.136.106.97 and User talk:123.136.106.206? Thank you. 123.136.107.251 ( talk) 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Turns out (AndyTyner is /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndyTyner another sock of Harvey Carter. SW3 5DL ( talk) 04:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly him - would appreciate if you could extend the block and yank TPA. Thanks, GAB gab 05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I would appreciate your input on this ticket on UTRS as you changed the block to indefinite for the user. The user is TopherKRock and they've requested that they be unblocked. I was looking for your opinion on whether or not to give them a second chance. After all it is nearly 3 years since they were blocked.-- 5 albert square ( talk) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see you reverted my addition to the banners, including the old RFD one. The history of such editing is complicated, so I wanted to notify those interested. By the way, {{ talk page of redirect}} may also be needed. George Ho ( talk) 18:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll drop the stick for now. I'll revisit this when this goes out of hand. George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi jpgordon. I am a university student who has been a part of a group getting to know Wikipedia for awhile now. I am interested in pages on Nazi Germany and through that I discovered an editor with an unblock request in which you were involved in, indicating that the editor had another account and was using it as a sockpuppet. I was wondering if you could give me some insight as to how one can tell if an account is a sockpuppet and how you can tell/discover the main account operating that sockpuppet. Thank you for any info you can give me! Taylor6644 ( talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644
Thanks! Taylor6644 ( talk) 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor6644
I forget the name of this LTA, but you recently blocked Escapism lover and DarthPalpatineSidious, and I'm pretty sure Me the blue lover is the same person. Sro23 ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Am I allowed to know who this person is? City Of Silver 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Gmfreeman619, who you blocked as a sockpuppet, is requesting an unblock. Whose sock do you think (s)he is? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool bio!
Bryanumedina (
talk)
20:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, you unblocked this user, whose block log reaches well within the double digits, last December mentioning that it'd be his "last chance". However, this new textbook 3RR violation, [6], amongst others, convinces us that he simply remains WP:NOTHERE. The amount of rope that he has been given over the years is so massive, its pretty much insane. Yet the structural problems unfortunately always remained, and will always remain. I just decided to pick this example as it's the most recent one, though there are many more relevant ones from the recent past. Your thoughts? - LouisAragon ( talk) 12:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
After reading the comments that you and several other members have left on the recent revisions to the Visionaire page, could you please remove the protection? I am planning to make some edits to help the article become more neutral and factual, but want to include more sources and would like to be able to add in new headers, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstenchen ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for catching changes and reverting Trader Joe's. SWP13 ( talk) 14:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thanks for reverting changes by unknown IP user on Trader Joe's article. The refs are deleting again. SWP13 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) |
The Page is target of Vandalism, could you help protect the page i n the German Wiki? The Spanish and English are ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocainaenvenenada ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, the author is working the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocainaenvenenada ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
You had unblocked @ NadirAli: on December 2016 as last chance. He has been blocked for disruptive editing, creating sockpuppets, IP socking, edit warring, bad image uploads, he has been through indefinite block by @ Ohnoitsjamie:. He is blocked again for edit-warring to push original research. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 12:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, well. That's a slightly different unblock request reason. It is clear enough that she was and is acting in good faith; it is just that what she wants to do in good faith is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14, who you indeffed in 2011 for BLP vio as an IP, is requesting unblock through WP:UTRS. I'm handling the ticket, and I've requested a Checkuser to determine if there is any recent repeat of the damaging IP editing. Would you have any issues with me handling the request on my own judgement? Given the age of the block and the routine nature I doubt you would, but as a courtesy I figure you ought to be consulted. Regards, The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearing off my watchlist & removing User talk:Speedydixon1997 (thanks for dealing with that by the way) I noticed that the block notices on his block log from both you & Kudpung all include the same typo "Vandalism as reported ans also ". I guess it's embedded in some admin tool? Cabayi ( talk) 07:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw that you declined a Joeymiskulin's request to be unblocked, and noticed your comments about them "making physical threats against other editors", which is certainly quite nasty behaviour to exhibit in an edit summary. I should point out he hasn't taken his previous two blocks seriously; as soon as they expired, he went back to disruptively editing The Lego Movie that he's been causing problems on.
But here's something interesting - Do you know that reason he gave for his Unblock? The one that goes: "You can't block me while I was trying to block Crboyer because he reverted my HIDDEN TXT that he requested me to go to the talk page!"
Well... First and foremost, that HIDDEN TXT was what I put in; it was in regards to a number of Wikipedians who edited the page, but constantly changed a setup within the article's Infobox from one to another and back again. I had to step in and put a stop to it, by opening up a discussion for users to review the changes and settle on a setupthat they could agree to use (there hasn't been much activity on it since); as far as I know, one setup was to make it out like the article page it links to (another user I know of, and who I pointed out this matter to, regarded the link article as one that had some issues with it. You can find it here, where there are a couple of discussions on its layout and setup on the article's talk page).
Secondly, Crboyer is not requesting anyone to go to the The Lego Movie's talk page; I am, mainly to have Wikipedians see the issue that was being caused by constant changing between two setups, and hoping to nip it in the bud, before they try switching between the two. I know another User agreed with me that that had gotten ridiculous. Anyway... Joeymiskulin reverted the HIDDEN TXT to begin with, along with switching out of the second format, which used the Plainlist Format, to the first format. The first time he did so, his edit summary stated: "GUtt01 told me that no one must revert this again but I'm reverting this unacceptable thing for good and no disastrous train wrecks! I warned him!!!!!" Quite frankly, I didn't tell him about not reverting this (unless he was operating as an IP User), and he never gave me a warning about it all... He did this five times, before focusing on just removing the HIDDEN TXT. When he focused on the HIDDEN TXT, he gave a quite contradictory edit summary saying: "All right, I'm never reverting this again!"
This is something you should know. It seems that apart from making a physical threat to Crboyer, he also acted like he had the permissions that an administrator has. As soon as Crboyer reverted his third edit because of his disruptive behaviour, Joeymiskulin went to his Talk Page, and slapped him with a Block Notice, claiming he was block for 36 hours. Naturally, Crboyer reverted this adddition, as he rightfully stated that Joeymiskulin was not an administrator and had no legal right to attempt to do this to him. You can see exactly what he did here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Crboyer&diff=prev&oldid=794471635
Quite honestly, I'm not sure he's taking in the serious nature of why he has been blocked, and has shown extensive, aggressive behaviour with his editing and the summaries he makes. But that last part shows that he is acting in a behaviour that is unacceptable to Wikipedia.
Considering what I said, what do you think of this? Let me know your thoughts, when you can spare the time, mate. GUtt01 ( talk) 14:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 13:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you've gotten plenty of pings from User talk:Moor for Senate campaign. The user followed through with their promise to create a new account at Supporter of the Campaign ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Did you want to block that as a sock? only ( talk) 20:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This guy you blocked has been evading his block regularly. Please look into it. Thanks.— Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 08:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi! You blocked Yeepoo for abusing multiple accounts. Whose sock are they, or is there an SPI case I can see? I had suspected a sock of Apollo The Logician but there wasn't much to go on. Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon, could you place protection over those 3 pages? A troll is having fun erasing the name of the producer out... Las Acevedo, The Weather Smells Like Oranges & Ezili Dantor 51.15.136.216 ( talk) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For an account that showed up two days ago and has a total of eight contributions? What am I missing? -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Jpgordon - User:NetWitz, whom I blocked (and you reviewed the unblock for) appears to be evading the block with sockpuppets. I noticed User:Prison Break24 making the same type of edits immediately after the block. I've blocked that account, but could you take a look and see if you find anything more? Thanks, Prodego talk 23:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey I could not find anyone who has fair knowledge of editing or blocking here so I decided to ask you. An editor keeps reverting my accurate edits & keeps reporting me for 'vandalism'. My IP address keeps getting blocked because of that & I can't make a new account. He's keeps accusing me of being a 'sockpuppet', but all I want to do is to contribute to the articles that I have knowledge of but he keeps reverting them. What should I do? 150.129.30.222 ( talk) 17:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes that editor also reported me for 'sockpuppetry'. 150.129.29.154 ( talk) 02:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.
You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Jpgordon, see User talk:BU Rob13#The Citadel article for a little more information. Another user and I who have dealt with Bob80q believe they are the same person using two accounts, but the history goes further. I've asked BU Rob13 to check into all users involved [Strgzr1 (Barkballer), Bob80q (Ruffnready)]. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 22:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
One of Special:Contributions/Bob80q's known IP ranges has been used to edit an article Bob80q frequents here. I've dealt with his edits many times on this and other similar articles, as Bob loves to edit the Operators sections of US military aircraft articles with his own unique style. This same IP has also been used to edit The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina article. Do I need to file an SPI? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 20:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies about doing this [7]. I saw that the editor already has an unblock request pending via the UTRS, which is why I removed the one you restored. Trying to help, and I ended up getting in the way. Sorry about any confusion my edits caused. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 03:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
your Woody Guthrie drawings clip, hopefully you did not sell them. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi—can you help me fix errors on an entry? I am unable to use my account to fix errors, specially the Director’s name. I don’t know how to fix it. Thank you. VTSciWriter ( talk) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the block on 96.5.241.150. It's appreciated! KNHaw (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
Your presence is urgently needed at User talk:SA 13 Bro. Looks like the block of said user was due to a stray message from a (definitely block-evading) IP. Favonian ( talk) 19:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
At 16:34 7 January, it appears that you banned a sock, Yrstruly. Is there any way I can look up who the sockmaster is? I have a suspicion (currently on extremely thin evidence) that another low-edit account may be related, but in the interests of decency I don't want to make an accusation. If I can find the sock-master, comparing edit histories may help me have a better idea what's going on. Alephb ( talk) 01:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please go to the talk page before making a revision.
In paragraph 2 someone has written, “Franco personally requested of the Germans and Italians the aerial bombing of Guernica in 1937, which opened the way to the capture of Bilbao and his victory in northern Spain.” There is no cited authority for this sentence and it should be deleted.
Hugh Thomas absolved the Spaniards of responsibility for Guernica [1] and Stanley Payne in his 2014 book Franco: A Personal and Political Biography at p. 182 writes, “ Franco had no prior knowledge of the attack , since daily operational details of the northern campaign did not necessarily come to him, though Mola’s headquarters would have known about it.” 199.227.97.254 ( talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
References
you deleted my reference to JL on wait wait dont tell me. whether the story is true or not, the point of the in popular culture section is that this person is well known enough to be mentioned in a main-stream way and be recognized by the public. yes, it’s ‘trivia’, but that’s the point.... Anarchistemma ( talk) 02:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Another user seems to match the same profile as a previously blocked account (Strgzr1, in this case). Would you take a look at Realsnappy18? There have been several IPs as well, but NeilN has protected the page so that issue should be resolved for a little while. Billcasey905 ( talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello @
BU Rob13 and
Jpgordon: this is another account for (user:Jamesbebo). He made
2,288 vandal edit on ar.wiki, and he
said that he'll make more and more
--
Alaa
:)..!
07:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_3klx9i2N1WRNbxP&Q_CHL=gl
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs ( talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Miledisco was recently blocked but he has returned as Bayesedam on the Tog Wajaale article. He creates accounts everytime he is blocked and targets a wide range of articles, what should be done? 62.198.72.248 ( talk) 16:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Bayesedam is back as Worryscot on Somalis 2.104.247.147 ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 18:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you give me the rundown on Machinegunmike321? They popped back up at Darkunicorn321. Is there a prolific master or is this just a young newbie who might be reasoned with? Swarm ♠ 08:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I feel the use of 'writer and composer' for popular music on Wikipedia entries is misleading. A composer is someone who write music, a [[lyricist] is someone who writes song lyrics, and a songwriter is someone who generally both composes songs and writes their lyrics but generally does not write unaccompanied music. I am sure Joan Baez would consider herself a songwriter. I would defend using (song)writer when a single individual or group has written words and music and lyricist and composer when the words and music are by different people. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 14:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for redacting this IP's edit summaries. Could you possibly do the same for this one too? They are probably the same user, too. Lordtobi ( ✉) 21:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there a case for this? A CU on User:Giantclit turns up more Chrissymad impersonators eg Crissymad. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edits on the article
List of indoor arenas by capacity. You reverted the one with the capacity of the biggest arena,
Philippine Arena, fair enough, I guess my source wasn't reliable enough, but what's up with "flagu"? It's supposed to be "flag", right? I noticed on
Template:flagu that flagu is correct, but it doesn't add a link to the country if you write "flagu". But if you write "flag", it will do so. So, how is "flagu" better than "flag"?
Thanks.
Biscuit-in-Chief (
talk)
16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's why. I see. And about the "new messages go on the bottom of talk pages), okay, I'll remember that to the next time I post something! - Biscuit-in-Chief ( talk) 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Bayesedam is back editing as ip: 84.81.77.172 on Ajuran (clan) 41.210.1.1 ( talk) 09:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
[11] [12] A user noticed this and reverted [13] 41.242.136.16 ( talk) 00:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi JPG. I've found an IP sock of User:Bob80q editing at Special:Contributions/2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3, and reverted per DENY. Do I need to file an SPI? I can't find the SPI page at the moment. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/50.59.106.156 is another long-time BobQ IP that has edited recently, in a common range used by him. - BilCat ( talk) 19:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be safe to assume good faith and unblock these two:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I told Clockback that I will transfer the points made on his talkpage to the WP:AN board. He can't reply to the points raised on WP:AN directly. This is completely standard practice -- I have done it many times before. And you go and remove his talkpage access. What the hell? Makes me despair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not think your comments at User_talk:120.17.85.26#Block_appeal give you any credit. —DIV ( 120.17.228.20 ( talk) 03:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC))
This is a treat J. I like the phrase "pull the other one it's got bells on" as well. As a Yank I must have gotten that one from watching EastEnders back in the 80s and 90s. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD| Talk 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Worryscott has returned as Flockatucka. Removing same material [14] [15] & [16] [17]. Using the same edit summary "fixed" [18] [19] 41.218.207.124 ( talk) 15:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, the Special:BlockList tool like what you have cited here is unreliable when two or more blocks have been entered in the block log for the same user, IP address or range. It took me a moment to realize that it is presenting info from both of my blocks in the log (from this to this, it is using pieces from both blocks to present a bad entry). @ JamesBWatson, Drmies, and Yamla: should be made aware.
See
my response in a circumstance where it is two or more different admins. It will be clearer to see using that example and shows where this has been acknowledged as a bug and being tracked at the phabricator. Here
it is.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jpgordon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
Hi Jpgordon,
I am trying to make revisions to the British Exploring Society page and you have cited "rv conversion from well-sourced article to something else)"
My changes are well sourced, please can you explain why you reverted the page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afj22 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Civility calls for telling other editors why you reverted them . 23 editor ( talk) 19:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello Jpgordon, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
I think we should let Wikipedia readers decide what is relevant about Kamala's dating a marrie dman, and hid the truth. How about you? 08:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! We have no way to monitor all of our users - but hopefully that one bad apple user went away over the last year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.60 ( talk) 19:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Alas, the bad-apple user of the Enoch-Pratt Free Library System is back at it with the unsourced exact dates for, e.g., the introduction of different kinds of candy bars. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey JP could you please consider actioning this request. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 23:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Good Morning. Now that the user that was causing much of the disruption on the Signature Bank article has been banned, would it be possible to get the protection removed so that I can continue editing the page? Welltraveled ( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Jpgordon: Other than seeming have both updated the Signature Bank page? None that I'm aware. Welltraveled ( talk) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it was loathsome - my hope is that, now that the adversarial user has been blocked, we can get back to editing in a civil manner, using the talk pages and open discussion to settle disputes, etc. Welltraveled ( talk) 17:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
![]()
|
He’s come back, as user:Monkeysoup111. Filed a SPI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbaJoe123456 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at the page. -- Calton | Talk 14:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you participated in indefinite blocking of user TIAYN in May 2018, I want to ask you whether it would be appropriate to replace the content of their user page with Template:Blocked user, or leave it as it is at this moment? Cheers! -- Sundostund ( talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
![]()
|
Hello. I saw your question on my talk page! Before my edits, most of information on Hankooktire wikipedia page was incorrect or outdated. (Including crucial information such as the founder and CEO) It's true that I got most of the information from the official Hankooktire website. However, I cited everything, and the contents do not favor certain product or image of the company. They are all FACTS. The purpose of the wikipedia page is to share correct/useful information with other people. You are more than welcome to add new information to the page, or delete incorrect information. But undoing the entire edit does not seem appropriate. If you think some of the contents look like advertisement, please delete those texts only. Goodbye and I hope you have a great day! -- Suhmk1025 ( talk) 07:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Suhmk1025
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Hi JP, nice to meet you. ( France AAA ( talk) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC))
There's a new user named peaksprite, which i believe is a sock of habar awal, his latest sock (datch71s) was blocked a month ago [20], however he seems to have returned starting with editing his favorite article Sheikh Hussein. Ironically the last registered users to edit that article are his three different socks (bayesedam, flockatucka, datch71s). peaksprite removed the very same content another sock (taskubed) had removed on Harar. [21] [22] 41.218.197.85 ( talk) 04:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Suspicious user (France AAA) with few edits just reverted you on Double Bass and left a message on your talk page after I made a post here about socking. Its interesting that one of Habar awals old socks (skyfarax} used the same usertalk introduction "hello world" like France AAA did. [23] [24]. 41.96.13.242 ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Could you please block user:165.225.60.69? They are persistently vandalizing. CLCStudent ( talk) 13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
Looks like another sock. Submitted an SPI report. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 12:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
![]()
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
(something I do while too lazy to really edit wikipedia) and plucked your "It should be noted" and added it to my "list of words or phrases that, to me, when I hear them or read them, or say them or write them, typically mean, "in my opinion." Thanks. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello JP, you have blocked
User:MorningSunBright however they appear to be back in another form
User talk:StopPrejudiceNow with exactly the same edits on
Dog and
Origin of the domestic dog. Same ISP perhaps?
William Harris
talk
08:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I figured as much but I do believe it was stated to use American English. I appreciate the link. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 20:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In the link you provided to me it stated it was British. Hence my response. I've lived in New Mexico and California. I have family in Florida and the northeast who I've visited frequently and I've never heard that term. Also, it was originally antenna and changed by another editor to aerial. So I was changing it back. My point was that I don't think a lot of people would understand what that meant but perhaps it had more to do with my own subjectivity. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 16:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello again. I responded to you on the talk page but I wanted to message you as well. I understand your concerns about the character descriptions. However, a lot of those events are referenced in the film. Also the characters aren't fictionalized but the events are. The rest was to connect dots. I'm wondering if in your opinion some of the descriptions would make more sense if there's a sentence about how it's referenced in the film? I'll also work on tightening it up. Should I add something about how the film has been criticized for not portraying the theory of Helter Skelter and The Manson Family as white supremacists in order to tie that in as well? Would that be better in the historical characters section? Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 16:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 20:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I won't let you down. If I run into any problems, I'll drop you a line and seek some solutions. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon/Archive 8,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let's say I've written a review of a movie. Do I, as an editor here in Wikipedia, get to add that review of the movie to an article about the movie? I feel there is a controlling guideline on this? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 09:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I've reverted and blocked. No big deal, just garden variety spam. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Over at WP:AN, I have moved to ban Zombiedude101z. You confirmed the most recent known sockpuppet, SpeedyGonzales1488. You are welcome but not obligated to participate in the discussion. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
![]()
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
![]()
|
I've finished the forgotten block at User talk:Green Burial Council. Cheers! -- Alexf (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
For reverting promotional edits by 199.58.164.141 ( talk · contribs). Since they're here for one purpose only, and considers any check on their edits to be vandalism, I've asked for a block. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
What does non-RS mean? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy ( talk) 15:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
...in an edit summary is only a tinier bit harder than looking through page history and seeing the prior-but-one editor has been consistently reverted for adding unknown and fanciful slurs to the page without sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you agree with the following statement : "An assumption is not considered a verifiable source." - 100.14.80.135 ( talk) 18:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Damon Runyon's short story
"Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the
hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD| Talk 04:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはJpgordonたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P
03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like we have another COI sock at Luke Brugnara. The new sock is iriv3rrr. Thanks! BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 03:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. User:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy is continuing to assume ownership of the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood article. He's reverting every one of my edits and claiming that there was a previous consensus reached here (which is untrue) regarding plot length. To be clear, my edits are keeping the plot summary well under 700 words. Read this discussion, in which he tells me to "stop trying to add information" and he asserts that all edits must be approved by him ("But it is you who is attempting to make changes. I’m simply attempting to keep it as is"). An admin needs to intervene, this guy still doesn't get it. SolarFlash ( talk) 00:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hope you're well JPG. Just a quickie, but, as I think you're the only CU to have commented on this increasingly bizarre scenario—apologies if I'm wrong on that to whomever else—can I ask whether CU has been run? I'm under the impression atm that the block is based on (pretty obvious!) behavioral/timing issues. It does occur to me, though, that it could be this guy's joe-jobbing fun and games, and a CU might resolve this one way or the other. Happy New Year! —— SN 54129 19:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
![]()
|
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpretedrather than
reasonably construed.
Please block user:Jordan Schumacher ASAP. CLCStudent ( talk) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, please take a look over this IP vandalism [25]. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
![]()
|
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Several articles have been facing removal of sourced material and what not, it's the same modus operandi [27] (see the insulting diff as well) [28] [29] ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Duckwater.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 ( talk) 19:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jpgordon, I hope you are fine. Could you, as an administrator, please take a look at this discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard? The discussion is about when it is OK to remove sourced material, when there are objecions concerning the reliability of the given sources. Both parties gave their arguments, but we need a wise man to come to a judgement. I already asked User:Jayjg the same question, but since he appears to be on a break since 20 January, I thought it would be a good idea to reach out to you too. Thanks and regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you protect Ivan Gundulić for a while? Is there a way to request permanent protection of the page? It's been vandalised by various IP for some years. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
must notundo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than
should not.
I noticed your snide comment in the edit summary of the Louis Jordan article. If you are suggesting that I am lazy, all you could have done was to look at the article history to know that I am in the middle of working on an article that has had a maintenance template for ELEVEN YEARS. You could have clicked on my name to see how much work I have done for Wikipedia overall. I have done MORE than my share. Not less. You could have stopped to consider that the piece of information you considered vital to include (Jordan's burial place) really isn't anyone's business and far from vital to the article. I will talk to you civilly if you want, on my Talk page or yours, but let's try to do the decent thing by avoiding impulsive sniping in the dark. Administrators ought to know better. Calm down and take time to think. There's no rush. Administrators ought to know how to write a proper citation, which you didn't do on that cemetery sentence. Vmavanti ( talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
How certain are you of your block of this user: User: King_of_Scorpions? He's been nothing but a productive editor from what I've seen of his contributions so far and his interactions with his mentor heavily indicate his sincerity in improving the project. I've also helped him a bit on my talk page. -=Troop=- ( talk) 01:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's happened to the page, but the last edit by Hello1214 [31] seems odd and there's a broken template. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the page notice about the spelling of Feleena. I don't know if it will help, but it can't hurt. This has been a recurring problem.-- Khajidha ( talk) 18:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)