User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 3

Tecmobowl RFCU
On the RFCU talk page, you determined that El redactor was a likely sockpuppet of Tecmobowl. Recently, another suspected Tecmobowl sock (Mrdrip; already blocked) popped up, but Tecmobowl and Jmfangio were stale, so nothing could be done to confirm the relationship. After Morven said he had no notes on his original Jmfangio-Tecmobowl CU, Wknight94 asked if someone had contacted you about the data from the CU you ran for Tecmobowl-El redactor. Do you have these notes? If you do, could you leave a comment on the RFCU page? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't have any notes on it. I deliberately don't keep any notes; it's the best way to ensure that privacy isn't compromised, though it has the cost of making detection harder. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Infinite patience
I've been noticing your herculean efforts at Kwanzaa. I don't know how you can stand it, but you really deserve this. deeceevoice (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I think it is for all most of us. That doesn't necessarily make dealing with certain ... determined elements any less trying. deeceevoice (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's probably easier for me because it's not personal, it's just principle. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Naughty!
[With dignity ] Zilla not naughty. Try help little user. Little jpgordon say "risk sysopping", hopefully mean to say "risk desysopping". Zilla try to point out. Little user smack Zilla (brave man!), still say "risk sysopping". Naughty. No appreciation of helpfulness. Go sit in corner!   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     18:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Careful, Zilla. If you say rude things, you might get sysopped (or some other coined word).  Geogre (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC case
Please double-check that I understood you correctly here. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Haw! I missed completely what Bishzilla was cackling about! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it was a Freudian slip. Careful: mess up badly enough and we'll force you onto ArbCom! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

re: John Buscema
Just a heads up, one of the principles in the ArbCom, Skyelarke, just tried a hamfissted archive of the talk page, including the breaking of discussion threads. - J Greb (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Acuhill
Just wondering what this user did. I saw that you indef blocked him yesterday for being a sock puppet nearly as soon as he started editing, but no link to an explanation in the block log, or notice on his talk page. I checked WP:RCU, WP:AN/I, and WP:SUSPSOCK but couldn't find any mention of it, and I couldn't work out who he was supposed to be a sock puppet of. How did you come to that conclusion?? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His name showed up along with and a dozen or so accounts created at the same time on the same IP. I don't bother flagging these -- WP:DENY. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, clever catch! Or not, because it never happened, and I know nothing about it. ;) • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image
Is really you? Hyano czespony (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Huns article
Hi,

I'm writing to you because, as an uninterested party and admin, perhaps you could be objective here. The Huns article is in need of some sort of moderation. There is a single sentence that keeps being disputed. The majority of revisions have been between User:Orkh and User:Wikinist. I attempted to resolve the matter by providing slightly different wording, but now the dispute has gotten worse with User:Orkh going as far as making deletions on the Talk:Huns page. Normally I'd let things run their course, but this reversion war has been going on since Dec. 27th and no other admin has stepped in like has been done in the past. The core of the problem is that the sentence is in general reference to any "confederations of steppe warriors" and not specifically the Huns while User:Orkh continues to make arguments that it is specifically about the Huns. Relevant attempts to discuss the issue on the talk page are here: Talk:Huns, Talk:Huns, and Talk:Huns. Thanks! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add, I'm not familiar with the source cited on the original sentence. I'm all for composing it in a way that will be less disputed. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

well done Sbordosy, guess which article i delete in Talk:Huns page. i create a section about iranic problem but Wikinist fulled the article about my previous edits in other pages. i edit those words because they have no connection with Huns.--Orkh (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont know who is Wikinist but he has some personal problems with me, he want to use admins. i didnt attack his/her page.--Orkh (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback RFAR
Please review: this and reconsider. This situation is hopeless, if some ultra minority of admins is going to drive an edit war to even take away the community's voice to decide such things like this, and kill an in-process vote that Jimbo called for. Lawrence Cohen 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hippie
I don't think, that you really wanted to tell us, that there exists an ISBN isbn =hippy's like bunts. So please take care, or someone could think you, to be a vandal yourself, when you are only trying to protect the project. Happy editing.--Thw1309 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please forget about it. Today's simply not my day.--Thw1309 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Happens. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FON
I searched acronym dictionary and Fon (disambiguation) but none seem to fit with your edit summary. What's your meaning? Alatari (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume that it's quite crude and directed specifically toward those who would align with (in this case) Aryan Nations. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, oic FONazi. hee hee.  I got sent to one of those forums while doing sources research and geez the vitriolic exchanges were burning my eyes.  Alatari (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Can you preform a checkuser so it can be established that several of the accounts aren't mine. Thanks --67.86.43.59 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Checkuser can not establish innocence; it can only indicate guilt. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You recently did the checkuser on Kingofmann. Does the check pull up the various IP addresses used? The reason I ask is that the it is now being claimed that the user Kingofmann was not David Howe as he purported to be in numerous posts/edits. If the IP addresses were from the Frederick, MD, area how can one square that particular circle? I understand that they may be confidentiality issues but there is also the important issue of misleading Wikipedia and abusing the Good Faith aspect of the community. --Heraldic (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, no connection to Frederick MD at all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama
Is it common to cite within the InfoBox? The citations are all over the discussion pages...from the LA Times to his own biography. If the citation is added within the Info Box, would it stick? There wasn't a citation used for anything else in the InfoBox.Jtextor (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you have removed my discussion points from your talk page? I would think an Autodesk veteran would have more respect for a Digital Domain Chairman. :) Jtextor (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use the article talk page to discuss issues regarding changes to articles. As far as removing the message -- you figured it out quickly when you put the new one on the bottom of the page! (Actually, I was going to paste it to the right place, and got distracted and just reverted it. Sorry about that.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries...I didn't mean to put it at the top. Best,Jtextor (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou - the proof of him sock-puppeting
I have now agreed to provide the proof, subject only that it not be deleted. We've had dedicated, abusive sock-puppetry from partisans on this topic before, they weren't forced to confess and the evidence was deleted. Today I discover even the sock-masters account in that case has been deleted (very prematurely, since it was active not long ago). The evidence in this case mustn't be treated the same way. PRtalk 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the evidence is not provided either on-wiki or privately to ArbCom by the end of today, all the allegations of sockpuppetry on the evidence page will be blanked. The evidence page is for evidence, not argument or allegation. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should remove the allegations. This is your project and you must do as you see fit. But I put the proof up here anyway. Please don't delete the accounts User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans, because people will still want to check the evidence for themselves. PRtalk 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't get to make conditions such as "subject only that it not be deleted". I'll look at the evidence when it's where it should be -- either on the evidence page, or emailed to ArbCom. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:71.99.139.118
What is up here?!?

I make a post on the New England Patriots Strategy page documenting the well known and admited practice of cheating, and Pats1 reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a post on the New England Patriots Season page, referencing the cheating, and Pats1 again reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a post on the New England Patriots Discussion page, stating that I felt it irresponsible not to mention the cheating, and once again Pats1 reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a post on Pats1's Discussion page, asking why he refuses to address the known and admited cheating, and Pats1 reverts the post and claims that I am vandalizing the page.

I make a followup post suggesting that Pats1 read the definition of vandalism instead of misusing the term. At this point I am upset and call him an asshole, because that is how he is acting. He responds by claiming harassment, when it is Pats1 that is harassing my by claiming that anything I do is vandalism.

I ask for a review of the block, which is rejected (apparently without even checking the post history) because I didn't provide any information. I revert the rejection to supply some additional information, and later I see that the identical rejection notice is back. I revert to attempt to provide more information and again the original rejection notice is back. After a couple of times trying to supply some additional information I get blocked for abusing the revert feature. WTF?!? How can I provide the requested informatioN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.139.118 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, I screwed up and protected the page for too long. Sorry about that; I've fixed it now and you can use your talk page. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Help With Sockpuppetry Case
I have been accused of being France A / SaxonUnit but I'm not. Will you please read over my requests at Suspected sock puppets/Dr who1975 and then request a checkuser for me against the IDs listed. This is the only way to prove my innocence.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

{ { fact } } tags
In Antisemitism you removed the word "curiously"; thank you -- I didn't catch that mistake before saving and it may have been against WP policy. You also added fact tags but the part about the PETA and animal cruelty grounds and the part about assumptions of xenophobic intentions behind the bans both come from the two citations already in the subsection Antisemitism & Antisemitism. I'm not sure how to make second links to the original citations. The part about the Hallaf is found in Shechitah and I linked it to Hallaf but there's probably a better way to cite it. I'd appreciate some help but if it's inconvenient, please give me a few weeks to figure it out on my own. This is heavy content, so please stop to consider something worth smiling about before continuing your day. :) --Thecurran (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I won't remove anything. But the sources do need to be properly cited; I'm sure you'll be able to figure that out. Thanks! (Adverbs are one of my bugaboos.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you heaps and that's a good bugaboo to have 'cos it enriches the WP. I know I've got my own as well. :) --Thecurran (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Brinstar
Hi. Just to let you know that I declined this unblock request. As you can see, I told the user that I would raise it to you. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Take a look at his contributions and come to your own conclusion. IP analysis is very conclusive that he's a likely sockpuppet,and the Dr. Who editing is exactly what the other sockpuppets were doing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Brinstar sock?
What do you think about this edit? I think it's probably another sock, but you could probably check?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does having someone claim to be a big brother disprove sockpuppetry, one wonders? Pure irrelevancy and quite ignorable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Worth blocking the "brother" (reminds me of the case of Secisaive!) as a single-purpose account?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

sake links
I do agree with you that some links are not relative when it would be just another article. Personally I think you can remove the cherry blossom link as well. The problem with only English links in this article is that regarding this subject English, not Dutch, not French is the Wikipedia page people anywhere in the world visit looking for sake. Then it’s nice when there is not only the interwiki, which we know, but also a clear link to a site in their own language. I myself am to busy with promoting sake in Europe. Therefore not really active on the Wikipedia anymore, but if you leave a message here I will find it. Otherwise you can answer it here where I will look it up in a day or so. Best regards, Simon-sake (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The same is true for absolutely every other subject. Why make an exception for sake? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38  02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not a chance Ionas will be unblocked by me, and very little chance he'll be unblocked by ArbCom. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured, I was simply fulfilling the helpme request. -- omtay 38  05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing blocks - "Full facts" vs "available facts"
Hi there. I noticed your suggestion at the Hoffman arbitration case, and left a comment on the talk page. See here. Does that seem reasonable? Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does make sense. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Roki / Schonken sockpuppets
Rokus01 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No consequences for the user:Schonken attack account?
 * 2) No way to initiate investigation against this practices?
 * 3) Untouchable status for those who use sockpuppets and attack accounts because of privacy issues?
 * I've blocked Schonken for a month. If he's abusive when he comes back it will be longer. And yes, privacy issues trump your suspicions. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One last question: What privacy issues you met regarding Paul Barlow that you didn't met with Schonken? Or with the Roki's, for that sake. Rokus01 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The evidence you provided showed a strong likelihood that Schonken was playing with sockpuppets; it did not show evidence that Barlow was, and given Barlow's longevity here, and total absence of indications of bad behavior other than arguing forcefully, I saw no need to go any further. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pho Saigon 8
Nope was not there. Sorry. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea who it was. My mid 20s were about 40 years ago! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Five blocks
"I imagine anyone drawing five blocks would likely be community banned anyway" - really? There are many editors with more than five blocks who haven't been community banned. I tried to propose something where ten blocks was an automatic summons to ArbCom so that they could review the blocks and either say "the blocks were not justified" or "bad user - banned for a year". Well, that's an oversimplification, but I think you get the idea. Didn't catch on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean anyone in general -- I meant anyone drawing five blocks under this particular ArbCom action. But, yeah, I get your point. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

greetings from a reporter
Hello. My name is Mary and I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia--and I'd really like to interview you. Could you send me an email (mary.spicuzza@sfweekly.com) to let me know whether you're available to speak with me? Thanks for your time, MaryMarynega (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User Schonken
Hi. You have blocked the user Schonken for one month for sockpuppetry. I haven't investigated this, so I presume it is correct, but is he a sockpuppet of User:Francis Schonken or an impersonator? I wouldn't want to treat Francis Schonken as a sockpuppeteer if he isn't one, and I would suggest an indef block for User:Schonken as an impersonator if that's the case. Fram (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any particular relationship -- has there been any interaction between Francis Schonken and Schonken? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but seeing that User:Schonken was blocked as a sockpuppet, and without any indication of who he was a sockpuppet of, I couldn't help but think of User:Francis Schonken, due to the obvious similarity of the name. I have never seen anything that indicated that he (Francis) would resort to sockpuppeteering, so I wondered what was going on. I have now ound the checkuser case, and see that there is no relationship, and niether is there in the edits, so it is probably just a coincidence, and not a case of impersonation. I was just wondering, but it seems to be based om my imagination :-) Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. User:Schonken wasn't blocked for being a sockpuppet, but for running a sockpuppet -- several, actually, to harass one user. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Attack site"
Why did you call Wikipedia Review (WR) an "attack site" here. Calling it an "attack site" might appear to be an attempt to label the sole purpose of the site as a place to "attack" people or an organization for no redeeming reason. On the contrary, from what I've seen, WR exists to critique, not attack, Wikipedia and the way in which it is operated. Much of the criticism there of Wikipedia is extremely insightful and perceptive. Wikipedia Review helps keep us open, honest, and transparent, all laudable goals. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin actions and discussions
I noted your comments over at ANI in the Viridae thread. "Reversing admin actions without discussion is not acceptable behavior." I agree entirely. But what do you do when the admin is unresponsive or flat out refuses to budge? Disagreement among admins in borderline cases is rather common, and the question of what to do when discussion doesn't help needs to be addressed. Deadlocked ANI discussions tend to result in nothing being undone, which is not always good.

Most of the earlier discussion had been about the three accounts that were not SPAs (or borderline SPAs) - I seriously worry when Guy says things like "we need single purpose accounts like we need holes in our collective heads" - it is plain to me that his definition of a single-purpose account is very different from my definition and the definitions at WP:SPA. He labelled Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm and Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens as SPAs, when it was obvious after 5 seconds of looking at their contributions that they were not. The borderline SPA was Special:Contributions/Drstones - he started off OK, but then created and focused on the ORT article. After talking to him, I hope he will move his focus away from that article. Guy has since apologised for blocking the first two editors, but, as evidenced by his starting the Viridae thread, was unhappy about the non-sock SPAs being unblocked. I thought that would be his response, which is why I didn't push the issue at the time, but it seems that Viridae, Ned, B, and several others, thought that unblocking would be best, and I now agree with them. Consensus is not needed to unblock indefinitely blocked accounts that are good-faith editors (any admin can be prepared to unblock) - what is needed is consensus to keep such an account indefinitely blocked. There clearly was no such consensus in this case. And your responses at the ANI thread look slightly strange now, in light of later comments by others. Would you consider clarifying what you mean over there?

More generally, there have been several cases where I thought an account that was indefinitely blocked for a first offence should have been unblocked or had the block length reduced, even when the blocking admin and several others disagreed (I don't want to get into those discussions about how third, fourth, fifth, nth chancers are aided by 'enablers' - this is purely about second chances). What should I do then? I don't want to wheel war. Discussion has got nowhere, and further discussion will likely cause drama. I still think an injustice has been done by not allowing a second chance, and a ban has been enforced by default. What then? The current climate seems to favour "coming back in a few months time when things have cooled down" - but that sounds like an indefinite version of a cooling down block, but where it is the blocking admin that needs to cool down before they will consider agreeing to an unblock.

There is also the point that the blocking admin can get 'upset' with the questioning of the actions, and this discourages future interaction between these admins - which is not good. This would be avoided if admins that carried out blocks tried not to be too sensitive about questionings of their blocks.

More generally, the "discuss with the blocking admin" bits veer close to saying that an admin can control and have first right of refusal on their actions, purely because they were the first one to take action. I think that where there is good faith disagreement among admins, the best course of action is to err towards undoing the initial action and finding another way to deal with the situation. Arguments over enforcing the initial action in the face of opposition just lead to escalation.

I guess I should take this to a policy talk page, but I've finished writing it here now (in response to your comments at ANI), so I'll save it here for now. Apologies for writing at such length. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras
A year ago you worked a checkuser at Requests for checkuser/Case/SunStar Net with an unrelated result which you noted might have something to do with stale data on older accounts. My suspicions of sockpuppetry have remained and I have now compiled a bunch of recent evidence at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a peek there. Thanks, Metros (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's resolved itself correctly without my help. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EHC IP Sockpuppetry on Judge Judy redux
Heyo. has become bored again and is IP sockpuppeteering on, much to the dismay of the regular editors over there. A previously uninvolved administrator has wandered over and fully protected the page, and is not interested in investigating the sockpuppet allegations. Would you please semi-protect the page for a month or three? A cursory review of the contributions of, , , , , and will show that these IPs sure the same article interests and mannerisms as EHC. Prehaps a rangeblock is in order, although semiprotection of the affected page should suffice. Thanks for your help, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me
Now there's profound and well-reasoned jugdgement!

Adon Emett (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC).

Recusal in regards to Free Republic, and Waterboarding
Hi Josh, I'm just curious (totally understandable if you don't want to explain why) for the reason why you recused on both the waterboarding RFAR, and the Free Republic question thats currently up on RFAR? I don't think I've seen you ever involved on either of those. Lawrence §  t / e  14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal loathing for, and long experience with, Freepers. I'm disinclined to believe any Freeper can act in good faith about anything. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured it was something like that, thanks. If you ever chat with the other Arbs casually, tell them I said Thank You with big capital letters for the double probation on there and Waterboarding. I can finally get both the damn articles off my watchlist, finally, and do other things. Cheers, Lawrence  §  t / e  15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An old checkuser question
Hi JPG, I had a question about the checkuser here which was declined by yourself as "stale" in April. However, a month later was conducted (in part at least) by Fred Bauder on several accounts (which came back positive). Is the "stale" determination flexibly determined by whoever accepts the case?

Also, was any type of checkuser tool run on the Piperdown account? And 1) if checkuser tools were used to assess the PD account, why was there no result indicated? 2) If CU tools were not used, why not? Since, the case was not determined to be "stale"? It doesn't make sense to me at this point, so any light is appreciated. I would like to discuss this on wiki, but if there is anything that can't be, I guess email is ok. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (add) Fred Bauder has been requested to comment here as well.  R. Baley (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the details, but if you notice in my list of socks PiperDown is not mentioned. I would take that to mean there was no match. When there is no match we don't release information about the account. Fred Talk 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Fred, thanks for the reply. If there wasn't a match, shouldn't there have been an indicator given such as "unrelated" (or 'inconclusive' depending on the situation)?  It's done all the time and doesn't release info on the account.  A determination of 'stale' kind of leaves things open to future interpretation without as much information.  R. Baley (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm confused. The checkuser request that I handled there was in April 2007. The other requests on that page were from the end of July, 2006. What was "conducted" a month later? At any rate, a response of "stale" is in no way subjective; if the necessary information has fallen out of the database, then the username mentioned is "stale". There's nothing interpretable. I probably did run a checkuser on PD, since he was listed first in the request, but I don't keep old checkuser results around except in special cases, and a request where two of the three names are stale is not such a case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap, I didn't catch the year (damn, that makes twice that I've done that), and it does make sense to me now. I saw the "MeatyUrologist" account at the top, and thought that the status of that account hadn't been determined (not that it was added for additional checking).  Thanks for the reply.  Anyway, I guess it's good to know that these things aren't subjective, either the info is there or it isn't.  Thanks, again,  R. Baley (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Among the Best
Oh, why thank you. :) - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 

- Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Personal attack
. Please refactor. —Random832 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"The people who have previously been acting as this banned user's amanuensis are certainly capable of continuing to do so." — I find this highly inappropriate coming from an arbitrator. And elegantly avoiding the term meatpuppet doesn't change the meaning of it in the least. User:Dorftrottel 06:52, February 20, 2008

Per your unblock
I figured that the unblocking admin should be made aware that there was a breaching of his own good faith assumption. See here:.

With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not surprising. If someone reblocks, I'll not weep. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering.
Isn't watching someone do harm, and not doing anything about it, like doing harm? Sometimes preventing harm also takes wikilawyering.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to anything in particular? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a misplaced bias mascarading as accusations of POV.--mrg3105
 * PS. out of curiosity, what do the &#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710 stand for?(comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what you're talking about, but perhaps you might be less cryptic? The stuff after my signature is just decoration, and kind of a test -- I was wondering if anyone would ask what it meant, and oddly enough, you're only the second person in three and a half years to inquire. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was also recently the first person to fix an intentional spelling mistake on someone's user page in two years.
 * Another of my achievements is to offer the first rational reason for not having non-English spelling in article titles since 2003 as far as I can tell. At least so far no-one has been able to counter this reason in a rational way. I found this surprising because one would expect an English encyclopaedia to have English language entries. However, live and learn. Of course different people have offered arguments, one of which was that removal of accents was "barbarous" and "removes one way of dealing with ambiguity".
 * In any case, since you may oppose having English titles for articles in Wikipedia, and you may find my contribution Wikilawyering, I will say no more on your talk page.
 * However, I appreciate that its possible to decorate one's signature with graphical characters (didn't occur to me before) and I might experiment with this. So I thank you for teaching me something new today. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Youonlylivetwice a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user
Hi JpGordon,

There is a check user going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mudaliar who I suspect is a banned user now appearing on multiple IP addresses and as Youonlylivetwice and many others. Youonlylivetwice seems to be the master puppeteer. Can you please take a look at this checkuser case?

MarkPC (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Saedirof, MarkPC and Redlance: socks of a banned user
Hello Jpgordon,

has been making disruptive edits to a number of articles, specifically Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi (all 3 are related articles) by using multiple socks and open proxies. Check. was initially confirmed as a sock of but later managed to escape. But the account has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check, , , , , , ,, ) while  edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. heavily mimics the edits of and deletes the very same references and sources from article Devadasi that  deletes from articles Mudaliar and Sengunthar. He is definitely a sock of Saedirof as per the Duck Test. Needless to say comes and does the same edits via open proxy (check). Moreover these are all socks of (username same as article name) or  who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check. Request you to look into this issue more closely as I think you have unblocked the socks too hastily. Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't attend to evidence from usernames created solely to attack other editors. Too much room for gameplaying. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delegable proxy
Hi, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter: Absidy I've also come up with this cool advertising banner: (Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What a terrible idea. Hard to distinguish from meatpuppetry. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an RfCU pending on this user that you might want to take a look at. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser result from October
I'm trying to track down the actual checkuser result that you alluded to in this diff. Can you give me a pointer on how to find it? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt there was an RFCU involved; I would have just run CU to verify the sockpuppet allegation. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good, I'll just point to your diff then as evidence. I'm preparing an RfC for User:DemolitionMan based on his continuing disruption at Indian Rebellion of 1857. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnotel (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Concern for Abd
seems to be heading down the wrong path. Apparently they are upset that Wikipedia will not be used as a platform for popularizing their delegable proxy idea (see also Delegable proxy), and have decided to use disruption as a strategy for gaining attention. I think this should be nipped in the bud. What do you think? Jehochman Talk 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have cross posed this at User talk:Newyorkbrad. Feel free to respond there to keep the conversation together. Jehochman  Talk 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made:

If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. This allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements. Something like "1RR for edits regarding notability".

TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced by TTN after others challenged the action, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in regards to an AE discussion you took part in
FYI, in regards to an AE discussion you took part in. Lawrence  §  t / e  00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well?
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Gertstein Report
Hi. I have tried to tell him that it isn't a reliable source ("degree - later revoked", ahem), but Logicman1966 (contribs) insists that material by Mattogno and Roques should be on the Gerstein Report. I do not wish to be involved in an edit war but the fruits of Mattogno and Roques' labour can hardly be considered encylopaedic content. Logicman1966 says he will consider it vandalism if I remove it again. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I went to respond again to him on the article's talk page, but you'd already cleared it up before I could do so, nice work!. WilliamH (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing username?
I just noticed another user with a similar username. User:Jogordon. Few edits to date, and those haven't been problematic. Do you think their username is close enough to yours that they should be asked to change it as likely to cause confusion? Or should we leave well enough alone? GRBerry 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it should be a problem; certainly doesn't look like an attempt to impersonate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
is requesting an unblock. As you were the blocking admin and checkuser, thought you should know. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This user concerned me when I first encountered him, and earned a 48-hour block for attack article creation. The sudden reform and apparent fluency in wiki-policy didn't make me feel better.    Acroterion  (talk)  13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, their illustrious contributions include impersonating an administrator, recreating deleted content, and repeately posting a huge picture file on their userpage that serves no purpose other than to stress the servers. From the first edits they show that they've used another account before, and a checkuser has blocked them for sock puppetry. They've now posted a second unblock request. Hmm, tough call. Jehochman  Talk 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request 2
You've blocked for sockpuppetry, but didn't indicate the sockmaster's name. Swirlface is requesting to be unblocked, so I'd appreciate your comments on his/her talk page. Thanks, - auburn pilot  talk  01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Same as the one above, actually. One of dozens and dozens of socks and sleepers indistinguishable from each other on one IP. I'm pretty sure it's User:DavidYork71, but it could be some other vast sockfarm generator. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IP block 194.189.32.65
You gave the IP address 194.189.32.65 a 6 month block which affects registered users. One such user (Axl) has made an unblock request. Is there a major problem with sleepers there? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the two above. 80 or so sleepers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PHG Arbcom
Hi Jpgordon. I would like to share with you some updates about Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support. Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. Regards PHG (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

checkuser
I am dealing with some sock puppet issues regarding User:Beh-nam. If you can recall, can you explain why you declined the requests for checkuser of User:Anoshirawan. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a case of a requester whose very first edits were accusations of sockpuppetry; I pretty much automatically reject such requests, as well as those from anonymous IPs. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

block logs
pardon my ignorance, but where would I find Lir's block logs?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Trip to Sunderland
Please see User talk:Trip to Sunderland. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why this user was blocked. Neither account made any inappropriate edits.  I saw the IP range's block history.  There is surely a very persistent vandal editing from that range.  Is there a reason I'm not seeing, beyond the use of the same IP range, to assume this user is the same one?  Mango juice talk 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible that one or two users in that range were not vandals. Use your own judgement; I don't fuss or try to pull rank over such things unless they are egregious. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

192.251.125.85
The IP range belongs to a hotel. Past vandalism from that IP is not an indicator of future vandalism because the guests here change from day to day. The guests who committed the vandalism are almost certainly not inhouse any longer. 12.192.55.66 (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * New ones seem to keep coming. There was a continuous stream of vandalism for a year and a half leading up to the current block. We treat this the same as an internet cafe with a surplus of bad customers: we at least insist they be registered users. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Nochi
Hi, would you mind having a look at this? Think we need the benefit of your past experience here. Best, Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Converts
Which one in particular are you referring to? Why did you replace entries with no reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsruhe (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is the appropriate place this. Thanks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Who publishes the Jewish Encyclopedia
There is a proper way to reference sources, and then there is the "I hope nobody notices this nonsense" way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsruhe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What is with the repeats?
Why are you undoing my deletion of repeats? Your behavior does not reflect that of a thinking being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsruhe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arnon Chaffin/Mools
I blocked Mools as a regular vandal, and was somewhat surprised to see that it was a sock of Arnon Chaffin. What happened? Has Arnon Chaffin been compromised or something? Acalamari 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno. He's been blocked for having a compromised account before; perhaps this is continuing? Feel free to override anything I've done if it's a compromise rather than a case of sockpuppetry. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible it's been compromised, as none of his recent edits have been constructive, but I also seem to remember that some of his early edits were vandalism too (see some of his early deleted edits). We'll have to see if the Arnon Chaffin account provides any explanation for this behavior. Thanks. Acalamari 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, I've sent an E-mail. Regards. Acalamari 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blends
Please look up the term blend. Most of these words are incorrectly used. It is not about soapboxing, which is promoting outside links and organizations. Please look up the term WP:SOAP while at it. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Enjoy yourself. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone else? It is two people. If you still don't believe me, look at the academics and what they have to say. Blends Linguistics is my field. I have dealt with the English language for a very long time. I analyze poetry, which requires using proper linguistic terms to break down syllables, word origins, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Thanks for the blocks. I knew Muls was but couldn't prove it.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2
Hey there.

I note you opposed principle 4 and supported principle 4.1 without much comment; would you care to clarify your position slightly so that the wording suggested in the clerk notes can be tweaked if needed to represent your position fairly? In particular, most of the arbs who have supported 4.1 did so expressing the opinion that it should be viewed as a strict subset of 4 and the currently proposed wording of the merged principle reflects that. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:ANI
Would it be against CU policy to monitor the IP related to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and report to the community new sock creations of OM?  MBisanz  talk 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I don't think anyone will "monitor" it anyway. OM's pretty damn blatant; there's no reason to hunt for his socks; they'll show themselves. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep my ears open for more voting proposals.  MBisanz  talk 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Blank of a Checkuser page
Hi Jpgordon:

Number In an OTRS Case [], number 2008020710020518, a user is requesting a courtesy blanking of Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Usedvivid, among other pages. I have no problem blanking the other pages, but I wasn't sure about blanking a checkuser case. Can you give me any insight as to whether that would be a problem? Thanks. - Philippe &#124; Talk 14:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to OTRS. I don't see why we'd "courtesy blank" a positive Checkuser result, given that (a) there are no real names, and (b) none of the parties have edited in a year anyway. Am I missing some subtlety? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a real name: Maximillian Roos. Someone is kicking up a fuss that the checkuser page appears in a google search about that name.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So blank it. I figure a year of "who cares" is sufficient for a permanent "who cares". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX
Hello. I was very surprised to see your comment here. Please see my reply there. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Censoring other good-faith editors' comments is, invariably, a terrible idea. In fact, a fucking terrible idea. I've never seen a single case where it doesn't make matters worse. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That I agree with you. But you did not address the incivility for which the user was blocked. Hús  ö  nd  23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, as it was the result of escalation caused by the censorship. You'll note also I didn't unblock. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that there is a fuckingly huge difference between simple emphasis and calling someone a "fucking hypocrite". One may have been the cause of the other, but doesn't excuse it.  *shrug*  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why we really shouldn't do things that escalate discord; the proper response would have been "y'know, you're right, your comment shouldn't have been censored; tell you what, withdraw the nasty reaction and I'll resist the urge to censor." Or something like that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously have a different approach towards incivility. For me, that "nasty reaction" would qualify as grossest incivility, not less than grossest vandalism, and naturally was to be promptly reverted. You do though present a valid alternative way for handling this situation: yes I could have come to the user's talk page and instead of giving a firm warning for his language I could have simply appealed for his kindness to withdraw the "nasty reaction" himself. And I would probably have done that, if the nature of his reaction were not of that uncivil magnitude. For me, the wise thing to do was to immediately remove the incivility/personal attacks, and warn the user towards such an unacceptable behavior. Following further incivility, a block was in order. We may disagree, and we'll have to accept that we disagree. But personally I cannot have such a lenient attitude towards extreme incivility. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  02:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Jpgordon to Jewish Wikipedia Users
65.27.38.203 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you, you Jew-hating creep. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear that we Jews run Wikipedia through some cabal. Is there a secret handshake, because someone forgot to tell me.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you need to check out and Race and intelligence.  I'm about ready to blow a gasket and call the Mossad for help.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at this?
I tried to post at Talk:Zionism, and all the text disappeared. I tried restoring by going back to the last version, and that gave a blank page as well. Has the page simply reached its capacity, and I'm too dumb to notice, or is there a deeper technical problem here? Clueless, BYT (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it fixed itself? Or someone did. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Zalgt
He says that he fulfilled your requirements for unblocking. Max S em(Han shot first!) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to think 4 = 6, too. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mengele
Please see Talk:Josef_Mengele. Even if the newspaper article is quoted word for word, it is hosted on the Adelaide Institute which I'm sure you know is an extremist organisation. Similar articles pertaining to the dwarves' exposure to gas are used mainly by Holocaust deniers to negate the Holocaust. Now while the likelihood of surviving drifting through clouds of hydrogen cyanide is a different matter of discussion, I do not think the reinstated sentence and its citation is appropriate for this article, since its origin is based around subversion. WilliamH (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright
Hi. I wondered if you might be so kind as to look at the edit summary for Jeremiah Wright's page. I think that three links to imprecation is excessive, as this is only one person's opinion. Many editors are making no effort to discuss this at the talk page. I think that when the cited source mentions it in the article is the time to link to it ( imprecatory topoi). I think three links in one sub section is excessive and might be part of an agenda. After our editing at MLK, I know you to be fair, and would be willing to concede to any opinion that you objectively reach on careful examination. I know you to be a good faith admin /editor and would bind myself to whatever you decide since noone seems to be willing to work towards a concensus there.--Die4Dixie 04:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno, looks to me you guys can talk it out. By the way, why won't you sign your comments with ~ like everyone else? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i try to sign, and I even use the sign button, but it always  goes back and says it was an unsigned comment and the sinbot comes back and signs it.Thanks for taking a look at the page. I agree one wiki link to an uncited source is plenty. I won't be editing anymore on Friday nights: My head aches, mouth is dry, thirsty as all get out and hung over. Also , I'm more likely to be involved with editors like  these, and who needs the head ache?Die4Dixie 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

You're the greatest. Thank you!Die4Dixie (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about uproar. Wasn't my word choice, but a fine neutral toothed comb is needed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the only way that I can seem to get anything done is add one more thing . like the endowed chair, to get stuff fixed and put in proper context without the trumpeting. I think the section on Libya might need looking into . the black Hitler part doesn't seem to be sourced.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the couple's opinion is not that important, how important is the inflammatory statements by an actor about amphetamine laced communion?--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These discussions are best kept on the article talk page. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on cites
I thought I saw a policy the other day that said a cite can't be used if the article can't be viewed, ie you have to buy the article to see it. Was I imaging things?  Grsz  ' 11 ' 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that myself. Seems hard to believe we'd make New York Times archived articles not usable as cites, though. Certainly free sources are preferred. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just that I swear I read something like that yesterday, atleast for BLP's. But looking for it again did no good.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the NYT, I figured out how to get free links to the article; the Times provides a "permalink" to archived articles that does not, as far as I can tell, require subscriptions. Double check for me please that Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized works for you? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair disclosure, or whatever he called it
Thanks for looking out. What a (self-censored by Grsz11 per WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK).  Grsz  ' 11 ' 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For Wikiquote:User:Aphaia
Hi! Confirming here that I'm the Jpgordon requesting usurpation of Jpgordon at Wikiquote. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PEOPLES904
I love that unblock denial, that really made me laugh, well done! Troplock (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)  Hello Jpgordon, Troplock has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Note
Reminding you of this unblock and directing you to this comment:
 * "Breathtaking inanity. ... Your argument is intellectually dishonest, of course, and not meant to be taken seriously." Eleland, 21:51, 28 March 2008.
 * "paper-thin rationalization for tendentious behavior" Eleland, 16:45, 29 March 2008.
 * "in accordance with your own extremist POV." Eleland, 21:46, 2 April 2008
 * "rv exremist POV-pushing" Eleland, 22:17, 2 April 2008
 * The notes "rv extremist POV" diff has also removed the following text from the article and ended up using the source to "branded such proposals as racist and illegal" on notations that don't even appear in the source:
 * "called for a population swap involving minority Arabs living in Israel and Jewish settlers living in occupied territories; Liberman added that he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home in Nokdim to achieve this proposal." source: http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/28/int8.htm (reuters)
 * "This is what we call "shifting the goalposts," Jaakobou. Not to mention "latent racism."" Eleland, 15:26, 16 April 2008
 * "This is a remarkably foolish statement" (to Ynhockey) Eleland, 20:42, 17 April 2008

To remind, editor has continued uncivil commentary even during the 7 day time to which he made his civility pledge. I've posted an AE post regarding this and felt it was closed without proper examination.

With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Issue persists, added a second diff.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Issue is still persisting.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC) clarify last diff. 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) another one.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) another, 07:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Severe POV/BLP violation:
Recently, Eleland is taking an edit-war approach -- following Pedro Gonnet and Nickhh -- to creating/supporting BLP violations on, a right-wing Israeli politician.


 * In continuation with the previous "rv extremist POV" diff (above) that removed ref based context from the wiki-article, Eleland has again stripped proper context from a controversial quote -- (attacks on March 2-3; controversial suggestion/quote on March 4) -- and continued by adding the anti-Israel, Islamist Al-Jazeera as source; [5 April 2008] This after Momento and Ryan Postlethwaite expressed BLP concerns also. Again (21:46, 15 April 2008), but this time stripping a discussed version (includes Shimon Peres quote and without the word 'terrorist').
 * "offered to provide the buses" Eleland, 21:41, 15 April 2008 Text is sourced to "According to another report" in violation of WP:REDFLAG.

This is one in many instances of extremely disruptive activity regarding source use when the material inside is inconvenient to an anti-Israel theory.

Previously, (a) He'd rejected Washington Times to promote -- alongside -- the WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.,  (b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (CAMERA, AIJAC) with (neutral?) ElectronicIntifada.net. (c) Rejected 'Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) - "reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source". (d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that "it's full of lies". (e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack; this after the paragraph/quote's context was explained more than once.

With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC) touchup 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC) issue continues.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

POVfication
Zeq (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mossad
I really dont agree with your opinion that the term kidnapping is biased, capture seems to imply legality or the fact that the target was legitimate. On a personal note, I would use the term capture, because I think the act was morally justified, but that would be POV, Kidnapping seems to be a factual term, that does not imply POV either way. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use the talk page of the relevant article to discuss this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Die4Dixie
I see you responded to his attack on me just now. He's also made these:, , , ,. He keeps claiming some BS reason, that he's the victim of persecution and whatnot.  Grsz  11  02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mudaliar-Venki123 socks
At Requests for checkuser/Case/Venki123 Thatcher said, "Saedirof continues to display an unusually close relationship to, which is relevant because they are all editing Devadasi. MarkPC got unblocked last time by appealing to Arbcom, I would ask Jpgordon to do a recheck on MarkPC and Saedirof and see if the explanation he got last time still holds water." Could you have a look at that please. Jehochman Talk 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Block This Guy, or at Least Do Something
Hey there, Gordon. Please block User:Eddieebo. He told David Levy to **** off, and has posted a death threat on my talk page when I removed his vandalism and sent him the only warning. -- <font color="#40826D" face="palatino linotype">Altiris <font color="#ED9121" face="Constantia">Helios  <font color="#66023C" face="continuum medium">Exeunt  13:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of discussion
Although I agree that some of this exchange was counterproductive, I don't see why you deleted it. A note of, "knock it off" would have been good enough, I think without deleting discussion. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"And that will be quite enough of that"
I assume you deleted that thread because of PatW's comments, which are often uncivil. Or did you object to my question to Jossi about his future plans for editing? I think the question is relevant to the case so I'll re-ask it if it's not considered inappropriate. Please let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're fine, no problem; your comments are always helpful, whether or not I happen to agree with them. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jpgordon it's ironic that you misunderstand me so badly. We both have a lot in common as professional musicians . I am actually a big fan of Oingo Boingo and Elfman soundtracks. (I write movie scores here in the UK - also a blues guitarist-banjoist and pedal steelist). I am also passionate about human ethics and think you have badly misjudged the dynamics that have crippled the article about Rawat for so long. I know about this subject by the way as I was involved with Prem Rawat from 1974 through to 1990's. So I know a lot about that subject. It's a shame that I have been cast as opposing a balanced neutral article by Jossi. I started out on that article declaring that I was committed to an article that was not biased against Prem Rawat. I simply saw the article was highly misrepresentative and omitted a ton of relevant info. In short it was hopelessly biased. I am not against Rawat or for him. I just observe that article extremely hard to make progress on because people like myself are driven away or polarised as 'haters' by Jossi who's views are plainly very Pro Rawat. I am passionate about fairness and simply cannot sit back and calmly ignore what's going on here. Sorry man. Nothing personal but I cannot sit by and see freedom of speech casually brushed aside like you just did. I've re-instated my response to Jossi. I firmly believe my criticisms of the proceedings should remain. I am not being rude - simply not beating about the bush. PatW (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (a) You have no freedom of speech on Wikipedia; you only have two rights: to leave and to fork. (b) I've rolled back the reinstatement, and am considering adding much stronger remedies against incivility and disruption in the arbitration case. Please stop giving me grounds to do so. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean 'to fork'?PatW (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To create your own WP:FORK. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * JP, when you threaten to add remedies against incivility and disruption to the case, I assume you mean against all instances of incivility by all editors involved, not just PatW? Right? Cla68 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to assume whatever you want. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * regarding the rights issue. When I was talking about freedom of speech I was really referring to the right that I have to express my concerns on that page in a civil manner. Maybe I put that badly. I have no desire to 'fork' or leave. I understood that expressing strong objections is not disruptive. I also do understand the need for civility and am attempting to remain so. I have a reputation for civility but it is uniquely here that I have found my patience severely tested over the last year or so. By the way, how civil is it to not answer Cla68? Or does your being a judge here exempt you from having to answer civil but confronting questions? How can you expect people to respect your judgements about civility when you snap at people like that? Your response sounded nasty to me or am I just imagining hostility on your part?PatW (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have the right to express your concerns anywhere on Wikipedia. You have the privilege to do so; one of ArbCom's jobs sometimes is to determine if that privilege is being exercised inappropriately. Civility is most important when one's patience is being severely tested; when everyone is happy with each other, it doesn't much matter if someone says something rude. Civility is for those times when tensions are rising, patience is running thin, and moods are bad; incivility always escalates, and never calms a situation. One can be incivil in two words ("Fuck you!"), but one can also be uncivil in hundreds of very polite-sounding words. Me, I prefer terseness, but in such cases, it's better to say nothing at all, which is what I should have done with the previous question here. (And the straight answer to the question is, "it depends on what evidence develops on the particular matter of uncivil behavior during the arbitration". Really, stop giving me any reason to think about this at all, please.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, don't give it any further thought. I understand perfectly.PatW (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymizing proxy?

 * Where is your evidence that 66.93.26.112 is running an anonymizing proxy today? For a very brief period in 2007 or so, it did, but it hasn't been a Tor exit node for months. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about Tor? But we can make this easy -- are there other users of the .org you've been editing from, or is it just you? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two other users, my mom and a close friend of mine, neither of which would normally be editing Wikipedia at all, much less from that particular IP address. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's just you, I'll lift the block. I'll get annoyed if the IP ends up being used for anything questionable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Chris funk bass
Hi Jpgordon. Is there any reason for this this revert. It seems to me to be standard practice to reinstate blocked user templates on user talk pages. It certainly wasn't vandalism. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah -- it also reinstated an unblock request from long ago. Several of them, actually. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have checked. Thanks for replying.  Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC admin channel
Hi Gordon, I've been having some concerns regarding policy and such relating to the IRC wikipedia admin channel on freenode. I was planing on bringing it up by the village pump but then stumbled over this discussion, and now I'm a bit unsure if the village pump is the right place to bring up such suggestions (it's general concerns, not about any specific incident). If I understood things correctly (based on the arbitrator responses on that page) then I should not bring up any suggestions there? Is the village pump the right place to discuss issues regarding this? Are there previous discussions about this anywhere?

I'm sorry to bother you about this, but since you are part of the arbitration committee i assume you are familiar with these issues? :)

Regards --Apis 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been kinda staying in the background on the whole IRC issue, mostly because I'm totally ambivalent about the whole long situation there. Perhaps the pump would be the best place. I'd ask there first; you'll get sent to the right place quickly enough if that ain't it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, I'll try the pump :) thanks! --Apis 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

About "Sockpuppets"
Dear Gordon. You have recently diabled some accounts on this IP address for being sock puppets. None of the accounts are, but all the accounts are used on the same LAN connection at a school. Please investigate futher into this issue. Many thanks from us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abclop (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Replied on my talk page.  the_ed 17  18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism 8 minutes before it arrived.
How did you do that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's weird! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's impressive also. *whips out his Back to the Future barnstar*  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ha: WP:VP/T --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers
Haha!  Grsz  11  01:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WG experiment
Hiya, I've started a thread about my "Digwuren" and Working group experiment at WP:AN: Administrators' noticeboard. Since you were involved in the discussion on the last Digwuren-related motion, I wanted to let you know. FYI, Elonka 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edumacation!
Thank you. I learned a new word today! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wal★Mart
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Richard Ω6  12  20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

obviously ? (Proxy Server?)
I do all my editing from work, as I do not have a computer at home. There are sixty plus computers in the office I work in. This does not inlcude other offices for the company that I work for. I am sorry you feel the way you do. If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know. Your new friend, Master Redyva (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Block
I noticed that AIV says that you blocked User:Shake2221 (diff) but the block log doesn't say so at all. What happened? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm? Looks like I blocked him for sockpuppetry -- part of the 4.164.64.0/18 sockfarm. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which log was failing to show it? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The regular ol' block log. Anyway, you might want to lock the talk page too (diff). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good looking Out!
Just wanted to say thanks. Have a wonderful evening. Master Redyva (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha!
I must say, this is the first time I've gotten more than three lulz out of a proposed decision page... :D dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad I could be of assistance! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin: "If you don't stop doing XYZ, I'll have to block you." Bad user: "You're a steaming pile of crap. Look, I just did it again." Admin: "Oh, I can't block you now." - LOL!! :) But yeah, it is unfortunate that there are people that exploit these sort of loopholes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
I am a bit confused about how Arbcom works. Mediation on the use of "quotes in citations" was accepted for arbitration, now the case has devolved into a half dozen other things, none of which concerns quotations. Should I delete my 1,000 words on the use of quotations in citations, and use my 1,000 words to join the brawl on the half dozen other topics? What are the rules for changing the focus of an Arbcom case once it is accepted for arbitration? I don't know of any other legal proceeding that can be empaneled to decide a contract dispute, and end up deciding issues on patent law. Can a case be accepted and transform into anything? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not really a legal proceeding; it's a lot more free-form, and it's not all that uncommon for a case to come before us that on its surface is about some equivalent of a contract dispute, and then for evidence to develop during the case that shifts the focus to patent law. For example, in the middle of a case last year, it turned out that several of the parties were actually the same person; you can guess how that changed the results. A hard part of our job is to sift through the evidence and weed out the inevitable irrelevancies that arise there. As far as the 1000 words is concerned, if you think you've made your point well, stick with it; if you feel a need to respond to evidence others have presented, that's OK, but I'd recommend terseness everywhere; an ArbCom proceeding is quite certainly one of those places where less is more -- us volunteers are more likely to respond well to a short argument than one that goes on and on and on. (Some of our eyes glaze pretty quickly. I'm probably the arbitrator with the least patience for massive amounts of material. I already think my own comment here is too long.) Most importantly, though: it is ArbCom who determines the focus of the case, not the people contributing on the workshop and evidence pages. We'll consider those, but most often we stick with the original issue. We don't like piling on, no we don't. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, its good that I can see how angry some people are. I had no idea that there was lingering resentment over old issues. It will make me more sensitive to people's feelings. Have you been following the German print edition? Ambitious plans. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope! I haven't really looked deeply into your case at all yet, either. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lothar of the Hill People
I was looking up this user up and noticed you blocked him as a sockpuppet of User:Example. Isn't that a dummy account? There seems to be a number of users in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example though, so I'm a little confused. -- Kendrick7talk 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The name has been courtesy blanked, for reasons I disagree with. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Prem Rawat
Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that this case requires your vote on the 2.1 remedy, so that the case is ready to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ✅

Also, you may wish to make a vote on Fof 1.1 for the record - Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * By the way, I find these little nudges quite helpful. Thanks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your note (especially because it got rid of a small doubt I had about them) :) You're most welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy case
Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)
I think you were mistaken in your deletion. Also, I put up a hangon tag. And it's just a List With 2 sentences of what these people subscribe to. Please explain why you deleted it? Also, please consider un-deleting. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your work protecting Wikipedia against Vandalism, Crankism, & and Crack potism. But I think you were mistake in deleting the most complete list of Historical revisionists. Also, I quoted exactly what the say and stand for. So I think I produced a useful and important list for Wikipedia. Please re-consider your Good faith deletion. Also, I had a Hangon Tag on it. So that's another reason it did not qualify for a Speedy deletion. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, look at our Articles: Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism). The List I created specifies exactly who the proponents of this -ism(s) are. So please reconsider your Good faith deletion. I think you made a mistake. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't get to cut-and-paste lists or anything else from other sites. Period. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That cite itself is just a list. And Cut & Paste is just a way we use computers The important thing is the end result. And in the end there is no Copyright violation because what I put up was (1) an alphabetized list of members in a movement. Do I have to leave someone out in order for me not to violate a copyright principle? Also, I quoted the equivalent of a mission statement of the organization. Do I have to paraprase a mission statement to coply with what is considered a rule of Wikipedia?
 * What if I just keep the list of names? Will you tolerate that? And do you want me to put it in another order? I can do that. I can order the list by First name, instead of Last. Would that be OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists are copyrightable information as well. Besides, we already have such a list, in the Holocaust denial article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) This list is not. You cannot copyright a list of members of an organization. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (2) We do not have a WP:List. Naming individuals in an article is not such a list. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (3) Also - by the logic you use in (1) you would have to delete that list too, no? You just said it's copyrighted. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Help me out on this one - you know who I am - you've reverted to my versions in the Protocols of Zion. You must know by now that I know what I'm talking about. Thanx for your consideration. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you know what you're talking about as far as information is concerned, but you often don't quite understand what Wikipedia expects and requires in articles. If you want to make such a list, start by getting consensus to split out the one from the Holocaust Denial article. Then you'll need to provide reliable sources that each person on it is indeed a holocaust denier -- right now it's lacking that, but sorely needs one. Regarding copyright, you're missing the point; you're not allowed to copy someone else's collection of data and call it Wikipedia's. The list in the HD article was built piecewise by Wikipedia editors; it's not a copy of someone else's work. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. That's extremely helpful. You explained the matter now very clearly. And I will study these points carefully and respond appropriately. Thanks again. (I suspected I could count on you for clarification!) --Ludvikus (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Missing Manual
FYI: I authored the above recently, after I bought the book. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism vs. Revisionist Historians
I'd like to bring this to your attention first: Look at The source very, very, carefully: '''http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm
 * It appears these characters pulled a hoax on us. If you look really carefully you will see that James McPherson never uses the expression Historical Revisionism. Assuming good faith, it appears Wikipedia has been hoodwinked. I've been trying for a while - unsuccessful as you should know - to bring to the attention of our community - that there has been not a single reference showing a legitimate (scholarly) use of the expression. Any legitimate historian in the United States would be insulted if he were called a 'historical revisionist. However, Revisionist historian (which McPherson uses) is a horse of a different color. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like very much like to see the look on your face when you acknowledge that I'm right at least on this one. --Ludvikus (talk)
 * However, I will enjoy very much - with delight - seeing how you handle that observation. For reason that must be obvious to you, I pass the ball to you. And observing how you handle this matter will be a great lesson for me on how Wikipedia works. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right about what? And by the way, please stop signing every sentence in your messages? Once will really suffice. Note what everyone else does in that regard and do the same thing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. The term McPherson uses is "Revisionist Historians." That does not mean the same thing as "Historical Revisionism." So there is no evidence for a legitimate subject under the latter term. The whole article is based on that quote from McPherson's. He's President of the American Historical Association. The quote comes from that 2003 article he wrote. He is talking about Revisionist Historians. They belong to a legitimate school of history. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And what does that have to do with the list of mostly (perhaps entirely, but I've not researched each one of them) holocaust deniers that you were trying to put into that now-deleted article? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) That's not an article - it never was - it's just a blank space. (2) It's related to all the confusion. If we first establish that only Historical Revisionism exists, it will make our work much easier. (3) I'm asking for your opinion regarding what to do with the so-call "nice" Historical revisionism article. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gordon, I'm now only talking to you about the article named above. Not about any list. You said that there is only one kind of Historical Revisionism - of the Holocaust denial kind. I agree. So click on the article above and see what they say there. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? I'm not particularly interested in that discussion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks anyway. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection on Book of Concord
The user:DumbBOT removed the protection on Book of Concord because it expired. I guess, then, we should wait and see whether McCain comes out of the woodwork again and tries to edit it, right? or should the protection be renewed? Maybe he will stay away.--Drboisclair (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * McCain is back again. He is editing two articles The Lutheran Hymnal and Book of Concord: he must have been biding his time.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which edits? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The ones with IP address 75.8.89.241, which I traced to St. Louis, Missouri. He was reverted on Book of Concord by me and on The Lutheran Hymnal by MisfitToys. There were 3 edits on the Book of Concord and 2 on the hymnal. I guess we can always revert him, but the Book of Concord is the article he most wants to edit.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple request for semi-protection should suffice, if he starts making a habit of it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This might be a flash in the pan. I notice that there is vigilance on the part of fellow editors with "bots" (?), who are on the look out for vandalism, etc. Thanks!--Drboisclair (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests page
The requests page has been recently getting clogged up, particularly from clarifications/appeals. So, to archive some of them sooner with more certainty, I'm going to ask/remind you of some cases that need your attention. Once it's less clogged up, then that's that :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First request needing attention is an appeal of a topic ban imposed on Thomas Baseboll under the 9/11 ArbCom decision allowing discretionary sanctions - here-is-the-link-to-the-statements. So far, there has only been one arbitrator view of "I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them." but Thomas feels that this does not directly address whether his ban may be appealed. He would like a couple more views, and would like some reasons.

I can leave a neutral, but more detailed summary of the statements/evidence if you wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The requests are a mess right now. But when something like this comes up, and none of the arbs pipes up at all, it can be assumed that the rest of us agree with the conclusion -- that arbcom is not going to overturn the community in this case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clear heads up. :) Will let those involved know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vladuz Citations needed
Citation #1 - must be with-held, due to the fact that people's credit card numbers & bank details are listed.

Citation #2, #3 - I'll check and see if the information is still availible (The main copy of the information, less the actual card numbers, was posted on the German website.) If you're asking for proof that Vladuz hacked into the Lawyer's ebay account, again that's tricky as the only proof happens to be a screenshot of it - WITH the financial info.

75.7.240.28 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the article's talk page. However, what you're saying is there are no verifiable sources for these statements; as such, they will be removed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the filth-laced response to this, by an anonymous contributor who seems to misunderstand Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a 5.1 principle proposed by Uninvited Co. Would request your vote on it, as well as on Fof 3. Please also note that FloNight is reconsidering her votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - it may be eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * It's quite interesting how people's behavior during an arbitration case can change our positions on those cases. Many people don't quite understand that saying less is more sometimes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I think it also means (and such changes demonstrate that) we're well-informed of the actual case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again. There is also a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill - the modified Meatball principle. Would request your vote on it too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) ✅

I just noticed what you said there: ''"Too broad. Admin: "If you don't stop doing XYZ, I'll have to block you." Bad user: "You're a steaming pile of crap. Look, I just did it again." Admin: "Oh, I can't block you now.""'' - that's not true. If XYZ was a 3RR breach (say), and the bad user did it again and also insulted the admin at the same time, the admin can still block for the second 3RR breach. The bad user might try and claim that the block was in retaliation for the "steaming pile of crap" comment, but it should be clear that the block was for the second 3RR breach. What the admin shouldn't block for is the "steaming pile of crap" comment. The admin should ignore the "steaming pile of crap" comment (to head off accusations that the block was retaliatory), or let others deal with it. This case is slightly more tricky, in that the warning was for incivility in general, followed by an example of incivility against the admin. Technically, that could be followed up by a block by another admin, but a better response would be for the initial admin to rise above all that and merely repeat the warning. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. But my statement applies to the absolutist principle, not the particular case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that you have voted with 2 'second choices' for remedy 1 - I think one of these is meant to be 'third choice'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * You can leave me links to make these reminders easier! Assume I'm lazy as all hell. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I can't stop grinning now :D Though you've striked most of the text for the support vote, it is still numbered as if there is a support vote and an oppose vote. I'd have got rid of it myself with an edit-summary saying "formatting", if I wasn't afraid I'd be told off by an admin for daring to even think of touching the page lol. Ok, a very slight exaggeration :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about that. Edits with comments like "fix broken formatting", especially in obvious cases like that, are OK. Changing any content would be more questionable (like, for example, changing the heading levels on the remedies.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I had a bit of fun here *embarassed, but gets helmet just in case* but it'll be fun to compare it to the actual close though :) Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh-Oh...
Gordon, I need your help. An IP address has posted this thread on my talk page. I'm not too concerned about who posted it; I'm more concerned about what the thread is all about. Could you, as an admin, check the links the anon put there? -- <font color="#40826D" face="palatino linotype">Altiris <font color="#ED9121" face="Constantia">Helios  <font color="#66023C" face="continuum medium">Exeunt  14:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this anon has posted something similar on a few other User talk pages as well. BoS has one, for instance, and for another, he posted something similar on the Paul McCartney talk page. -- <font color="#40826D" face="palatino linotype">Altiris <font color="#ED9121" face="Constantia">Helios  <font color="#66023C" face="continuum medium">Exeunt  14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need page protection, but thanks for the links anyway. -- <font color="#40826D" face="palatino linotype">Altiris <font color="#ED9121" face="Constantia">Helios  <font color="#66023C" face="continuum medium">Exeunt  14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus
Thank you for the clarification. I had thought just placing the page in the unblock category would be enough to get a "third party" response. But apparently the template was "necessary".

Any suggestions on my actions/text here or on how to handle similar situations in the future, would be welcome.

I'll go check out WP:AN/I now. - jc37 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP, antisemitc ranting etc
Can you take a look here. I keep removing greg park avenue's antisemitic and BLP violating rants, yet he persists, along with endless personal attacks (all because I cleaned up a ridiculously POV section in the article) Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA lobbying's "Administrators commended" remedy
Jpgordon, just a note that I have commented on the "Administrators commended" that is currently at Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Proposed decision. My comment is located here; please do stop by if you have a spare moment. Regards, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter K Ekman
What was the reasons for his block? I don't see any vandalism in the contributions. Did I miss something? :P  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Feel free to use your own judgment; to me, the contributions looked sufficiently like pure trollery that they didn't take much thought. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Trouble on the Sub-Saharan Africa page
I've just had a disturbing encounter with another Wiki editor over the sub-Saharan Africa page. He keeps insisting on juxtaposing the term "Black Africa" with the term "sub-Saharan Africa" in the text. I've explained to him that he cannot do that because it gives people the impression that everyone beneath the Sahara is black when of course they are not. There are white South Africans, Indian Kenyans, Lebanese Ivorians, Ethiopians, Mauritanians, entire mixed tribes in the Gabon, etc. that are just as African as any native Black person. I added that the two terms are therefore not equivalent; "Black Africa" is a racial term whereas "sub-Saharan Africa" is a geographical term. However, he claims they are and keeps reverting my edits. The sub-Saharan Africa page also has a history of people like this Wiki editor constantly trying to insert Afrocentric materials into the text. Some time back, someone added a quote from and external links pointing to an article hosted on an Afrocentric website that spoke of Europeans disparagingly. I had to personally remove the links, and explain that Wikipedia is no place for the promulgation of extreme idealogies. There was a big row over this same "Black Africa" issue a while ago, before it was finally decided that sub-Saharan Africa is a geographical term and not synonymous with Black Africa. Now, all this time later, this Wiki user callously disregards the will of the editors that preceded him, and attempts to single-handedly impose on the world his own personal definition of just what sub-Saharan Africa means. Can you please have a look at the page and explain to the editor that he cannot just do as he pleases? I think arbitration might be the only thing that solves this problem once and for all. 74.12.222.59 (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any discussion of this on the article talk page, where it belongs. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Red4tribe evading ban
Hi. I believe that User:Red4tribe is evading his two week ban by reverting at Italian Empire whilst logged out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Checkuser doesn't show any correlation between the IP and the editor. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, he demonstrated this for me by logging out and back in again, but don't you think it is highly suspicious? The one and only edit made by this anon IP in the last two months was to revert something this guy had been edit warring over?  What, say, if he called up his buddy and asked him to make the edit?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. If a pattern of this emerges, we might have something to look at. A single edit is rarely actionable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon, I assumed good faith, but once more he is evading the block, this time though, it is plain for all to see what he has been up to:  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Time limit
Is there a time limit for action taken by Arbcom. Once accepted is there a speedy action clause? I have seen minimal participation on "quotes in footnotes" and without any supervision and guidance it is drifting off topic in a dozen directions. Everything but "quotes in footnotes" is being discussed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, no time limit. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Has this user attempted to use sockpuppets??? I previously warned him that I would push for an indefinite ban if he did so... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think he's so unwise about our ways that he thought using his IP, without logging in (but declaring it to be him) wasn't sockpuppetry. I don't think he'll do it again (especially since I blocked the IP.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the grotesque, onanistic *wink* means by which this user has consistently persisted in editing, I am highly in favor of a block on his talk page (I don't even care much for his reply to my last comment) for the duration of his ban; I would also strongly support an indefinite ban. His "skill" in manipulation makes Hitler look like a whining prattler, and would give the Devil himself a run for his money. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Workshop
I found this highly unusual, but I'm wondering out of curiosity - does it happen often? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does what happen often? People expressing annoyance at other people's proposals in an ArbCom workshop? Sure. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much that, but my question was concerning the seeming misuse of the workshop (to propose remedies against uninvolved editors who have put forward proposals in good faith). That too, by a long-standing admin (who is by no means new to the process and) who is well-aware of the existence of the comments sections and/or the talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just noise. A bit pointy, but given that its from a long-standing admin with lots of experience, consider the content rather than the placement. Don't get your hackles up. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, though apparently his judgement has been questioned a lot lately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rsazevedo‎
Hi. I saw where you commented on User talk:Rsazevedo‎. Could you check to see if is one in the same with  or any other banned user? Although we do not indef IPs, obviously exists soley to harass  and if this is the same individual, then, I believe, as far as we are concerned, he is banned/unwelcome/whatever, even if we may lack the technical capability of expressing that to him because he has multiple IPs or a shared IP. Thanks. --B (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) but all I could really say for this would be "possible", because it's an IP range, but not the same IP, and other checkuser information only gives a middling, not a strong, match. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 222.165... is unrelated, IP wise. Chenyangw does seem to have some sort of connection to another IP who hassled Yunfeng:
 * 1) Tvf. . 16:37 . . anon IP xxxx  (←Replaced content with 'SU YANG IS GAY')
 * 2) Tibet . . 16:37 . . Chenyangw  (I cannot just let the obvious lie hanging there in wikipedia.)
 * 3) Tvf . . 16:34 . . anon IP xxxx
 * Ok ... thanks for checking. I guess it's just something to keep an eye on, not anything actionable at this point. --B (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! All the best, Rsazevedo msg 21:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb Com proposal
I am startled by the proposal for a sourcing arbitration board--please see my reply to Kiril on my talk page. I will be discussing it further of course somewhere in the arb com structure --probably the workshop page-- & probably elsewhere. Had you confined it to the immediate question presented by the Homeopathy articles, it would have had some justification. Please reconsider. DGG (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My topic ban
Hi, where can i turn to have my topic ban lifted if the Arbcom doesn't feel it's exceptional enough for them to deal with? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Final appeal is to User:Jimbo Wales. He very rarely intervenes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so he's the final appeal but my case was archive away as not needing the Arbcom's attention. Is there some place I was suppose to go before Arbcom? This to me is all quite stressful as I wasn't aware of going over any line, I guess sarcasm is bad but ban-able? In any case I wasn't warned just simply banned. I'm trying to clear my name and move on from this. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi  05:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a matter of "not needing the Arbcom's attention"; you got ArbCom's attention, and it declined to overturn the status quo. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the only statement I got was yours stating, in part, "My initial inclination is to let the ban stand; it's not a "black mark" against Benji, but rather a recognition that his presence on that article is causing more problems than it is worth. On the other hand, if another editor were to come to the article, and do the same sort of work Benji's been doing, Mr Sanchez' stream of OTRS requests would resume, with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon. So this isn't about Benji, but about the material itself, which either belongs or does not belong in the article, regardless of Mr Sanchez' feelings. This means the only question for Benji is, "can you continue the edit the article while respecting our BLP, NPOV, V, etc requirements?""
 * I've stated many times, and have demonstrated on that article, that I am more than willing to follow policies (BLP, NPOV, V, etc requirements) and sought consensus prior to introducing potentially controversial content. As for the content that I been painted as "advocating" it remains not only the crux of the subject's notability, but a current topic of discussion after my ban and wiping clean all talk page threads.
 * In addition,  Horologium , familiar with both the article and case, commented "Short story: jpgordon's remark ... turned out to be remarkably prophetic." They note, "Aleta and I have apparently been identified as "enemies" in the most recent OTRS complaint by a Sanchez proxy. Sanchez appears to be determined to dictate how his Wikipedia biography is written, with persistent attempts to whitewash well-sourced but inconvenient facts, and to emphasize non-notable current activities.
 * I'm trying to clear my name here, I have little interest in the article and the unique path it seems to be on. Is there no place besides Jimbo I can look to for clearing my name? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banje <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">boi  01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ordo Templi Orientis
Its been awhile since I've checked up on the article, and I've noticed that you removed the entire section we had for notable members. Are you adverse to the proposition that I add it back, citing each one? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a clean reliable source for each one, no problem. But previously there was little we'd consider a reliable source if it had appeared in any other article; mostly it was a list of people not notable or interesting in any other way except that we knew they were more or less prominent OTO members. I mean, really, I love him dearly, but who other than in the context of the OTO would know or care about Bill Heidrick? Or likewise, Ebony Anpu? We don't get to make exceptions just because the OTO doesn't publicly say anything about anyone's membership. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I get your point now. Thanks for the response. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant & intransigent
Hi, just thought you might like to know that (who you blocked) appears to be the same person as. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just hardblocked the IP these were coming from. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm so excited!
We're going to be in the New York Times! I feel like a real celebrity now; I wonder when I'll hear from the British Prime Minister? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Woo! Hoo! (Who?) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Retraction of a charge against Dana Ullman (the homeopathy case)
Thank you for participating in the Arb case on homeopathy, even though you have voted for banning me for a year. Sam Blacketer also voted for this one-year ban, and in doing so, he noted serious problems from one of my seemingly erroneous edit summaries. However, FT2 alerted him that my edit summaries were accurate,, and Sam retracted his statement. Further, PhilKnight showed good faith in retracting these same charges that he had on the Evidence page. However, because Sam felt strongly enough about the seemingly erroneous edit summary that he made a comment about them, I asked Phil if he would contact the Arb committee members who have voted in case this (false) charge influenced your opinion. Instead, he has suggested that I do so. If, by chance, you too were influenced by the charge of bad faith summary edits, please note that this has been proven to be inaccurate.

Finally, although I have made some errors on wikipedia, I do not feel that they are serious enough to warrant the proposed one-year ban. Due to limited space, I am unable to reply to the many other erroneous charges against me, and I therefore ask if Arb committee members have any specific questions or concerns about my participation here for which they want my reply, I urge you to simply pose these questions or concerns before placing your final vote. DanaUllmanTalk 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Red4tribe
Yet more funny business from this editor that you asked me to assume good faith with! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Looks like other admins are on top of it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that they are - I just got told to ask "one of the other admins". What's the point of that board if people just agree and don't do anything?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The main account stays blocked. We can't do a heck of a lot about IP contributions from dynamic IPs. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeowner crying for help
To be fair, there was "I kindly request information of these and any other resources regarding hardships and the related programs for the disabled." hidden in that long post. But it wasn't obvious to me either. :-( ---Sluzzelin talk  18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Have you gotten in contact with the authorities with the CU information. Asking because Thatcher also did a check user. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Rgoodermote  23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Future tag
What do you think on the use of the future tag for projected future events. I have added the tag to Grand Egyptian Museum since it isn't scheduled to open until 2010, but another editor disagrees and removed it. Their argument is that we don't tag future events and points to several articles on future years such as 2040 that don't have it. Your third opinion would be appreciated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they're kinda ugly and not helpful to the article. The "current event" tag makes sense, because it's reporting on something that will be likely actively changing; but that "future museum" tag would be sitting on that article for possibly years, and really doesn't provide any more information that what's in the first sentence of the article. In general, tags should be for exceptional and un-obvious things (like, for example, Ted Kennedy in the news this week). --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical question
As an admin, I can see deleted pages. As an admin, I cannot see oversighted pages.

That said, not always are pages oversighted which are deleted. And often, I've found that no explanation/clarification is given for the oversight. In such cases, we, as admins, are often left to our own discernment to "guess" what's appropriate to undelete, or even to reveal to others. (And I prefer to "err" on the side of caution in this for, I hope, obvious reasons.)

So here's the hypothetical question.

If a user requested a page (with its entire history) to be oversighted, would merely revealing that that request was made by the user (discerned from a post on a deleted talk page) to someone requesting about the information (without stating any details about the request) be "across the line"?

(And if you feel that even this hypothetical should be, please feel free to delete/oversight/whatever.) - jc37 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the fact that something was oversighted is privileged. But I'd have to think hard about the context of the request for information. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's roughly what I was thinking (on both counts). As I was not specifically asked myself, rather than be proactively "helpful" (which is my typical wont), I think I'll leave the request to others. Thank you very much for your insight.
 * (As a side note, and I don't know if you'd consider this a "good thing" or not, but I have to admit that I do respect your opinion. In the past, I might have asked FB or NYB (sigh). So on such necessitated occasions, I may be back here asking for your insight from time to time.)
 * Thanks again : ) - jc37 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Facial hair status
Hi Josh

What is your current facial hair configuration? This isn't made clear on your user page.

Sincerely,

A fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.51 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Much much shorter than in my ZZ Top emulating days. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ;-) lol. (From the edit summary I had to read the question and your reply.) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too, lol. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Here I am in 1985, with my beard rather short for that period; I was in Tokyo trying to drum up some programming work, and had neatened up considerably for the interviews. (I didn't get the work, but I had a fun all-expenses-paid couple of weeks.) Little kids followed me on the street saying "ZZ Top! ZZ Top!" The last day for Josh of the Big Beard was in NYC on 9/11/01; my then-fiancee (we'd gotten engaged the previous day) and and I decided that perhaps it was time for an image change. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Axl
Hi. left me a message indicating that his usual IP (which is shared) has been blocked by yourself. I cannot seem to find the autoblock in the log, but I was hoping if you could investigate this and reenable Axl's editing privileges (he is behind the FA lung cancer amongst many other things). JFW | T@lk  22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder why he doesn't use unblock? It would simplify matters greatly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, that would be related to User talk:Axl. He should ask for an IP block exemption. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account question
Hi there Rlevse suggested I contact some arbitrators directly about this question. Could you help with this? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Socks
I apologise to everyone, I am sorry for socking. I would like to publicly declare, and apologise for, these accounts of socks, which should be blocked and never used again: I apologise once again, and on Jimbo and Arb Com's advice, I WILL NEVER USE SOCKS AGAIN. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MrWP
 * SimsFan
 * Doughnuts...Mmm!
 * King Monty IV and King Monty V (alt account)
 * Connorjack (my first account)

Checkuser
I am not sure I understand your comment here. How else can one request a CU without going through RFCU? Via IRC? Email? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any of those, sure. And checkusers will often do them independently, without any request; for example, most checkusers are familiar with a large number of abusive sockpuppeteers, and if we see what looks like one, we'll use the tool. That's probably where the bulk of non-RFCU checkuser analyses come from. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for the swift unblock. My first and I WAS SCARED!! :)--Mongreilf (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

C68-FM-SV case
There are some concerns voiced on the talk page of this case - why did you re-add User:Tony Sidaway as a party? Looking at he was added as a party by User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The in the first place, and I'm not sure he had permission or authority to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to add themselves. "Anticipation" is Tony. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohhh. OK. Cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm! Quite alarming to see what happened there, and the discussion. And all within such a short span of time too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jpgordon, thanks for your very quick response to my unblock request. -- de Facto (talk). 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
kk <font color="#0000CD">SimpsonsFan08  <font color="#FF0000"> talk Sign Here Please and get Award 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING
Ready to close - 2 votes made already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Footnotes
I kept scrolling up and down wondering where my nudge/reminder/suggestion/note was - then I realised this is my first one for the case. :)

Excepting deciding on finding 2/2.1 (or principle/remedy), perhaps the case is ready for close votes? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. We need to clear up what we want to do with 2. Probably happen in the next day or two. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews wants it as a principle; JamesF doesn't mind either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ready to close - 1st vote made by Kirill. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain...
...what this revert was? Did you actually look at what you were reverting? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted it, because version by Tymek was better than other version behind version Piotrus, and Molobo. By the way - I can't said why did I revert --- this my business, so please don't more ask about it me, because I won't answer on your questions about my reverts. Please you should learn Polish history - maybe then you're going to understand it, because I think that you can't understand and you're unhelpful editor. Alden or talk with Alden 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony delisted from parties of C68-FM-SV

 * removal; case talk notice; notice to Tony

I have removed Tony from the list of parties because I cant see this as justified, and it has caused confusion. As I mentioned on the case talk, I dont see that the ball is yet in arbcom's court as i dont see any significant discussion by an arbs about why Tony is being added to the case talk. If Tony is to be added to the case, the community deserves a clear statement to that effect, preferably with justification; without that the confusion will only grow and become a distraction. So, if the committee has good reason for Tony to be a party, feel free to undo my edit. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, so clerks get to override arbitrators on the arb page? Fascinating. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So far your involvement has been to revert an IP without making making it clear in the edit summary as to why it was being done, and comment on the case talk to the effect of "I have no idea". If that is how an arbitrator makes edits with their arbitrator hat on, then it isnt any wonder there is confusion.  I am not overriding you; if your revert really was a decision to include Tony as a party, then I would welcome a more clear edit to that effect. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep digging. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon, I'm not sure that oracular statements are the best way to ensure clarity. Maybe if you made a statement that clearly said what policy was, or what your thinking was, or what the committee had decided, it might reduce confusion. Even clerks can't read minds. I suggest saying something more like "I have no idea why Tony added himself, but it's within policy that anyone can add themselves to a case at any time for any reason, and we always let that stand." or whatever your thinking is, instead of just giving a two word answer. Your clerk asked a pretty clear question, seeking guidance, and you did not give it. That gives outsiders reason to think that perhaps ArbCom doesn't have its act together, AND undercuts your clerks as a body. Not necessarily a good approach in my view.  ++Lar: t/c 10:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in no hurry to resolve this; this case will last a while, and whatever Tony wants will become clearer, as will what constitutes appropriate clerk behavior; I'd be surprised if appropriate clerk behavior includes countermanding an arbitrator's actions on the arbitration page. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken my best shot at restating what I think you are driving at, and what practice is, in general. Please feel free to correct any misapprehensions you might find I had. Thanks. (and good luck with this case in general, it's thorny) ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment just now: Hey, sh*t happens. (especially with sick puppies). Hope he stays well. Jayvdb is a good guy. Take care. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and advice
Hi Jpgordon,

I included a request in my evidence, I was wondering if yourself and the other arbitrators have considered it? (I ask because I can't see any mention of it). If it isn't being looked at, could you please advise how I should presue it? An admin suggested putting it into the envidence, which is why I did it like this. This is the first time I've had anything to do with an arbitration so I'm a little lost.

Many Thanks, Oboler (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence pages are for evidence; I have no idea why anyone would suggest a request be placed there, as evidence pages are often quite overloaded with extraneous material, and one of the trickier parts of evaluating evidence is that it's like evaluating Google search results for poorly specified queries -- you have to filter out a whole lot of irrelevant stuff, and if you're lucky, you can quickly ignore the irrelevant stuff. So it probably got missed; I sure didn't see it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply (and sorry it's taken me so long to see it... I've been traveling and won't get home for another 2 weeks). It was suggested I post it in evidence by the Arbitration Clerk... so I assumed the advice was sound. The discussion is here . My question is what do I do now, the evidence is serrious (I spent about 13 hours putting it together - without reverting any changes I came across) and if no-one saw it, then it needs to go somewhere where it will be considered. I tried the Admin Notice board when CJCurrie originally started attacking me, I tried speaking with an admin helping with the arbitation, I tried the ArbCom case (as directed), what's left to try? If people looked at it and rejected it that would be one thing, but this is something else - it seems to have just been missed. If you could discuss what should be done with it with the other members of ArbCom, or other admins as appropriate I'd be very greatful. That way it might at least get considered and the concerns this raises would be directed some where appropriate. Oboler (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GSD/Hats
I just wanted to say that's a beautiful looking GSD pup you have there Josh. I'd also like to thank you for the hat info you gave on the humanities help desk. Hopefully I'll be able to acquire a nice Panama soon and wear it to the beach and various other places. How do you wear yours, and what brand is it? Thanks again!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We call her "Devil Dog", though right now she's "Sleeping Puppy" after a devilish morning. (Full-scale training starts next week.) Panamas aren't hard to find, and they range from cheap to way expensive. I got most of my high-end ones at one of the few makers of Panama hats in the US, "Paul's Hats" in San Francisco; I also have a nice Western-style panama from Montecristi in Santa Fe . We're talking hats that start in the several hundred dollar range and go up from there; Paul's top-end Panama goes for $30,000! (And the straw weave is as fine as the best linen. I think it's mostly a show-off piece; he's had it for a decade.) But: keep in mind that Panamas aren't all that robust; you don't want to spend the money on an expensive Panama for casual wear. You can find inexpensive ones pretty much anywhere; a Google search for "inexpensive Panama hat" can be fruitful. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips Josh. I'll look on Google and search for the various types.  Puppies really are a lot of fun :).

Mike MAP91 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fez
See clerk board. There is an arb fez hat. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So I seez. Thankz! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ban procedure
Hi, I noticed that you banned user:spoilermdc indefinitely simply by deeming him having made no "useful contribution". It seems to me that he has only edited in talk pages, without making any disruptions, or edits even, in the main articles themselves. I was wondering your banning him was a hasty decision or gross abuse of your admin privileges. Note, I don't support his holocaust denial viewpoints at all. I knew him because he editted on the WW2 talk page and I only became interested because months ago I was involved in a content dispute with a couple of Japanese right wing extremists, who kept writing up their new articles and editing existing ones espousing beliefs that denied the Nanking Massacre. Several other users and I had to go through a long-winded procedure of image deletion and various dicussions (yep, they uploaded OR photos and had their own youtube videos as citation) to get those things expunged. Fortunately the users so far have not returned after the community overwhelmingly went against them. I was wondering if it was possible for us to seek a quick and easy ban for these users, since what they added to the articles were far more disruptive then spilermdc's contributions. Thanks. Blueshirts (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all you need to do is find an admin gutsy enough to take the heat when people complain about the block, which they will. It's pretty easy with Holocaust deniers; they don't have any friends. A bit harder, I'd guess, with the Japanese right wing extremists. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks man, that sounds good. Blueshirts (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user page
Hello. I noticed your request at WP:UPH. I would like to renovate your user page. Is that okay? I would like you to reply on my talk page. Thanks. -- <font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. Please consider watching my talk page. Thanks, <font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please make any changed you wouldlike at this point. Comments? -- <font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet and simple. I'll be doing some tweaking, but it's real nice. Thanks immensely! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, Jpgordon. Regards, <font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Tom Ketchum is maintaining his innocence. Are he and "TW" definitely coming from the same IP? If so, that's two recent accounts and since TW obviously is the older banned user, there's nothing more to discuss. Is "EM" on the same IP as Tom? EM doesn't look anything like the original banned user, but, rather, looks like a WR user's bad cop account and if it's a really smart bad cop, it probably edits only from a public IP or proxy. When Jayjg told me who the old account was, I was just content to take him at his word and obviously, that's an account that is and should be banned and never allowed back. But Tom's contributions bear no resemblance whatsoever to that old account. So I guess my question is, how solid is the evidence and is Tom's claim at all plausible? Is his home IP ever shared by one of the malicious users or is the relationship only that they happened to edit from the same Starbucks one day? If you say that the claim is not plausible and that his home IP is shared by one of the malicious accounts, then that's all I need to hear and I think the unblock request can be declined. --B (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * TW, Tom, and EM did all edit from the same IP. However, Tom's edits on that IP were on two consecutive days in March; EM was on that IP just once within the checkuser time frame. Tom hasnt't edited on that IP since then; he's strictly edited on another, which he shares with no other editors. However, Jayjg knows the behavior of banned editor far better than I do. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Is that IP a public IP (Starbucks, etc) or is it a residence?  If it's a residence, even if it's a friend's house, that's a little too coincidental. (I have trouble imagining the scenario where he was editing all day at a friend's house and the subject never comes up that the friend is a banned user.)  It also is slightly suspicious seeing the first edits of a new account as vandalism reverts.  But the overwhelming disconnect between the edits of this user and the banned user is really hard for me to get by.  The banned user obviously has a strong IT background from the articles he edited and some of his comments - he sounds like a geek. (That's not a personal attack - I'm a geek with 10 years of C++ programming experience and I know what a geek sounds like.)  Tom, though, has only one remotely IT-related edit. The banned user frequently abbreviates (most annoyingly, "paragraph" is often abbreviated as "para") - Tom doesn't do that at all.  Tom edits animal rights articles almost exclusively - something that the banned user never touched. I'm not going to unilaterally undo the block, but I have serious doubts that Tom Ketchum is the banned user.  I could believe that Tom Ketchum is EM or is the sock of someone else, but I really don't think, based on my review of edits, that he is the banned user in question. --B (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno if the shared IP was a home or what; looks rather like a dynamic IP to me. The animal rights connection is, I imagine, the connection with the harassed editor. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked and I only found one article where the harassed user and Tom edited in common ... well ... two, but one was after he was blocked. I'm really having a lot of trouble seeing this.  I know that you probably can't take a position on it in case it were ever appealed to arbcom, so I have asked Jayjg to reexamine the evidence and reconsider his block, linking to my comments here.  I'll wait and see what he says. --B (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The original editor had two main targets, and he's been after using all his accounts. The CU evidence, combined the behavioral evidence, is pretty conclusive. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Jpgordon said the only IP overlap was that Tom edited on the same dynamic IP on two consecutive days.  That sounds different from "pretty conclusive".  Aside from this dynamic IP, is there any other technical evidence linking Tom Ketchum to any of the other accounts in question?  Looking purely at the non-technical evidence (editing patterns), I don't at all see the connection between Tom and the banned user/known socks of the banned user and would even say that they are conclusively two different people. There is one common !vote with "EM", but "EM" doesn't look anything like the banned user, but, rather, looks like the "bad cop" account of a WR user. --B (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's much information you don't have, and much "Tom" didn't realize, including not realizing the CU records stretched back to March. He never admitted his past sockpuppeting either, so that's also a common pattern. He'll get smarter, though, based on this discussion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently unblocked, who was blocked because he was involved in an edit war on the Toyota Prius page. After he was unblocked, he immediately got involved in a lot more reverse and editing actitities on the Toyota Prius page, including removing a whole section I added. I did not reverse back to my editing but seek a dispute solution. Please have a look at 's talk page, see the comment I added at the bottom, and resolve the dispute properly. Thanks. Silverbach (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication you've discussed this in the appropriate place -- Talk:Toyota Prius. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over style is lame

 * Would you act as a third party to look over the article and the latest reversion here and in a second article here. Use your own opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All edit warring is lame. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Labeling it as lame is fun, but not useful. The hard work is in the details. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if you'd stop being one side of an edit war, it wouldn't be an edit war. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not two people edit-warring, there are 3 ANIs, 4 RFCs, and Arbcom. All the standard procedures to settle conflicts. Abdicating editorial control, or appeasement do not make good reference works. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a failure of the arbitration system, not a failure of one person to appease the other. When Arbcom had a chance to settle it, it instead chose to punish a third party, on an unrelated topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
Hey Jpgordon. Is there a link you can toss at me for any discussion of the block on the undertow? Just curious. &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">Syn 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocks like this are often made after private discussion among the arbitrators because of the sensitive nature of the evidence (threats and harassment). Josh - could you tell me if this is an ArbCom block or are you acting as a normal administrator? There's a little bit of paper work that I'll file if you're acting as an arb.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is an arbcom action, please in future remember to write in the block log that it is, to avoid confusion. Thanks.  Al Tally  talk  14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can consider it an arbcom action, as the evidence justifying the block is in the form of private ArbCom communications. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; <font color="#444444">Maggot<font color="#222222">Syn 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What possibly would make you think I would care? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Demon
I found that discussion very relevant to the article. Just curious, why did you remove it? No, I'm not having problems with that, no it's not bothering me, I'm just wondering. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for what essentially is a religious tract. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh that's a very good point. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:64.88.86.3
I thought was a more informative template for the average student, but I guess it's not in this case. Zenmap still shows several open ports as I type. Isn't there an exemption list for this? Spellcast (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I've examined the user's contribs and I don't see any concerns of abuse. Would you be willing to grant exemption at Special:UserRights/Eceresa? Spellcast (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah the policy says exemption from open proxies is only allowed in "highly exceptional circumstances". I'll take this to ANI for greater input. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring?
Hi, actually, I don't think I've ever edit warred with User:Katr66. Do you have some evidence this user is someone else? Katr67 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Oh, you did a checkuser? Why didn't you say so in the first place? Katr67 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Edit war" was the wrong term; sorry to imply you'd done anything improper. More like, an IP vandalized, you fixed it, IP came back as Katr66 and continued to edit on Klamath Falls, Oregon. Come to think of it, the logged-in edits aren't particularly unpleasant. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know I've done nothing improper. But you don't know if that was the same user as the IP. And yes, the account actually made some productive edits. Not to say you should allow a name so close to mine, just pointing out you may have jumped to conclusions. Katr67 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yes I do know if that was the same user as the IP. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I kinda have this weird idea sometimes that people can read my mind. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikigiraffes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.30.245 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Blocked user on my page? Begone. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

hi fellow wikin or wikipedian my name is robert schmidt, i am new to this wonderful site and was reading about you i am also a musician(bass, vocal). i was browsing the site and noticed your edit hm..... forgery. do have any futher comment regarding the protocols. regards10:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Hello Jpgordon,

I was wondering whether you might have a source to remove the fact tag added by Ourben a few days ago. I already looked among my books but couldn't find the one I was hoping to use. It's been a while since I seriously dealt with this topic, so I don't think I can do anything about this.--Caranorn (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's described in more detail in the section below, The Times exposes a forgery, 1921. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, could remove the tag on that basis alone. Will do that then.--Caranorn (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo
Hy there. I noticed that you blocked User:Tigeroo for being a sockpuppet (sockpuppet= a second user account? - but you didn't wrote whose sockpuppet he is). I barely know him and I know nothing of his edits, or of sockpuppeting in general, but I would like to know more about sock puppets in general and of this case in particular. How can I check someone out, how can I prove it, and where should I complain? Flamarande (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just follow the link to WP:SOCK. It will explains most everything. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor is asking for an unblock. Can we get some more info about the sockpuppet accusation? -- Ned Scott 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Tigeroo has a history of sockpuppeteering to game 3RR. Take a look at his block log. The technical CU evidence was strong that he was doing it again, and in combination with the behavioral evidence was convincing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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


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

User:Axl
Hi Jpg - One of your range blocks caught Uer:Axl. It seems it's been giving him problems for a while. I've granted him IPblockexempt for the time being, but could you look at the threads on his talk page (generally titled "blocked") and let me know if there's any concerns about Axl himself? I've always been under the impression he's a good user, hence why I granted the IP block exemption, but you're the man with CU so you're probably more educated than I am.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No concerns I can recall. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Perhaps the Homeopathy case can be closed now - the two remedies relating to SAB are the only ones that do not pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you (or to inform you, in case you didn't know) that one vote has been submitted in support of this case finally being closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hallelujah! Jehochman Talk 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Hello. Are you by chance a follower of Peter Popoff? Feel free to write me if you wish. Thank you. JimmyWuzHere (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ^ He's asking for an unblock review, but I gather he was blocked based on a CU? See User_talk:JimmyWuzHere. –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jpgordon, please remember to use an informative block summary when you block users, especially for sockpuppetry. I review a lot of unblock requests, and sockpuppetry blocks especially lead to many requests that are basically impossible to review without a block reason.  Mango juice talk 13:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Abusing multiple accounts" is a block reason. Often we have no idea who the sockmaster might be, and it doesn't really matter. I don't block people for sockpuppetry without checkuser evidence. This one was a cluster including:
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;
 * cheers, –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Abusing multiple accounts" is an uninformative reason: it gives the reviewer nowhere to start to confirm it. Sometimes such blocks can be understood if an RFCU links to the user's talk page, but blocks like this reveal absolutely no information.  I realize it can be tricky to identify the puppet master, and pointless, because if one person is operating many accounts, it doesn't really matter which one we point to as the "main" account.  However, pointing to at least one other account would make a big difference to those of us who review these blocks... even knowing you have checkuser evidence.  I want to process these unblock requests rapidly and diligently, but the lack of information in your block summaries prevents me from doing so in many cases.  And those cases cause work for many other admins, since they remain on the short list of users requesting unblocks.  Mango juice talk 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'll consult with the blocking admin" suffices in those cases; clearing RFU isn't a contest (if it were, I'd be near the top of the list), and if I've blocked someone for abusing multiple accounts, the chance of their being unblocked is quite low. I can think of two false hits on my part, both cases being the sole good user on an IP full of abusers, since I started doing checkuser duty. And both of those cases were patient and understanding and didn't mind the little bit of extra time it took for me to study the case, examine the editing histories, and conclude I'd been wrong. But I'll just say "unknown master" when the master is unknown. Or I'll lie and say the master is unknown if I feel like denying some wanker the benefit of being noticed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I take from all this is that if you see a block by jpgordon with the stock reason "Abusing multiple accounts" you can safely decline the unblock request with the reason "Compelling checkuser evidence". (Unless there is a preponderance of good faith edits from the user, in which it may be a rare exception as noted above) –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;
 * cheers, –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Abusing multiple accounts" is an uninformative reason: it gives the reviewer nowhere to start to confirm it. Sometimes such blocks can be understood if an RFCU links to the user's talk page, but blocks like this reveal absolutely no information.  I realize it can be tricky to identify the puppet master, and pointless, because if one person is operating many accounts, it doesn't really matter which one we point to as the "main" account.  However, pointing to at least one other account would make a big difference to those of us who review these blocks... even knowing you have checkuser evidence.  I want to process these unblock requests rapidly and diligently, but the lack of information in your block summaries prevents me from doing so in many cases.  And those cases cause work for many other admins, since they remain on the short list of users requesting unblocks.  Mango juice talk 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'll consult with the blocking admin" suffices in those cases; clearing RFU isn't a contest (if it were, I'd be near the top of the list), and if I've blocked someone for abusing multiple accounts, the chance of their being unblocked is quite low. I can think of two false hits on my part, both cases being the sole good user on an IP full of abusers, since I started doing checkuser duty. And both of those cases were patient and understanding and didn't mind the little bit of extra time it took for me to study the case, examine the editing histories, and conclude I'd been wrong. But I'll just say "unknown master" when the master is unknown. Or I'll lie and say the master is unknown if I feel like denying some wanker the benefit of being noticed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I take from all this is that if you see a block by jpgordon with the stock reason "Abusing multiple accounts" you can safely decline the unblock request with the reason "Compelling checkuser evidence". (Unless there is a preponderance of good faith edits from the user, in which it may be a rare exception as noted above) –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;
 * cheers, –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Abusing multiple accounts" is an uninformative reason: it gives the reviewer nowhere to start to confirm it. Sometimes such blocks can be understood if an RFCU links to the user's talk page, but blocks like this reveal absolutely no information.  I realize it can be tricky to identify the puppet master, and pointless, because if one person is operating many accounts, it doesn't really matter which one we point to as the "main" account.  However, pointing to at least one other account would make a big difference to those of us who review these blocks... even knowing you have checkuser evidence.  I want to process these unblock requests rapidly and diligently, but the lack of information in your block summaries prevents me from doing so in many cases.  And those cases cause work for many other admins, since they remain on the short list of users requesting unblocks.  Mango juice talk 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'll consult with the blocking admin" suffices in those cases; clearing RFU isn't a contest (if it were, I'd be near the top of the list), and if I've blocked someone for abusing multiple accounts, the chance of their being unblocked is quite low. I can think of two false hits on my part, both cases being the sole good user on an IP full of abusers, since I started doing checkuser duty. And both of those cases were patient and understanding and didn't mind the little bit of extra time it took for me to study the case, examine the editing histories, and conclude I'd been wrong. But I'll just say "unknown master" when the master is unknown. Or I'll lie and say the master is unknown if I feel like denying some wanker the benefit of being noticed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I take from all this is that if you see a block by jpgordon with the stock reason "Abusing multiple accounts" you can safely decline the unblock request with the reason "Compelling checkuser evidence". (Unless there is a preponderance of good faith edits from the user, in which it may be a rare exception as noted above) –<font face="Verdana"> xeno cidic ( talk ) 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

My final question would be to ask how your position does not further aggravate a Chilling effect (term). Bdell555 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to have policy discussions on my user talk page. There are better, more visible venues if you wish to have this conversation. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * like where?Bdell555 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping in for Josh here, I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log or Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement or Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as better forums.  MBisanz  talk 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to me, however, that this is the place closest to the point of origin of these "special enforcement" measures where one might ask a creator/supporter of the measures about the origin of the measures, since it is unclear whether Jpgordan is going to address my questions on any of the pages you mention, MBisanz.Bdell555 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'll add that I believe it was who composed the remedy in question, that Josh later supported, and that in general, Arbcom members are normal volunteer editors like all of us, so if they choose not to engage in further discussion, that is their option, now you could file a Requests for arbitration/Request template for all other requests which would force them to address and elaborate on the issue, but I think Kirill has expounded on it at length at his talk page and/or some of the other pages I linked to.  MBisanz  talk 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The creation of this page will hopefully address the questions that various users have raised..Bdell555 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret trials
I must say I'm deeply disappointed that you'd be party to crap like that. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - this refers to the Orangemarlin case (evidence). FT2 (Talk 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


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


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

leaves us all confused. Please help to clarify. Is FT2 correct or is KL correct or is there some as-yet-unexdplained magic which allows them both to be correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Massive miscommunication, basically. I'm trying not to exacerbate it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Community dynamics suggest that the Orangemarlin case should get maximum priority. It would also be a good idea to post some kind of update every 3-6 hours, if only "we're still talking". That this has not happened to date causes problems by itself. We can't hold 'em off forever. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should create a "we're still talking" bot. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should. Or emit white smoke every few hours, or something. I hope you're taking this seriously, because all kidding aside, this episode did you all no favours, and the sooner you resolve it, the better... I'm sure you know that but it bears repeating just the same. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we're taking it seriously. Sheesh. If we weren't taking it seriously, any of a number of us could have fixed it with a one-liner long ago. But as I said, I'm trying not to exacerbate the problem, especially not by shooting from the hip. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a big waste of time to go around to every active arbitrator and exhort them, then. So be it. But I felt it was needful and would rather have wasted the time than not have said it. But I do think some arbitrators have been somewhat flippant which does lead to a sense among some that maybe it wasn't being taken seriously. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People express themselves in varying ways, especially while under stress. That's a basic fact of life; some people are fond of comic relief, others are fond of long drawn-out statements, others go silent, others go rational. "He said something funny; that means he's not taking the situation seriously" reflects a poor understanding of human nature, and a rather oppressive one at that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree.... saying funny things or going quiet gives the appearance that one is not taking things seriously, whether one is or not. And appearances matter. That impression was fairly rampant among many, I think, till a few hours ago. But it's water under the dam now. More importantly I wanted to reiterate that I thought your apology about this matter was a very helpful and thoughtful thing, and express my thanks for it. Best. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I believe that if there is a difference of opinion on this issue, changing WP:RS to support your view would allow for community input into your view of WP:RS. As it stands now, the information I've given above indicates that the source satisfies WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that my position (which has been consistently upheld) is that fruits of a poisonous tree are poisonous; that a site dedicated to perpetuating falsehood is by definition unreliable, and that any information gleaned from such a site is usable solely in articles about that site. Holocaust denial sites as a class are unusable as sources. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Upheld"? By who?  The only upholder that matters here is WP:RS and other collaboratively determined policies.  Neither you nor I make policy unilaterally.  I thus ask, again, where in WP:RS is your position supported?  Even if this content were a "fruit", your reasoning would be a classic example of the Poisoning_the_well fallacy.  But it isn't a "fruit" in the first place because none of my (or the cited source's) claims follow from any assumptions about the Holocaust.  If there is an entire "class" of sources that are "unusuable", I again challenge you to put that into the WP:RS for the whole community to discuss (and also create a  section titled "indisputable facts which disprove sources instead of the other way around" with "Holocaust" as entry #1).  If everything from any given website is of the same level of reliability, then if the New York Times has a comment section and some crank denies the Holocaust, a citation of that crank's comment has all the credibility, or lack thereof, of the New York Times.  Tell me again that you truly believe that's how WP:RS works.Bdell555 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I started this topic here because I thought it could be resolved quickly. Evidently that won't be the case.  I'm going to accordingly try to raise the issue on WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, WP:RS's Talk page doesn't seem right because it will seems I'm responding to a user instead of the policy. I don't know where I'm supposed to go if you don't want to discuss policy here so I'll try and take this to Holocaust Denial's Talk page, which is not any kind of suggestion that I believe Holocaust Denial is nearly as relevant to this particular issue as you claim.Bdell555 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been upheld by the community every time the issue of "can we link to holocaust denial sites" has arisen. If you wish to go through the exercise again, have fun, but I'd be surprised if you get much support. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why isn't there a prohbition in WP:RS then?Bdell555 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject suffices. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the whole section, where you will see  "... unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources". That is absolutely and unequivocally the case here, as the material I'm citing has been published in full by the United States Government Printing Office.  To ignore this "unless" clause is to simply ignore WP:RS.  And this assumes that this particular section of WP:RS applies at all, as I explained on the other page.Bdell555 (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not going to continue discussing this with you; I don't have anything new to add to our conversation of a year or so ago. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see the point of a revert war. How about arbitration?Bdell555 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitration doesn't determine content issues. If you can get consensus for your position, great; I'm just going to sit back and watch other people deal with it now. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have consensus support in the form of a crystal clear permissive WP:RS sentence. Furthermore, the scope to which you which to apply your ban is clearly incompatible with other WP:RS sentences since it would make them superfluous and nonsensical.   If you would like to change that consensus, great.  Go to the policy and change it.  In the mean time, your apparent decision here that you will revert without reference to the consensus and without engaging in discussion IS something that can be dealt with by arbitration.  I accordingly repeat my request that this be arbitrated since that is preferable to edit warring.Bdell555 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So go file a request at WP:RFARB. I'll certainly recuse from it; perhaps you can get the case accepted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decorum
At a time when community trust in ArbCom is being questioned (rightly or wrongly) and uncivil behavior is rampant on Wiki, decorum from ArbCom members on ArbCom and AN pages would probably be helpful in advancing causes. For those of us who don't routinely drop the F-bomb, it's surprising to see it here. Does using the F-word in delicate discussions advance the issues that are being addressed? Decorum is expected on ArbCom pages; I believe it is also to be expected by ArbCom members on AN pages. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. and Yeek. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Still confused
While I appreciate your candor too, I remain somewhat confused. Could you please clarify whether what FT2 initially posted "on behalf of ArbCom" was a valid official arbcom decision and upon review arbcom decided to retract it or what FT2 posted was his own concoction presented as an arbcom decision while in fact there was none? Did ArbCom indeed hear the secret case entirely offpsite, came up with this decision and later decided to retract it due to the events that unraveled or was that not a valid case to begin with and just FT2's musings?

The new statement posted "on behalf of ArbCom", this time by CM, states that the decision is now "vacated." I take from it that if there was something to "vacate" then there indeed was a initially a valid decision on the secretly tried case where the arbcom acted as an activist agent rather than a judicial body, the arbcom member acted as a detective, prosecutor and a judge (did not recuse) all at once, the accused editor was not notified and the arbcom produced this decision (now vacated.) Am I correct to assume that this was the case? --Irpen 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In each paragraph, neither side of the disjunction properly characterizes the situations, so, no, no, and no, and no. That might be one too many "no"s, but you get the point. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Call me dumb, but I don't. Or more precisely I do get the point that nothing but evasion has come out so far (and not just from you. Alsom these questions were asked by many.) It seems to me that you decided to post here after my post at WT:RFARB since you were ignoring my message for more than a day while being active on other wikimatters and posted at once after my WT:RFARB post. Even if this is a mere coincidence, so be it. If no answer is all you are willing to give now, nothing can be done about that. I still hope a fully transparent and forthcoming clarification will come at some not so distant point. --Irpen 06:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
... for this, very much. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?
The multiple accounts of that chibi-anime girl are suspicious, I agree. But perhaps her brother could have been on the computer for long spaces of time at multiple intervals, having created several vandalism-dedicated accounts on previous occasions, and using them all at once to make numerous disruptive edits in a short space of time. The usernames do seem rather immature. ISmellDonuts (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, it looked more like he was getting onto the computer when she was away for it for a few minutes. I'm giving benefit of the doubt here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My talk
Dunno if you saw it, but I dropped a link on my talk page regarding a proposed text for RfAr/OM. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just give me a ping when you think it's been long enough, and I'll remove it, add the text to RfAr/OM (if you don't - I'd prefer it if you could, to be frank, so I hope you're OK with doing so), and post a notification at AN. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)
I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked
I'm quite happy to have been unblocked from Wikipedia. I understand you being suspicious because obviously it would seem strange that there would be so many accounts some with very... odd names... coming from my IP address. I'm not sure wether you will believe me or not but I'll tell you anyway: I'd never purposely mess up any pages on Wikipedia. ♥<font color="#000000">Tory~ ♥<font color="#FF55A3">Amulet ♥<font color="#FFA6C9">Heart ♥ 17:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - your mentor/mentee relationship
I don't know what scope your mentoring extends to for your mentee User:Orangemarlin, and it's effect on User:Odd nature (if at all). In any case, as we've indicated on prior occasions, we really don't want to deal with this-sort-of-thing-relating-to-them. Can you please deal with it? Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm kind of confused as to where I'm to blame here? I didn't bait Dragon569, talk to him, or anything, then out of the blue, he starts a series of personal attacks.  Instead of escalating, I requested assistance.  Please explain where I went wrong, or is everything I do wrong?  I'd like to know.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is Orangemarlin's doing in any way. There seems to be a misconception that when an editor is on some sort of civility parole, mentorship, or whatever, that they are fair game for every snarky nastymouth to bait. But it is both incivil and bullying to attack someone who you know has their hands tied behind their back. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to suggest any of that, nor do I think I did. There's also no misconception either, at least among those of us who regularly deal with or help resolve disputes where a party engages in certain kinds of problematic conduct.
 * As repeatedly and explicitly stated (with several reasons cited each time) to the Committee, we're not willing to deal with complaints (in any way) relating to those certain users anymore. Ordinarily, we'd change our minds once the message has sunk in for the involved user(s) like-here, but there were other circumstances here:
 * The problematic conduct was long-term (and failed to be dealt with effectively, to date).
 * The problematic conduct concerned several users; the Committee failed to address them in their recent decisions, except Orangemarlin obviously. The vacated decision did at least address Odd Nature's conduct at the time too.
 * To date, the misconduct of involved users have become the problems for the third party uninvolved users. (Eg; a few of us try to resolve it at a few places like ani, wqa, etc. then the unseemly conduct recommences, then we are subject to a bogus RFC, then we have to find an admin who has the time to look and delete, then they make a request on the arb's page to have it undeleted, then we have to go and respond there again...etc. etc. etc.)
 * We also feel the cases should not have been rejected for the above reasons - especially as it involves multiple users. But the treatment of Orangemarlin has certainly suffered at both extremes - at opposite ends of the spectrum.
 * Finally, Orangemarlins statement (link given above) was only made after the big mess, and not at any time during earlier stages of dispute resolution. Meanwhile, Odd nature has not changed.


 * I'd personally be more willing to deal with this incident on WQA myself, if there's a clear demonstration (rather than statement) that y'all going in the direction of reform for the long run - not just with Orangemarlin either. Odd nature is not helping, again.
 * In any case, you've signalled your willingness to mentor and deal with any incidents relating to Orangemarlin momentarily, if not for a while (which is also why the recent case was rejected). Due to this fact, and in the absence of anything being done about the other user, we're passing this incident to you and washing our hands of it for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "We"? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means the various users who are regulars at WQA... even though in theory anyone can respond, there are stretches where, in practice, if one of 2-4 regular users doesn't respond, an alert is just going to sit there indefinitely.
 * I haven't examined the recent WQA in detail, but I tend to agree with Ncmvocalist that once user RfCs and ArbComs have taken place regarding a topic (such as has been the case with Intelligent design), then at that point WQA really does not have a good track record in dealing with disputes surrounding those topics.
 * In this case, since it's such a high profile topic, more people are showing up and trying to mediate than just the 2-3 regulars we have now, so that's good. However, I still agree with Ncm's basic sentiment, that WP:WQA is unlikely to go anywhere productive. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oui, merci. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Those frustrations aside, you may also want to see what became of that WQA, and the gaming of the system against Kelly by a couple of users there, even though Kelly was bold enough to deal with the complaint. It justifies my assertion that there are other users (directly involved) who are engaging in the same cycle of problematic conduct, unlike what this tries to suggest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MyNameIsKyle block
I just reviewed this editors contributions, and I don't see the vandalism you blocked him for. I do see a lot of problems with the formatting on the edits, but nothing that sticks out as vandalism. Would you consider unblocking? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't bother me if someone else does. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I looked at the history of the category "Caesar's legions" and found out that this was the recent creation of a single user. I checked his contributions and discovered that he was also the one who sorted the legions in the new category (no big surprise, and honest, if too-eager work). However I'm simply unable to understand what steps I have to follow to propose the deletion (obliteration) of the category. I read some of the pages but to be honest I was unable to make head or tails with them. Could you help me? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CFD should get you started. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone (I'm guessing that it was you; in the case that it wasn't you thanks anyway) deleted the category already. Everything seems to be fine now. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me, but you're welcome! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hy there (yet again). I don't know the proper steps or place to report this (and I don't have any hard evidence, just a huge number of suspicious edits). We have a heated discussion at the talkpage of Roman Empire and I find it somewhat strange that a couple of brand new users just coming out of the blue are suddenly are using the same arguments, to defend the same POV, all at the same time, and without any prior edits anywhere else. I don't know if this is lawful, unlawful, against Wiki policy or not, but could you (or somebody allowed to do so) check out User:Goremite, User:Molot Gorla, User:Cody7777777, and User:193.227.242.2 (or show me where I could and should report this) ? I honestly believe that some of these accounts are sock puppets (seriously, I think that all these accounts are sockpuppets of yet another cautious user). If my request is considered abusive please tell me so. I advise to check out the talkpage of the article the edits and accounts of everybody (especially my account). In other words: trust no one, especially users with nice words (no one can carry gifts in Wikipedia :). Flamarande (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SSP would be the place. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you (could you take a look if I'm presenting the case in the proper form?). Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I presented the case, but I'm not sure if I have done it correctly. Flamarande (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Holocaust denial‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What a giggle. It appears we were adding the same cite at the same time. It took me a long time to figure our what had happened in the edit conflict.--Cberlet (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! I was assuming you posted it on the talk page so someone other than yourself would post the cite to your publication. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. If you can, take a stab at it (I'll help fix it afterwards if you wish, although leads aren't my strong point either!) or let me know when somebody else has expanded it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bologna Sandwiches
I wanted to discuss some of the problems you had with the Bologna Sandwich article.

First I wanted to thank you for calling me on the condiments: mayo and mustard are certainly not put on all bologna sandwiches, just mine! I knew I was asking for it when I wrote that. They are common though, I think.

OK, about the more serious concerns. I think the article should exist because the sandwich is very common and therefore relevant. Six million bologna sandwiches made with Oscar Meyer bologna are eaten every day. And, of course, there are other brands that must make up millions more. I'm sure all those prisoners don't get Oscar Meyer bologna! Even though the topic is very mundane, by sheer numbers the sandwich is an aspect of many people's daily lives. Information should be presented on the topic from economic, culinary, and health perspectives. I began to address those perspectives in the article.

As for the reference on the cancer study, I have clarified that the reference is for all luncheon meats. They all have similiar ingredients, so I think the researchers were justified in considering them in the aggregate. I hope that resolves your concerns.

My second reference was meant only for the last sentence of the paragraph, and in all fairness I think that's pretty clear. Judging by the comment you left, I think your "citation needed" really belongs after the first sentence about the popularity and famousness of Oscar Meyer Bologna. However, I think the truth of the sentence is self-evident to anyone from the U.S.. It seems as appropriate as putting a "citation needed" on a sentence in an article on basketball that says it is a game played on a court with a ball.

So could you please adjust/remove your citation needed tags, or let me know why you think they still belong? Thanks! Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, it was always white bread, baloney, and mayo...which had to be Hellman's/Best Foods. Mustard would have been a sacrilege, and possibly have led to a temper tantrum; I had not much equanimity as a child. "Self-evident to anyone in the USA" isn't useful as a source. It's certainly not self-evident to me that Oscar Meyer Bologna is the most famous and best selling brand. Besides that, Wikipedia is international, and a huge number of our readers will never have encountered American brands and American advertising, and they deserve the benefit of verifiability as much as anyone. If the topic is so mundane, Wikipedia won't be the first place it's written about, and there will be reliable sources somewhere...I think you can get it up to the quality of Peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a bit of work. (Don't you love the way bologna curls up when it's fried?) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me??? White bread????  Mayo????  Bologna?????  Don't tell me you eat your pastrami with white bread and mayo???????  I now have lost all respect for you.  And I'm nauseous.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey! I'm talking past tense here. Way past tense. I think it was 5th grade or so when I transitioned from baloney sandwiches to canned chili as my meal of choice. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not had a fried baloney sandwich, though I will have to try it, if just once. I try to eat a healthy diet, so I don't eat bologna regularly anymore.  But I did like them as a kid.  OK.  So I changed "the best selling and most popular brand" to "a best selling and popular brand".  I have also removed the citation needed tags.  I'll continue trying to make the article worthy of a separate article. OK?  Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. But you still have to back up things like "best selling" with data; and if there's unsourced information in the article, the tags will go right back. That's how all Wikipedia articles are supposed to work. (I don't think I've had any bologna anything in 40 years.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Some Help
I emailed Wikimedia about some Oversight, but it isn't deleted. Can you permanently remove this please? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was doing it just as you wrote. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops. Thanks a LOT! -- VegitaU (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I need help again -- VegitaU (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant
The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors". Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room". I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant" before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Vandalism
Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Notifying ArbCom of two emergency desysoppings
Hey there. As per this discussion at AN, we thought the ArbCom should be notified that and  were both emergency desysopped as they have both been inactive for years, and an unknown user demonstrated that their passwords were easily guessable. I'm sure this is uncontroversial and probably does not need ArbCom's approval, but we thought the Committee should know anyway. Thanks! --14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront neutrality dispute
Yo Jpgordon, I am trying to have the npov dispute on the Stormfront article resolved, and I would appreciate it if you would care to weigh in here. Sincerely, Skomorokh  14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology
I would like to apologise for incorrectly voting on the Arcom re CSCWEM. I thought that as I has made a statement under the Any other user, that I was also entitled to vote. I was incorrect in this assumption, and will read the ARBCOM guidelines before making any other edits in ths area. Thanks for swiftly clearing up my cockup. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I kinda figured it was like that. Thanks for understanding. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb
Your encouraging John to resign sends a disastrous message. Read more about it here. Repent and reform.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he had spent even a half of a second attempting to maintain some sort of order on the arbitration pages, the issue never would have come up at all. He was allowing unending attacks on one contributor, and then when that contributor says a dirty word, blocks him. This struck me as lacking appropriate impartiality (a necessity for an arbcom clerk), and I said so. Clerks may not take sides in arbitrations; to me, it seemed like he was doing so. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, order would only be restored to those pages if Tony wasn't on them. I have no quarrel with his opinions, but I feel his method of argumentation is extremely disruptive. I understand that I am not alone in holding this opinion. Your assumption that blocking TS necessarily implies a bias is deeply, deeply flawed. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one agree with Relata refero's well-put statement, Josh. Entirely. I'll add that if somebody—anybody—arbitrator or clerk—had rescued the Inshaneee workshop from Tony's outrageous disruption, User:Bunchofgrapes wouldn't have become so disillusioned that he quit in disgust. (See Bunch and myself tearing our hair out here. See the committee's refusal to act here) That was a sad day for the project, the day Bunch left. :-( Bishonen | talk 09:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Agree with Relato. JPGordon: You just lost ArbCom the services of their best clerk, whether you realize it or not. What a shame. - Epousesquecido (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Josh, "allowing unending attacks to happen" - am I some sort of enabler now? You have blinkers on (and maybe a tin foil hat) if you think I had any serious bias in this case, and I hate to break it to you mate, I would have recused myself from clerking this case if I was in any way involved.  I have morals, and no desire to barrack and blow the whistle at the same time.  It looks silly. I have not taken a side in this case, and it is pure fantasy to think that I would have a side to take.  The reality is that I am probably one of the least involved enWP admins, because this is not my home wiki despite what the software thinks, I spend at least 75% of my "wiki" efforts on Wikisource, and that is where my heart is.  Did you even know that?  I have taken a significant real world hit, in the way of opportunity cost, in order to build Wikisource.  Did you know that?  This might seem unrelated to you, but anyone who has knows me in the least, or has kept an eye on my talk page, would know where my heart lies.  Obviously you dont, and that is really the only conceivable way you could accuse me of doing a political block.  And if you did know that you would have ignited this little mess, and surely would have thought twice before continuing this madness like you have above, and we wouldnt be in this position now.  Prior to this little mess, I've not given a hoot about the power struggles here; I simply have bigger or better fish to fry, or more important work to be done, if you will.  I had hoped you lot had a handle on it here, and clerking was my way of turning my lack of involvement here into a benefit. This might come as a surprise to you, but when I removed Tony from the list of parties during our last little tiff, I had absolutely no idea of his opinion in the case.  It is only by his own evidence and workshopping that I have become aware of why he thought he could/should/whatever add his name to the list of parties for the case.  Being truely uninvolved has meant that I am also blissfully ignorant of power structure.  But that is not to say I am unaware of complex nature of "wiki" community building; I dare say I know at least as much about it as you do.  Again, you would know this if you knew me.  If anything, it was my lack of "involvement" and "appropriate partiality" that has failed me in the clerking of the case. Getting back to the case at hand, I expect arbcom members to shoot straight, and provide diffs like they expect everyone else to.  Please point out these unending attacks that I allowed to happen.  Then also point out where anybody has faulted my clerking of that case.  As far as I can recall, the only time you said anything was a matter completely unrelated to the meat of the case.  you saw something you didn't like, you should have done or said something about it.  Privately would have done the trick if that was necessary, but, you have never emailed me. If you had bothered to talk to me privately about this, or replied to my email about the last little mixup, I would be emailing you right now.  I gave you space and time to talk to me directly, de-escalate, save face, whatever.  Instead you have continued to pursue this nasty line of thought.  For your own sake, stop it, or I will get in and start helping you dig. I expect diffs, or a bloody moving apology.  Or an block for insubordination.  At this point, I dont much mind which.  Selah. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Josh, if your analysis is that Tony was not trolling and that he was an innocent victim, then you are being willfully ignorant and should recuse yourself. From the very beginning, when he presented an attack essay with zero diffs as "evidence" and then wikilawyered on why his opinion piece belongs on the evidence page          and accused Cla68 of doing what he himself was doing, Tony's presence has been to distract and create drama, rather than offer helpful suggestions.  If Jayvdb made a mistake, it was only that he assumed good faith for far too long rather than dealing with Tony's disruption early.  Only by either not having read the discussion pages at all or by interjecting your own opinions into them can anyone come to a conclusion that Tony has not been a disruption.  Further, he is under a civility sanction while other parties to the discussion are not, so even if, as you claim, Tony was attacked and then poor innocent Tony was victimized into calling every editor who posts on Wikipedia Review an impolite name, he and he alone violated his civility sanction. --B (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Josh, add my name to those above who simply can't comprehend your priorities. When Jayvdb removed Tony as a party, he made an extremely reasonable post saying why he thought he had taken a reasonable action and to correct him if he was mistaken.  Nobody ever corrected him, but you took great umbrage that he dared to clerk a case.  All you had to do was communicate with him.  Frankly, even then, you treated him like your peon.  That's not how I want to see Arbitrators treat the clerks.  I also don't understand what ArbCom's expectation was here?  That by ignoring the case while members of the community were nearly in tears of frustration that you would somehow placate everyone?  This only happened because you, the ArbCom, willfully ignored this case for so long.  Further, why are you willfully ignoring that Tony had avoided ArbCom sanction only with a pledge to be civil that he subsequently voided?  Josh, I have never posted on Wikipedia Review, I have no interest in this site, I am not a partisan here, and if anything, I wish people would just slowly move away from that dead horse.  But you tell me that ArbCom's actual intent was that Tony could escape any sort of sanction and go about advocating treating other editors like shit if they ever post there!  Tony gamed the ArbCom!  He played you all for suckers!  And you think the problem is with your hardest working clerk... --JayHenry (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)