User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives:

/Archive 1

using diffs

FYI regarding the diffs I am required to use as evidence,I'd just like to mention that I have used diffs for most of the evidence I have posted. Other evidence which I am posting or will post not using diffs are for the reason that the specific peice of evidence is from an archieved page and a history cannot be checked since it's not archived.

I hope that's okay with you guys.Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

A question

Hi Jpgordon, I wonder if you could advise me on this. Will it be worth my while to respond to the "evidences" of my "POV pushing", "Vandalism", "Personal attacks", etc at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Evidence? I feel I can do more productive things during the time I spend on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really up to you. You could, but you could also wait until proposed findings of fact show up on the Workshop page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never posted that comment on Hkelkar's talkpage

FYI I am extremely upset at the false "evidence" RA is posting against me.I never posted that comment in Urdu on Hkelkar's talkpage.Please check the history of that page.

And another thing that I "attacked" muhajirs is so wrong.I AM PART Muhajir from my father's side.My father is Muhajir born in India of Azeri ancestry from his mother's side. Many Muhajirs despise this Muhajir nationalistic belif that cooked up by the MQM that Muhajirs are the only "educated" people in Pakistan.Does that mean they become anti-Muhajir?No.

I'm sorry but it cannot allowed as evidence.Those are simply unproven assersions which RA usually posts.--Nadirali نادرالی

Yes, I am in error about that Urdu comment on user talk:Hkelkar. The comment was actually made by MirzaGhalib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and tagged {{unsigned}} by user:Bakasuprman. I should have double-checked this - I apologize. As for the anti-Muhajir comments, the diffs are perfectly clear and Nadirali is responsible for it. Rama's arrow 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion about this case on the various arbitration evidence and talk pages. Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser case concering me

Thank you for your work doing this. You are doing well in your role as checkuser. I think the users were not assuming good faith about me. Thanks, --sunstar net^talk 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SunStar Net

Thanks for running the check on SunStar Net. I figured it'd be hard to pull information on the other users since they'd probably gone stale at that point. Do you think it might be worth going for a comparison investigation of their contributions through WP:SSP, ANI, or some other means? Metros232 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1qx relations (there are several, aside from the address) is the source of the issue, actually. Thanks for running the check! --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

I wanted to report this at WP:ANI, but that page is semi-protected. The notice on that page said contact an amdin. I picked you because I've seen your name before, though I don't know you. Here's the problem: User:Nightstallion keeps reverting me everytime I delete the inaccurate state map graphic from that article. The chart in the article makes clear that 8 states have rejected this initiative, but the inaccurate map shows that only 2 have. There have other problems with this map as well. Nightstallion appears to be a POV warrior, totally focused on pushing a point. Take a look at the page history and talk page. NS makes no explaination for his continued reverts. Please help. 64.74.153.189 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fan at simple.wikipedia

Hello, Jpgordon! It seems that you have a few fans at simple.wikipedia. Just thought that you should know. Cheers, PTO 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Redlinks

You said it better than I could. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal RFC

Its been nearly a month since posting an RFC to determine whether or not we include the theory that the Taj used to be a Hindu temple. How and by whom are RFCs usually closed? I started drafting a closing section here and started to tally up the for and against positions to get some idea of where the consensus might be. I stopped when it occured to me that it was starting to look like I was presenting the results of a debate as a poll. The debate suggests a majority are in favour of removal altogether, some of these and others are in favour of a very limited inclusion and a small minority would like a fuller inclusion. I'm considered contacting the participants and asking them to comment on specific limitation proposals I made towards the end of the RFC. Do you have any advice or would you be willing to sum up the RFC and close it? cheers. --Joopercoopers 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you're working this one through on the talk page pretty well; you don't need really to "close" the rfc -- someone eventually will decide that it's time to age the listing off the RFC page. Otherwise, just move on. Undue weight should give a clear enough guideline on the bizarre point of view (which reminds me in its loonyness of Nazi racial theories.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I posted to you last night and then we've been thrashing out a compromise today - looks like I'm in the chair to rewrite the section. My worry is there are only 3 participants on the talk page at the moment and I think we generally agree to some form of limited inclusion - if we put this in the article, can it be said we are doing it because consensus been reached? If the RFC were a poll the claims would be removed entirely if we just needed a majority to vote remove. I'm still a little hazy on the WP:CONSENSUS, I brought the RFC in the hope of bottoming out the edit warring that had been going on about these theories - is the conclusion (because there wasn't a unanimous consensus) that no consensus has been reached and so we have to leave things as they are??????? --Joopercoopers 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Consensus isn't unanimity; it's an obvious weight of opinion, and I think you have that. But: isn't the Taj Mahal the centerpiece of Mr Oak's fantasies? If so, you can dispose of it with one sentence and a wikilink: "The Taj Mahal is given as a prime example of RN Oak's unorthodox and largely dismissed theories of Vedic influence". Or something like that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, many thanks --Joopercoopers 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letitsnow22113 checkuser

Thanks, I definitely don't want to drag in legit users with real edits. I blocked the four I listed. Unless any of the other accounts had some variation on the above username I'd guess they are not related and at this point I'll just keep an eye out for usernames along those lines.--Isotope23 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good call. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is closed?

G'day,

If the me-Mystar arbitration is closed, does that mean it has officially taken effect? Could you let Mystar know so he leaves the Terry Goodkind page alone? It's petty but it's wearing down my teeth. WLU 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the case has been posted for closing on the arbitration clerks' noticeboard. A clerk will formally close out the case and notify the parties before the end of the day today. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. WLU 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Verdict (talk · contribs) is back today with Marcus roy (talk · contribs). If he follows previous behaviour, we'll probably see another couple of abusive socks today. This is in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. --Yamla 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now Damon1988 (talk · contribs). --Yamla 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Coolioso (talk · contribs). --Yamla 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring RFCU business to WP:RFCU. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(And please note this from WP:RFCU: In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recent checkuser on Verdict. Much appreciated. --Yamla 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some time...

...could you provide some insight at Talk:Prem_Rawat#RFC_Summary? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. --Spalberings 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, right. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say, that's a barrel of laughs. Maybe they could identify the offending diff? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lee Nysted

As the Checkuser who rooted out this editor's hosiery drawer, would you be able to go to his talk page and explain a) how (in a general sense, of course) the checkuser result was determined, and b) that it's probably not a good idea for him to be going around removing sock tags from the pages of the confirmed puppets, telling them to identify themselves, and declaring on his user page, in his edit summaries, and on the socks' pages that he's going to investigate the Checkuser (or, as he refers to it, Checkloser) system? Just thought someone might want to point out this guy's actions since he was unblocked in good faith. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I try to keep my checkuser and my other admin/arbitration roles distinct. You'll want to get someone else to gently explain to this editor how it works. I'd say it's up to the unblocking admin to take responsibility here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right - just thought it would be best that, since he's claiming there's a problem with checkuser resulting in all these "erroneous" blocks, I'd check with you first. I'll check with Yamla. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your ArbCom Nom and Jesse Jackson

JP, I was preparing to archive my talk page and noticed this comment you left there:

Hm. I just re-read Talk:Jesse Jackson to remind myself of the disagreement we were involved in. I'm sorry you concluded that my motivations there were political; I'd have done the same thing if it had been (say) Rick Santorum. I thought we had had a good strong discussion of the quote in question as regards Wikipedia policy and encyclopedia writing, not politics -- my stance was, basically, "he says a lot of stupid stuff; what's so special about this incoherent one?" Otherwise, we've been doing about the same thing on that article: defending it from general vandalism. However, if you perceive I've been acting politically there, you're probably not alone; can you suggest how I might proceed in the future to diminish the appearance of political behavior? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not responding sooner, somehow I missed your post back then. I just re-read the whole talk page at Jesse Jackson and I have come to believe your assessment of our discussion is accurate (I think I was confusing you with another editor I disagreed with who would not intelligently discuss the issue). For what it's worth, in light of this, my comments on your ArbCom nomination were undeservedly harsh and I would change them if I could find the link to do so. The fact that we (most likely) disagree politically on some issues would not prevent me from supporting you. I hope you succeded and I hope there are no hard feelings.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at this

Even though I don't see how you could decline to look into my allegations, and say that "The system appears to be working", in light of the fact that I have not violated any identifiable policy (just stubbornly insisted that I have a right to voice my opinion), I will not second-guess your judgement here.

However, since your last post, I have noticed that no actual WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, only a minority of the votes went against me -and a minority is NOT a "consensus." Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by User:JzG here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.

In conclusion, the fact I have not actually done anything against the policy (did not edit war, did not vandalize, usually did not post excessive long posts, accepted consensus even when it was against me, etc.), if no consensus exists against me (not even a slim majority, mind you), this is the sort of thing that would prompt an email to Jimbo: Isn't it against policy (and also quite wrong) to pretend a consensus exists when it, in fact, doesn't?

Besides, many of participants who submitted the statements in my matter DO ask ArbCom to look into this matter -even if they don't agree with me on all the points.--GordonWatts 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flameviper arbitration request

In connection with a pending arbitration request, User:Flameviper requests that you check your e-mail and/or his request on the RfAr page. Since he is blocked, he made this request on his userpage and I agreed to bring it to your attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've removed it from my trash can and forwarded it to ArbCom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Jpgordon, this barnstar is for you, for all your hard work, finding, and blocking those open proxies!! Keep up your good work, both as a Wikiadmin, ArbCom member, Checkuser and open-proxy blocker! sunstar net^talk 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've copied it over to my user page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill

Being not so familiar with Wikipedia procedures yet, I would be glad to learn what was wrong with my edit which you reverted (at least I understood it this way, or am I wrong?). Sorry for having put out, FloK 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looks to me like your change was in the middle of some pure crap by vandals and kids, and I undid yours in the process of undoing the vandalism. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mcmillancaleb

Any chance you could advise on this user's current unblock request? They seem to be affected by a checkuser block you set on the relevant /24. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of. I'd set a one-month range block on a naughty little range a couple weeks ago. Hopefully two weeks was enough. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham

[2] Here we are. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there he goes. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

Hi Jpgordon,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV. I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here [3].

Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

I know you did the last one of these. [[4]] When you find the time maybe you could check on these newest incarnations. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Jiffypopmetaltop 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloat

If you disagree, feel free to unblock him. The block was based on the fact mainly that he needs to get a wake up call that BLP applies even to people whose politics he disagrees with. We've had this problem with him for almost a year now. JoshuaZ 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' (I assume you mean the 'collective' WP community) - but I read this and felt the need to say that while sloat can certainly be an impassioned editor, he certainly appears to be working for the encyclopedic good of WP. It seems doubly unfair to minimize him with an 'us vs. sloat' frame like that. The circumstances of this block are such that I'm glad he's unblocked, I hope he doesn't run afoul of BLP and I also hope that he continues to be given just as much consideration and respect as any other editor with his history (politically active, sometimes confrontational but not intentionally disruptive). There are a lot of other editors who conduct themselves far more egregiously. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this fair?

Looks like the arbcom has decided to ban me for a year. I honestly dont know how this conclusion was reached. I contributed like a good user, never insulted any user and never vandalised any article. The Indian users openly made racist remarks against Pakistanis, Muslims and our Prophet and Literally hijacked Pakistani articles to prevent anyone form editing. If this isnt good enough for you, then let me explain the 2nd major flaw. This arbcom was opened The Day After me and Nadir were unblocked from one of Ramas unfair blocks, and minutes after we tried to complain. It was simply to save himself from our complaint against him. We barely posted a word between the unblock and the complaint, and all the evidence used against us, is old evidence he had already used to ban us before. Not to mention the lousy evidence is the reason we complained against him in the first place. The only thing I see happening here is the arbcom banning the Minority users to solve the problem. Rama started the arbcom and omitted certain Indian users who were the Key causes of this dispute, and this lets them off the hook, even though they have made extremely racist remarks. Why treat me worse than a vandal? The so called evidence used against me doesnt even make sense. Is PoV pushing defined as making suggestions on Talk Pages? I am so shocked by this outcome.
I guess it helps to have a lot of people supporting you blindly. A 6 month punnishment was rejected for a guy who openly insulted the muslim Prophet (by linking him to paedophilia), insulted muslims by comparing slavery to the Hijab, said Pakistanis enjoyed killing people, and clear evidence was shown that he reverts every single edit from other users on Hinduism pages which doesnt fit his PoV. The Arbitrators didnt even suggest punishing any Indian users. Instead, a proposal to give all Pakistani users bans were put forward.
I dont know what has happened here. I really want to discuss this matter with you. I am an honest guy, I have nothing to hide, yet here I am being treated like an obvious vandal who deserves to get banned. In the first month I joined Wiki, I made some minor mistakes. I went through more than 3 weeks of bans by the same admin for this. And now the Same mistakes are giving me another year? Please get back to me. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]