User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

Section Blanking

Hello User:jpgordon,

You recently unblocked an IP address 141.217.233.69 that I requested because I was going through some history and noticed that particular IP was blocked (You said it wasn't but still unblocked for sake of me asking) and it had a lengthy talk page. I no longer use that IP and have a registered account. You can see from my history that I have had sock puppet issues in the past but I have been doing the right thing after being unblocked. I do not believe I violated any Wikipedia policy but I was just cleaning that talk page which I used. If that is not okay, please let me know. For times sake, I have undid it to show that I really mind that stuff there or should I just archive those unblock request and talk page discussions on my talk page. There is a user name kapil.xerox who I have had issues with in the past regarding a group called BAPS. That user is trying to get me blocked again for this issue and accusing me of sock puppetry when I have not done anything wrong and trying to use my section blanking as evidence to block me because he disagrees with any criticism towards their group. In particular recently, for the article titled Akshardham Delhi (a monument made by BAPS), he recently popped out of no where to try to remove legitimate sourced by over a dozen environmental criticisms regarding the monument. Please see [2] and the talk page [3]. When I updated the books for the citations and added several more citations, he contacted another admin as you see here to [4] to remove me from Wikipedia. I believe this is not okay especially since this user has a severe conflict of interest in this subject who also was blocked when I was going through my issues. I hate taking up time on these issues and there are bigger fish to fry here but would please take a look at this because it is getting frustrating. Swamiblue (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you want me to do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back it turns out to be a rant then actual questions. These are my two questions:

Am I violating any rule by that can result in blocking if I blank out the user pager for the IP address 141.217.233.69?

Would you talk a look at the Akshardham (Delhi) article because if the environmental part is properly allow to be there? I am being accused of edit warring with the environmental part when the users have not reached consensus and majority are apart of that group to portray their sect in only a positive light. Here is it: [5]

Thank you again

Swamiblue (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the page was a bit unusual, but is perfectly allowable. There were no active blocks on the IP, and there was no current activity to hide. I've addressed the Akshardham article on its talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sinistershadows block

Feel free to override and extend the block if you think it's necessary. I just went with a generic length for a first-time block. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Hi, jpgordon. On August 7, 2010, User:Round the Horne moved Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden to CIA–al-Qaeda controversy (diff). Four days later, you blocked him/her for abusing multiple accounts (diff). I am wondering if you might reverse this move. I believe the move to be uncontroversial in that the previous title is actually the more descriptive of the two per the article's content and lede sentence. Let me know if you prefer that I take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be able to do that yourself. Let me know if not, but I think any confirmed user can undo a page move just by moving it again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Given that Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden still exists, I get the error message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." If you delete it to make way for the move, then I'm happy to take care of it. - Location (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Location (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:212.120.243.218

I've just orphaned the template {{Gibraltarian}} per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:Gibraltarian, which involved a couple of hundred 212.120.x.x IPs. The only IP still affected is User talk:212.120.243.218 which is an indefinite block. If 9 years is long enough for {{Gibraltarian}} to become "Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors." is 6 years time enough to reconsider that block?

I don't care either way, I just hate to leave a job half-done. Regards, Bazj (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like indef blocks on IPs, anyway. So, yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Daniel Case as the only other admin (who's still an admin) involved in this block. Bazj (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj:I have no objection to lifting it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, would either of you (Daniel Case, Jpgordon) care to do the honours? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And you really don't have to ping people on their own talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It just felt wrong writing "either of you" followed by one name. Thanks for doing the job. Bazj (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Administrator intervention?

Dear Jpgordon, I am hereby requesting your possible intervention over the highly controversial Planned Parenthood Talk Page[6], specially the last few posts, where we have seen a lot of edit warring and even insults (lobbied at me, quite the new user around here by a long-time Editor) I am sorry of this seems like a cold call but after searching for a way to contact Administrators, I found "alexz's tools" and it showed me, by order of recent activities, "Admins willing to make difficult blocks". You were the second one in the list, thus I am trying to contact you (I decided on skipping Nihonjoe since he seemed to have quite the pointed interest on Japan and Anime, which is perfectly fine, but you seemed to have a more "general" experience (proof: [7]))

I am sorry if this is inappropriate of me, to ask of you to intervene. I do not know who is the "main" Administrator overseeing said controversial Talk Page.

Note: Is there anything I can do besides complain on the insulting editors own Talk Page? Source: Established editor JBL insulting me: [8].

Thanks for your time. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything requiring a "difficult block", or any other sort. I don't see any edit warring (if there is that, please report it at WP:AN3. There are no "main administrators", and administrators don't "oversee" talk pages, or anything of the sort. Leave me out of this; the other editors at that talk page can handle it just fine. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Not them"

I'm not exactly sure what the hell this phrase exactly means, but the simple fact of the matter is that I have not even been on Wikipedia for most of the period I have been harassed by Jbhunley. This has been going on for months and it is a disgrace.

You and other moderators seem to be condoning bullying behaviour, and I am being censured for even calling it such.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]