→SPI: if you have time, please see Wikipedia:SPI#Quick Checkuser requests |
|||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
:::::A SPI under the basis that I am commenting in a section on Administrators' notice board? Good grief Grandmaster, I'm not picking a fight. I told you I had no intention contributing on the subjets you're interested with. I'm not them and won't waste my time proving I'm not, not sufficiently motivated for that. Anyhow, I'm done commenting, so you're not going to waste my time, neither I will waste yours. [[User:Ionidasz|Ionidasz]] ([[User talk:Ionidasz|talk]]) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
:::::A SPI under the basis that I am commenting in a section on Administrators' notice board? Good grief Grandmaster, I'm not picking a fight. I told you I had no intention contributing on the subjets you're interested with. I'm not them and won't waste my time proving I'm not, not sufficiently motivated for that. Anyhow, I'm done commenting, so you're not going to waste my time, neither I will waste yours. [[User:Ionidasz|Ionidasz]] ([[User talk:Ionidasz|talk]]) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::Then you have nothing to worry about, SPI will show no connection. I will sincerely apologize if you have nothing to do with the banned users. But the level of disruption in AA topics requires to treat new accounts with suspicion, especially the ones that know their way around Wikipedia too well for a newbie. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC) |
::::::Then you have nothing to worry about, SPI will show no connection. I will sincerely apologize if you have nothing to do with the banned users. But the level of disruption in AA topics requires to treat new accounts with suspicion, especially the ones that know their way around Wikipedia too well for a newbie. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
The level of disruption in AA does not justify requesting a CU for a user who has zero contribution in those articles neither their talkpage. And you still claim that I am a newibie, when I wrote that I am not and explained why this account. CU is not for fishing and runing a CU without providing any evidences as to why a user is believed to be a banned user X or Y should not be allowed. You requested a CU on the ground that it's fishy a newbie will find his way. Since I explained from the start that I am not a newbie and did not edit any of those articles, you failed to explain how this applies to me. Go ahead, request a recheck of this Hetoum socks, to see if my name will come up. That's not what you did, you requested a check on my name with Hetoums' socks. Even if I am not him, my primary account will be known by the CU when I did nothing, absolutly nothing wrong. For God sake, I did not even edit those articles!!! [[User:Ionidasz|Ionidasz]] ([[User talk:Ionidasz|talk]]) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== IP 188.225.180.251 == |
== IP 188.225.180.251 == |
Revision as of 17:29, 5 May 2010
16 May 2024 |
For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
From sock blocking, to arbitration, to ANI, to talk pages, to plain ol' editing, in every situation, irrespective of namespace, action, result or intent, every opportunity I have had to interact with or witness your actions, has resulted in a superb outcome. I very much appreciate all the work you do and have done on Wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Be a bit wary, though -- have you actually looked at the destiny of some of those who gave me barnstars? (That might be why yours is the first in a couple of years.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Huh...I hadn't and now I'm worried...of course, I've already been through an arbitration hearing with you on the arbing side, so how bad could it get?
- I'll try exercising the better part of valour now. Still appreciate the good work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meh - if I share their fate, doubtless it will be because I deserve it. I trust the community to get it right (eventually). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, guys. We are still having fun in Satanic Ritual Abuse. RE is baack... Cesar Tort 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meh - if I share their fate, doubtless it will be because I deserve it. I trust the community to get it right (eventually). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A request
Hello! I hope that you are doing well! It's been a while since I contacted you. If you can, could you please delete this picture [2] that I uploaded sometime ago. I am guessing that you are still an administrator with the power to do this. I wish to appear more anonymous on Wikipedia. Your Wikifriend, David--Drboisclair (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, good friend.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirecting Pages
User:A1DF67 has been renamed User:Bowei Huang 2. [3] Can you please redirect User:Bowei Huang to User:Bowei Huang 2 and User talk:Bowei Huang to User talk:Bowei Huang 2?
Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'd rather not deal with you and your desires at all. Ask someone else. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Private filters
Just as an FYI of sorts, other than the problem described at bugzilla:22033, "EFM" should not be required by those with +sysop to view private filters. –xenotalk 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that was exactly what I was encountering. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was going to put Davidmedlar's signature on it, but then I had to leave. I think your solution is better. :) NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- My magical powers of AGF are wearing a bit thin there, I must say. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Have I missed something here? No Checkuser evidence that I can see. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this edit and this edit were made on the same IP a minute apart from each other; the conclusion seems clear. Am I missing some subtlety? --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, if you saw it and I didn't, because I don't have the magic pixie dust, that's fine. It's just that Shockmetric seemed an OK editor to me. Carry on. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since you're more technically aware than I on these issues, could you take a look at his unblock request? You might want to check the IP he's recently used, FWTW. Rodhullandemu 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
SPI
Could you please look at this SPI and block the underlying IP? They won't stop and Shirik will likely leave soon, leaving a mess. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Scads of Tor nodes, now blocked, but I imagine he'll find more. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the check. Are you done or still investigating? Just asking because it seems to have calmed down right now and I figured I might as well close it if you've blocked the nodes and he's not persisting right now. I've also gone and set up a test filter already to see if we can detect it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm done; I probably got all of them from that report. I'm just surprised it took me so long to notice they were Tor; what with the proxybot, I've not run into a Tor node while checkusering in a real long time. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I take it back, we seem to have another hit you may wish to take a look at. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm done; I probably got all of them from that report. I'm just surprised it took me so long to notice they were Tor; what with the proxybot, I've not run into a Tor node while checkusering in a real long time. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the check. Are you done or still investigating? Just asking because it seems to have calmed down right now and I figured I might as well close it if you've blocked the nodes and he's not persisting right now. I've also gone and set up a test filter already to see if we can detect it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could I bother you to take a look at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick Checkuser requests? Thanks, –xenotalk 16:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Radiopathy
The two edits you link in the report don't match up. Slight error? The report has been archived.. but, could you fix it?— Dædαlus Contribs 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. Those edits are on the same IP, one just a few minutes after the other, by each of the candidates. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats a joke right,,,
User:Blackmagic24084 is a sock-puppet of User:Kagome_85 and so is User:Blackmagic2604
I am a little angry at this I mean Blackmagic24084 is a user-name I am known to use on different sites. To the point look here
Where she said It's NOT, such as with the whatever Blackmagic2604 page. That was probably YOU creating the account to screw up your own userpage, then blame it on me.
And yet here you caught her as that account... Now why would I make Blackmagic2604? I can't stand zero posters on forums so why would I make a account for a one time use.. thats right I wouldn't .. She has gone to far I'm telling you I am on the brink of emotional collapse. That girl is breaking the barrier which is keeping my anger from hurting people...
I am sorry for typing this to you its just she created two accounts Blackmagic24084 and Blackmagic2604 and then tried to blame me for the vandalism. I am down right annoyed, upset... steaming .. again I am sorry for telling you all this I just needed someone to talk to ... and Thank You for putting a stop to her.. Moukity (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
RivenMythrunner
RivenMythrunner (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has emailed me claiming that he was editing through a proxy due to military service and was mistakenly blocked as a WiccaWeb sock. As you are the CU who ran the check, can you take another look? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to believe it. He didn't quite fit; feel free to unblock. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat Insulted
By your response to me here. Excuse me, do not abate the validity of my appeal. My misuse of the convention was justifiable, and therefore does not constitute abuse (barring the fact that I've potentially made an unnecessary entry in a master data table with my injurious use of a dedicated template). If you believe I wasted your time, that's your prerogative, but I believe my time is worth as much as yours.
If it was not your intention to offend me, then you should not so quickly dismiss someone with a vainglorious reprisal for having wasted a dedicated resource. If you feel my misuse of the template was more injurious to the project than that which I'm appealing against then perhaps you should reexamine your intention in volunteering. Finally; if you lack the wealth of time required to be tactful, then again, reexamine your intention in volunteering. I have a couple of friends who spend as much time doing administrative work on Wikipedia as anyone, and I am sure each of them is able to find the time to exercise sagacity in their reprisals. I know for a fact that tact does not require an advanced degree, nor does the latter bar someone from being impetuous. >:| Jamouse (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- We go through dozens of legitimate and illegitimate unblock requests per day. We spend a lot of time and attention on people who have actual problems that can be solved by examining their cases and seeing what can and should be done. We also spend a lot of time on brats and other vandals trying to justify their behavior. The unblock template has a specific purpose; there are other ways to contact administrators, as you seem to know. Since you have those "couple of friends", and since you have an non-blocked account, you had many other options to call attention to the problems at that IP. You just picked the one likely to get a cold response; and I happened to be the first person to stumble on it; I venture any of the other people monitoring the unblock category would have given your request less than the attention you think it deserves. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI.......the complaining editor posted this on the Klan talk page.
Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
On Pseudo-Jessica...
Yeah, I concur. Since its at least two of us that agree that behaviorally, it likely isn't him, AND that Hersfold is unavailible, I think an unblock (and apology) may be in order. --Jayron32 05:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jpgordon, just stopping by to let you know I've left you a message at the above case, please take a look whenever is convenient for you. Thanks for running a check on the case. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Paligun
Hi. Since you've been dealing with socks of this user before, I thought that maybe I could save people's time at SPI requests page and ask you directly to check another suspicious account. Could you please check if Ionidasz (talk · contribs) has any connection to Paligun (talk · contribs), as it is very strange for a brand new account to follow me to an obscure discussion board and post a message there. It could also be another banned user, Hetoum I (talk · contribs). I can post another SPI request, if needed. Thanks very much. Grandmaster 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- If CU is run I will report a CU run on shaky grounds. Users have the right to create a second account to not associate their main account with contributions on controversial topics. Not even a contribution, just a slight comment on a project page and there is no rational to run a CU under that basis. If he thinks there is, he should request a formal CU. I was even not interested editing more on that project page, even less in the concerned articles. I just gave my opinion. What's that, one edit, and you're good for a CU. What happened to AGF? -Ionidasz (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- And as strange as it seems, it's not an obscure discussion, he posted it on the Administrators' notice boards section on Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. -Ionidasz (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- This user did not show up on a routine checkuser sweep of Paligun and his socks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks very much. How about another usual suspect, Hetoum I (talk · contribs)? I probably need to file an SPI for that, since you were not involved in check up of that one. It's usually one of those two. I would really be glad to be wrong, but I'm usually not. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. Grandmaster 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- A SPI under the basis that I am commenting in a section on Administrators' notice board? Good grief Grandmaster, I'm not picking a fight. I told you I had no intention contributing on the subjets you're interested with. I'm not them and won't waste my time proving I'm not, not sufficiently motivated for that. Anyhow, I'm done commenting, so you're not going to waste my time, neither I will waste yours. Ionidasz (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then you have nothing to worry about, SPI will show no connection. I will sincerely apologize if you have nothing to do with the banned users. But the level of disruption in AA topics requires to treat new accounts with suspicion, especially the ones that know their way around Wikipedia too well for a newbie. Grandmaster 05:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- A SPI under the basis that I am commenting in a section on Administrators' notice board? Good grief Grandmaster, I'm not picking a fight. I told you I had no intention contributing on the subjets you're interested with. I'm not them and won't waste my time proving I'm not, not sufficiently motivated for that. Anyhow, I'm done commenting, so you're not going to waste my time, neither I will waste yours. Ionidasz (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks very much. How about another usual suspect, Hetoum I (talk · contribs)? I probably need to file an SPI for that, since you were not involved in check up of that one. It's usually one of those two. I would really be glad to be wrong, but I'm usually not. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. Grandmaster 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- This user did not show up on a routine checkuser sweep of Paligun and his socks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- And as strange as it seems, it's not an obscure discussion, he posted it on the Administrators' notice boards section on Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. -Ionidasz (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The level of disruption in AA does not justify requesting a CU for a user who has zero contribution in those articles neither their talkpage. And you still claim that I am a newibie, when I wrote that I am not and explained why this account. CU is not for fishing and runing a CU without providing any evidences as to why a user is believed to be a banned user X or Y should not be allowed. You requested a CU on the ground that it's fishy a newbie will find his way. Since I explained from the start that I am not a newbie and did not edit any of those articles, you failed to explain how this applies to me. Go ahead, request a recheck of this Hetoum socks, to see if my name will come up. That's not what you did, you requested a check on my name with Hetoums' socks. Even if I am not him, my primary account will be known by the CU when I did nothing, absolutly nothing wrong. For God sake, I did not even edit those articles!!! Ionidasz (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
IP 188.225.180.251
Would it be appropriate to block his talk page access? It isn't quite encouraging to see his response to the block to be added personal attacks like "kiss my ass you filthy zionist". Breein1007 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)