User talk:jpgordon

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

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

Sock?

You recently blocked USER:Beaver's Library Book as a sock. Looks like USER:Gd45ciq84303321 is their new sock. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser isn't helpful, though. But if they're consistent, they'll start socking there too. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, they did. Four others blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-protect Bhumibol Adulyadej

Hello, could you protect the Bhumibol Adulyadej page again? I think a longer period than 7 days is wanted now. FredTC (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for 3 years. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adaki2019

Hi Jp, confirmed to whom?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to go back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karanshrivastva through Ritesh748. More recent use of interest to you would include Levi Kambai and M P tyagi. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Any objection to my tagging the untagged accounts as suspected socks of Karanshrivastva?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to tagging ever. I just don't often do it myself. Thanks! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking only about whether to tag at all but what level of tag (suspected, proven, confirmed). As always, thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ho. I thought this might be the case, but now I've got evidence that this is part of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Liamb2011. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Behaviorally, that makes much more sense. I'll change the tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know why I'm here

അദ്വൈതൻ - what other accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avran Ninan. Nobody I've seen before, but as soon as അദ്വൈതൻ said "I haven't abandoned this account and started a new one to cover up these history", my radar immediately said "who even asked?" so I checked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the user make that comment? I must've missed it. It's interesting that they created the new account before my block. Naturally, I'm going to tag - confirmed, proven, or suspected? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: right here. CU is quite unambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not very bright, are they? I've tagged as confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali clans

Hello admin, @Garabnimo has evaded their block after being blocked under their previous account @Samirlalas for restoration of questionable content at various articles related to the Somali people and their history. The account is now restoring content at the Somali clans article and is insulting with very bad language at the edit summary. Please have them blocked immediately. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, JP, just do it!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a report at [2] Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've reverted because it's malformed again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good moorning. Done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuči tribe

Hello, i am asking for advice.

In Kuči article there is a dispute about origin. While i think that direct, modern and academic source that directly addresses the claim of the origin and calls tribe "mixed in origin", which is based on the Ottoman census data from the creation time of the tribe (end of 15th century), some other editors are disagreeing and base their opinion on sources that comment on a 17th century language report by some catholic priest. While i have no problem with that report, as i've stated in the talk page, i don't think that something that happened 2 centuries later and only has 1 report, can be used to form an opinion that the tribe was Albanian in origin. I am saying opinion, because no source states directly that the tribe is Albanian in origin, and while they found sources that will group up this tribe with Albanian ones, those books don't talk about source, mostly about rules and traditions which are basically the same for all the tribes in North Albania, Montenegro and Herzegovina.

Talk page discussions go nowhere, as they don't want to agree to anything, and i am the only one that has to talk there. As you can see, few of them that are in my opinion holding the article as a hostage, make changes without any communication between themselves, in a short span of time.

I tried opening dispute resolution, but i doubt they will answer at all, as they didn't in the last 24 hours (keep in mind, if i make an edit now on any of the articles they control, i am reverted in about 5 minutes).

There's no reasoning with them, they claim that the question of origin doesn't need to be answered as it's WP:BLUESKY, which clearly it's not.

I always assume good faith, but based on their behaviour on other articles as well, i am starting to doubt that.

For example, they created page for Drekalovići, which is a brotherhood in Kuči (and was covered by that article), but they claim it's a tribe (they use sources that claim nothing like that, and won't change that or delete the page) just so they could stack Albanian tribes sidebar, which they push into articles.

They also constantly push for the Albanian variation of the name Kuči, instead of using English one. Both in the article, as well as in the talk page. They are slowly changing article until only the Albanian name is left, and that again makes me think that they have nationalistic POV which hurts the discussion. I asked them to at least not use that in talk page, but they declined.

I am doing my best here not to accuse them of something like tag teaming and pushing agenda, but it's really getting hard.

What can be done? Sorry for the long post. Setxkbmap (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what you need is more eyes on the discussion. An RFC would be appropriate. This is a pretty complex issue regarding questions of sourcing and synthesis. I have no idea who in this dispute is correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never expected you to get into the sources, i just think that their way of working is wrong.

I will try RfC once dispute resolution is closed, which i assume will happen soon as they will never respons.

Thank you! Setxkbmap (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis part will be key. I look at Albanian in origin and immediately think hell yeah ^{[citation needed]}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Setxkbmap (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]