Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jpgordon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:51, 14 May 2008 editJpgordon (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,378 edits →Requests page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:56, 30 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 11) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__ __NOTOC__
{{lowercase title}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 3 |counter = 11
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Jpgordon/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Jpgordon/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}}
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''30''' days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.<br><br>
*] - Index of all archive entries.
*]
*]
*]
|-
|}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jpgordon/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jpgordon/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}






{{adminstats|jpgordon}}
{{Signpost-subscription}}


For older history, check as well as the archives. For older history, check as well as the archives.
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Thanks, and request for help! ==
== Haha! ==


Hello! Hope you're well. Thank you for confirming that we have indeed been dealing with extremely persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry on the ] Misplaced Pages page. I have filed an Edit Request and another editor has placed a notice on the administrator's noticeboard, but as it stands, one of the bad versions of the page written by one of the socks is still published.
I must say, ] is the first time I've gotten more than three lulz out of a proposed decision page... :D '']'' <small>(])</small> 10:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Glad I could be of assistance! --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ] (]) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


In light of that information could you please aid us in reverting the page to the previous, balanced version instead of the current version that is essentially a poorly-sourced and whitewashed piece of PR propaganda for the film, written by the now-banned socks.
== Block ==


This is the version we need that the socks have been trying to erase (I personally still think it sounds too promotional but at this point I'll take what I can get):
I noticed that AIV says that you blocked ] () but the block log doesn't say so at all. What happened? ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Hm? Looks like I blocked him for -- part of the 4.164.64.0/18 sockfarm. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:*Huh. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::*Which log was failing to show it? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*The regular ol' block log. Anyway, you might want to lock the talk page too (). ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515 ] (]) 10:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
== Good looking Out! ==


:No, I have no idea what the correct version is. What is your relationship to ], who is also active at that article's talk page? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks. Have a wonderful evening. ] (]) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::This is my backup for that account for dealing with suspected Russian trolls as I don't want to be harassed by them on my main account. As you can see, they're quite persistent and I often don't have the energy to deal with them. ] (]) 19:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Further context:
:::] ] (]) 19:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::So, basically, you've been socking to avoid scrutiny. I'm blocking both accounts. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== Proposed decision ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
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. ] (]) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC) {{done}}
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
*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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
::Indeed, but I think it also means (and such changes demonstrate that) we're well-informed of the actual case. ] (]) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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. ] (]) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) {{done}}


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
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. ] (]) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sure. But my statement applies to the absolutist principle, not the particular case. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


</div>
*It appears that you have voted with 2 'second choices' for remedy 1 - I think one of these is meant to be 'third choice'? ] (]) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC) {{done}}
</div>
**You can leave me links to make these reminders easier! Assume I'm lazy as all hell. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
***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 :) ] (]) 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.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


== Arbcom == == Your signature ==


Could you fix your signature? Your talk page link has random box characters in them (which display "01D 122"). On another computer, it just comes as boxes. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> | ]) </span> 04:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
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? --] (]) 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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


:I would've uploaded an image but Commons kept saying that my file name was too generic (yeah right). <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> | ]) </span> 04:42, 30 November 2024 (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. --] (]) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Nope! I haven't really looked deeply into your case at all yet, either. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC) ::Interesting that nobody has complained in the many years I've used those four unicode characters. Hey lurkers (do I have any lurkers? hello?), are my musical characters legible? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
== User:Lothar of the Hill People ==


] from the past month (November 2024).
I was looking up this user up and noticed you blocked him as a sockpuppet of ]. Isn't that a dummy account? There seems to be a number of users in ] though, so I'm a little confused. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
*The name has been courtesy blanked, for reasons I disagree with. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


]
== Proposed decision - Prem Rawat ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
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. ] (]) 03:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC) {{done}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
Also, you may wish to make a vote on Fof 1.1 for the record - ] (]) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC) {{done}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
*By the way, I find these little nudges quite helpful. Thanks. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
::I appreciate your note (especially because it got rid of a small doubt I had about them) :) You're most welcome. ] (]) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline

|]
== 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 - ] (]) 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. --] (]) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:I respect your work protecting Misplaced Pages against Vandalism, Crankism, & and Crack potism. But I think you were mistake in deleting the most complete list of ]. Also, I quoted exactly what the say and stand for. So I think I produced a useful and important list for Misplaced Pages. 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. --] (]) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

*Also, look at our Articles: ] and ]. 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. --] (]) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
*You don't get to cut-and-paste lists or anything else from other sites. Period. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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 ] of the organization. Do I have to paraprase a mission statement to coply with what is considered a rule of Misplaced Pages?
**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? --] (]) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
*Lists are copyrightable information as well. Besides, we already have such a list, in the ] article. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
*(1) This list is not. You cannot copyright a list of members of an organization. --] (]) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
*(2) We do not have a ]. Naming individuals in an article is not such a list. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ]. You must know by now that I know what I'm talking about. Thanx for your consideration. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's. The list in the HD article was built piecewise by Misplaced Pages editors; it's not a copy of someone else's work. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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!) --] (]) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | It is with sincere pleasure that I award you this Barnstar for teaching me about Misplaced Pages by your ] demonstraion when you acknowledge that (1) "I know that you know what you're talking about", but (2) "you don't know how Misplaced Pages works." That inspired to study WP workings more. Thanx cowby.
|}

== '']'' ==

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

== ] vs. ] ==

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 ] on us. If you look really carefully you will see that ] '''never''' uses the expression '''Historical Revisionism'''. Assuming good faith, it appears Misplaced Pages has been ]. 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 ] would be insulted if he were called a '''']'''. However, ''']''' (which McPherson uses) is a horse of a different color. --] (]) 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. --] (])
*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 Misplaced Pages works. Cheers. --] (]) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
: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 ]. The quote comes from that 2003 article he wrote. He is talking about Revisionist Historians. They belong to a legitimate school of history. OK? --] (]) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
::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? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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" ] article. --] (]) 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 ] kind. I agree. So click on the article above and see what they say there. --] (]) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
*Why? I'm not particularly interested in that discussion. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
**OK. Thanks anyway. --] (]) 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


] '''Technical news'''
== Protection on ] ==
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
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.--] (]) 11:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
:McCain is back again. He is editing two articles ] and ]: he must have been biding his time.--] (]) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
::Which edits? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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 ] by me and on ] by ]. 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.--] (]) 06:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


----
== Requests page ==
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Galopindeschamps ==
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. :)


You recently blocked sockpuppets of Budisgood. Now there is another brand new editor ] working on the . I am hesitant about another sockpuppet investigation. What do you think? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:02, 29 December 2024 (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 - . 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.


:Oh hell yes. CU-blocked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I can leave a neutral, but more detailed summary of the statements/evidence if you wish. ] (]) 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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC) ::I reverted some of 'em, could you get the rest? (Gotta run.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, I will take care of it. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:56, 30 December 2024


Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

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



The Signpost
24 December 2024

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Thanks, and request for help!

Hello! Hope you're well. Thank you for confirming that we have indeed been dealing with extremely persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry on the Russians at War Misplaced Pages page. I have filed an Edit Request and another editor has placed a notice on the administrator's noticeboard, but as it stands, one of the bad versions of the page written by one of the socks is still published.

In light of that information could you please aid us in reverting the page to the previous, balanced version instead of the current version that is essentially a poorly-sourced and whitewashed piece of PR propaganda for the film, written by the now-banned socks.

This is the version we need that the socks have been trying to erase (I personally still think it sounds too promotional but at this point I'll take what I can get):

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515 Stoptheprop (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I have no idea what the correct version is. What is your relationship to User:0lida0, who is also active at that article's talk page? --jpgordon 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
This is my backup for that account for dealing with suspected Russian trolls as I don't want to be harassed by them on my main account. As you can see, they're quite persistent and I often don't have the energy to deal with them. Stoptheprop (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Further context:
Talk:Russians at War#Propose previous version of page be restored Stoptheprop (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
So, basically, you've been socking to avoid scrutiny. I'm blocking both accounts. --jpgordon 20:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your signature

Could you fix your signature? Your talk page link has random box characters in them (which display "01D 122"). On another computer, it just comes as boxes. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would've uploaded an image but Commons kept saying that my file name was too generic (yeah right). TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Interesting that nobody has complained in the many years I've used those four unicode characters. Hey lurkers (do I have any lurkers? hello?), are my musical characters legible? --jpgordon 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Galopindeschamps

You recently blocked sockpuppets of Budisgood. Now there is another brand new editor user:Galopindeschamps working on the same articles as Budisgood. I am hesitant about another sockpuppet investigation. What do you think? The Banner talk 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell yes. CU-blocked. --jpgordon 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I reverted some of 'em, could you get the rest? (Gotta run.) --jpgordon 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I will take care of it. The Banner talk 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)