Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive508

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Tales23 off block, right back in with weird behavior[edit]

Not exactly sure what's going on here, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Tales23 (talk · contribs) is fresh off of a block for edit warring. His talk page was locked because while he was blocked, he spent most of the time compiling cases and arguments against editors who had disagreed with him. Since his return, he's gone back to his old pages and old edits. He's also posted four separate reports at the edit warring board among two editors who've had contact with him before here [1] [2][3] [4] including one against Rick Norwood, who had only edited the article once in the previous 48 hours.

I tried to ask on the edit war page if he actually intended to report an editor who wasn't edit warring, and his responses were a bit confusing to say the least. It seems like an edit warrior returning to file pointy claims against his opponents to me, but I figured an admin would be better able to sort it out. He doesn't seem to get it, as we say. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello There, to understand the subject which i tried to explain to Daywalker(This is my first contact to Daywalker, i dindt spoke with him before.) here read my explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Rick_Norwood_reported_by_Tales23_.28Result:_.29 --Tales23 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That link doesn't work, so I will point you toward WP:Consensus instead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: The link now should be this. neuro(talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:78.34.145.54; possible sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Seems ok so far. neuro(talk) 14:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to report User:78.34.145.54 who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been banned indefinitely. My assertion is based on a note the user left on his talk page which states "Thanks, but I'm obviously not new to Wikipedia, what with making an edit like this one. Just (currently peacefully) evading an indef block here. Anyway, cheers." Diff for quote: [5]. Terrakyte (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, though kind of a sticking point- an indef block is technically different from a ban, though in practice it frequently isn't. While the IP's admitted to block evasion, it isn't doing anything particularly bad. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I would leave this IP alone and watch them closely. They aren't doing anything wrong as of right now. When they start. Hit em with a block. Rgoodermote  15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war going on, and on[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue. neuro(talk) 14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a case at WP:EW, but it's been up for over an hour without anyone going over it and these guys don't appear to be slowing down. RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs) and Simon Dodd (talk · contribs) are arguing over the Clarence Thomas article. Both appear to be somewhere near 7RR by now on the article. Since this is clearly over the line, I thought I should bring it here to slow down the edit war, at least. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that the case is at WP:ANEW. Deor (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the correction. What the Hell is WP:EW? Was I accidentally sending people to Wikipedia:Entertainment Weekly? Sorry about that. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
No, WP:EW is a redir to the edit-war diagnosis page. At least it isn't a lupus erythmatosus diagnosis page. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I protected the page and am reviewing the WP:ANEW request -- Samir 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Samir, I appreciate your acting, in effect, on my request to protect the page,[6] but the upshot is that the page has been locked in the state preferred by the other party to the dispute.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Dayewalker, with respect, I don't think that I've violated 3rr, let alone 7rr. I was under the impression that the difference between a change and a revert was that the text be new: for example, several of RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)'s reverts returned the text to the same thing he had had before I amended it, and in each of the changes I made, I proposed different wording from that which he or I had previously used.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Dodd has repeatedly broken the letter and the spirit of 3RR, as anyone can easily see.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I proposed different wording; you insisted on returning it to your preferred wording. I proposed another different wording; you insisted on returning it again to your preferred wording. This is the difference between reverting and editing; I had not thought it so unclear. A review of the edit history from this evening will make very clear that you have demonstrated inflexibility, bad faith, ownership, and have casually violated 3rr.Simon Dodd (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough please. Report is on WP:ANEW -- Samir 06:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New user violating BLP through sock...not sure what to do about it[edit]

Resolved: Blocked IP, sorted at least for now. neuro(talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Supasexy55 (talk · contribs) has been violating BLP at JC Chasez by repeatedly inserting information about this individual "coming out" and giving a ref that says nothing about that; I warned the user several times, after which the user started editing from 128.12.119.98, making the same kinds of edits. I'm sure a block is warranted by now, but I figured this is too complicated to bring up at AIV. Politizer talk/contribs 09:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP and left the account a note, which I imagine takes care of things for now, pending any further developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat by User:DePiep[edit]

User:DePiep just threatened me by saying, "I wish you a white phosfor [sic."] He/she was referring to white phosphorus. --GHcool (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified Depeip. Isn't that a component of the rockets used in the conflict? ThuranX (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems more like a joke than a threat to me, but what do I know.--[[User:|Atlan]] (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Atlan, you're right, and you know enough. GHcool phantasises a tshread, and his friend ThuranX raises the dust. Both waive the Israel flag. Jew-1 helps jew-2 to make a row, and/or vice versa. Interestingly, at this same time GHcool is losing the dabate on renaming the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (into Israel-..., the state. The state that drops WP). Changing his arguments and subject every line. I pointed this out to him. Of course he feels threatened. He is. In fact, he is already been hit. Doesn't want to know. Bad for Wikipedia. -User:DePiep 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Untruthful behaviour by User:GHcool and his friend User:ThuranX. Smearing my name. User:DePiep 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Refactor and redact that. I only know of either of you two by YOUR actions as reported here by HIM. You can add another layer of tinfoil, but there's no conspiracy here. If you want to continue the personal attacks and antisemitism, there are other places for it. ThuranX (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Still awaiting refactoring. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the thread at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is part of a heated dispute over a fairly minor point -- whether to call the article "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or "Israel-Palestinian conflict". (Somewhere in Wikipedia someone must have observed that as the matter of a dispute in Wikipedia approaches lameness, so the disputants are inversely passionate over the matter.) Both sides need to calm down & work harder to find a consensus than to give the article the "right" name: this is why we have redirects. And if wishing people "white phosfor" is your idea of humor, DePiep, I suggest you save your humor for other discussions. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
RE ThuranX: Both you and GHCool have the Israel flag in your User-page. Why disallow me calling you jews?
RE Llywrch: I did not call it humour. Atlan did.
RE Llywrch: why a fairly minor point? I truly think and write it is to be named different. Why not discuss it (be it minor or major)?
RE Llywrch: Why cool down? Why not read that GHcool is changing topic, every line he/she writes?
RE: ThuranX: What do you mean by refacor and redact?
RE: ThuranX: I am ON topic. Why make it personal? What is personal? Why follow GHCool?
RE: ThuranX: fuck off introducing antismuumitsm.
RE: GHCool: where are you? Israel is throwing white fosfor.

--DePiep (talk)

Forum-type chat on article talk pages.[edit]

In accordance with point 4 of WP:FORUM and {{notaforum}}, I twice removed clearly inappropriate discussion Talk:US Airways Flight 1549. Was I right to do so? BillCJ (talk · contribs) has twice reverted me, as discussed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that non-admins can only remove outright vandalism, trolling, and such from article talk pages, or extreme cases of forum talk. The items that were removed were relevant to the ariticle, including a question about where the plane would be taken and if it would go back in service, and some examples of when accident planes were restored to service. Also, the animal righters have been making noise in some news outlets about the animals being left in the plane, so that is legitimate too, if nothing else to determine whetther it should be covered in the aritcle or not. Yes, they do stray off-topic a bit, but these were all removed whole, not that any peace-meal removal should have taken place either. The no-forum tag is there to keep the fan-people from going too far astray, which was not the case here. My apologies for being snippy on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Admins' rights and responsibilities are no different to other editors in this (and many other) regard. None of the edits I removed discussed changes to the article. Apologies accepted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the sections in question were not related to improving the article. They were mostly speculation and opinion. Andy's removals were appropriate - being current headline news, the article and the talk page are receiving a lot of attention right now, and I think he exercised great restraint in that many more comments could be removed for the same reasons, although those two sections were the worst offenders. There's no special editing privileges that only admins have, except editing fully protected pages, and this one is not protected in that way. – jaksmata 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The two discussions deleted and reverted do have some relevance to article and apart from a few daft comments probably not bad enough to be deleted, probably more appropriate just to archive with Template:Discussion top and Discussion bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that is type speculation is relevant. If you find a WP:RS for what you are thinking add the thought and cite to the article. No need to use the talk page as a forum. 16x9 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This partisan comment is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if someone asks a question about a topic (rather than the article) on the talk page, it's more polite to move it to the Reference desk and leave a link. Frequently I see people answer questions and follow up with something to the effect of "but I answered just this once, please use the reference desk in the future." I also sometimes leave OR on the talk page for a while just in case it turns out some other editor is familiar with it and it's not OR after all. Dcoetzee 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the initial questions 'Were pets lost in the hold?' and 'How will the plane be recovered?' are legitimate questions, prodding editors to review news sources for information. The responses, however, seem mostly of the forumish variety, except for a few about cranes and costs. I think that everything after the initial pet question could've been cut, replaced with a reminder that this is not a forum, and you haven't seen any news mention, but if someone finds it, please add it. With the other, you could have steered the conversation back on track by asking if anyone had found sources that any of the mentioned methods would be used. I think you went too far, but I could AGF the problem, and hope both sides do. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs and admins have precisely the same rights as non-admin editors to remove offtopic talk page discussions. It is just not usually worth the arguing that always happens when discussions are removed (there will almost always be someone complaining about censorship) unless the offtopic discussions make it difficult to use the talk page for its intended purpose of discussing article improvement. In the case at hand, this doesn't seem to be a fight worth fighting. Kusma (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Needless drama. One question should be directed to the ref desk, and one is just plain silly and can be archived manually. Neither helps develop the article, so neither has any need to be on the current talk page at all. Adding the "not a forum" tag is clearly perfectly reasonable, it can be added to any talk page uncontroversially as it is descriptive of the consensus regarding talk pages and is not specific to any one page. There is, as noted above, no restriction on who may and may not handle such matters, though in general it's best for uninvolved parties to do it. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, don't remove the discussion - as people have said above, just steer it in the right direction, or archive it after a few days if it's dead. No harm done; can't run out of paper on discussion pages... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Forum-type chat on article talk pages.[edit]

In accordance with point 4 of WP:FORUM and {{notaforum}}, I twice removed clearly inappropriate discussion Talk:US Airways Flight 1549. Was I right to do so? BillCJ (talk · contribs) has twice reverted me, as discussed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that non-admins can only remove outright vandalism, trolling, and such from article talk pages, or extreme cases of forum talk. The items that were removed were relevant to the ariticle, including a question about where the plane would be taken and if it would go back in service, and some examples of when accident planes were restored to service. Also, the animal righters have been making noise in some news outlets about the animals being left in the plane, so that is legitimate too, if nothing else to determine whetther it should be covered in the aritcle or not. Yes, they do stray off-topic a bit, but these were all removed whole, not that any peace-meal removal should have taken place either. The no-forum tag is there to keep the fan-people from going too far astray, which was not the case here. My apologies for being snippy on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Admins' rights and responsibilities are no different to other editors in this (and many other) regard. None of the edits I removed discussed changes to the article. Apologies accepted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the sections in question were not related to improving the article. They were mostly speculation and opinion. Andy's removals were appropriate - being current headline news, the article and the talk page are receiving a lot of attention right now, and I think he exercised great restraint in that many more comments could be removed for the same reasons, although those two sections were the worst offenders. There's no special editing privileges that only admins have, except editing fully protected pages, and this one is not protected in that way. – jaksmata 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The two discussions deleted and reverted do have some relevance to article and apart from a few daft comments probably not bad enough to be deleted, probably more appropriate just to archive with Template:Discussion top and Discussion bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that is type speculation is relevant. If you find a WP:RS for what you are thinking add the thought and cite to the article. No need to use the talk page as a forum. 16x9 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This partisan comment is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if someone asks a question about a topic (rather than the article) on the talk page, it's more polite to move it to the Reference desk and leave a link. Frequently I see people answer questions and follow up with something to the effect of "but I answered just this once, please use the reference desk in the future." I also sometimes leave OR on the talk page for a while just in case it turns out some other editor is familiar with it and it's not OR after all. Dcoetzee 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the initial questions 'Were pets lost in the hold?' and 'How will the plane be recovered?' are legitimate questions, prodding editors to review news sources for information. The responses, however, seem mostly of the forumish variety, except for a few about cranes and costs. I think that everything after the initial pet question could've been cut, replaced with a reminder that this is not a forum, and you haven't seen any news mention, but if someone finds it, please add it. With the other, you could have steered the conversation back on track by asking if anyone had found sources that any of the mentioned methods would be used. I think you went too far, but I could AGF the problem, and hope both sides do. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IPs and admins have precisely the same rights as non-admin editors to remove offtopic talk page discussions. It is just not usually worth the arguing that always happens when discussions are removed (there will almost always be someone complaining about censorship) unless the offtopic discussions make it difficult to use the talk page for its intended purpose of discussing article improvement. In the case at hand, this doesn't seem to be a fight worth fighting. Kusma (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Needless drama. One question should be directed to the ref desk, and one is just plain silly and can be archived manually. Neither helps develop the article, so neither has any need to be on the current talk page at all. Adding the "not a forum" tag is clearly perfectly reasonable, it can be added to any talk page uncontroversially as it is descriptive of the consensus regarding talk pages and is not specific to any one page. There is, as noted above, no restriction on who may and may not handle such matters, though in general it's best for uninvolved parties to do it. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, don't remove the discussion - as people have said above, just steer it in the right direction, or archive it after a few days if it's dead. No harm done; can't run out of paper on discussion pages... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Eva Peron, again[edit]

The issue of reference to the musical Evita in the lede of Eva Peron, which has already been to ANI once, and which involves breaches of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and especially WP:OWN, is still not resolved. I have attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but the other editor involved, Andrew Parodi (talk · contribs) now apparently editing as an anon (140.211.64.148 (talk · contribs), 140.211.112.230 (talk · contribs)), keeps reverting me, without using the talk page - indeed, without even using edit sumamries (though that's probably an improvement over his use of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned" as the sum total of a comment there). Further dispute resolution attempts therefore seem futile. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop deleting referenced information that seems perfectly suited to be in the lede. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you might read the talk page discussion? I've explained why I think that text should be removed; invited discussion; and waited for days at a time for a response. The other editor simply reverts, almost immediately, with no comments. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've read your argument, and do not find it compelling, but I agree that the IP editor should discuss it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

← The disputed section has been reverted, twice, with an edit summary apparently in Spanish. The second revert came after the reverting editor was asked in an edit summary to refer to the talk page, where they have as yet made no comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the person who reverted twice without discussion, and will do so to anyone else who reverts without discussion. I've had enough. --barneca (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

strange IP edits[edit]

Please see the recent changes to User_talk:24.180.23.135, and note the early deleted revs. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I politely asked what he was doing, and was quickly reverted. Seems like it will eventually be pointy. Dayewalker (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Funky. I've notified the IP of this discussion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And the IP has removed the notice. But that's its only edit in about 10 hours. Awfully weird behavior. I'm not entirely sure what the IP's user talk is supposed to be- it looks kinda like WP:RFPP but I don't think any of those protections ever took place. And I'm not sure what Dungcamed, an indeffed user, has to do with all this, but a link to his talkpage is on every line. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
He's still at it. Not sure what he's doing, but he's not building an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User page wandered into mainspace[edit]

Resolved: Pages moved back. neuro(talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Looking at Eugene Krabs contributions, it is apparent that he has stranded his userpage in mainspace, and us lowly non-admin types can't fix it for him. Seems to be a newbie playing with the move tools.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all his inappropriate moves have been reverted. An admin has move-protected his User talk. I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked that all his moves were undone and cleaned up (deleted) redirects left in mainspace. I figure move protection of his user pages is pretty benign as only 'crats can officially do renames. I have no problems with removing the move protection if others think it inappropriate. --NrDg 06:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When I saw this discussion I thought it referred to Limbu182, which is a user page that was moved into article namespace.[7] This seems a strange coincidence. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That page needs to be moved back to User talk:Bigen182 and probably histmerged with what's currently there, since said user has gotten messages since the move out to mainspace. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong has handled the Bigben situation and move-protected the user talk page. Is there much else we need to do here? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, I don't appreciate being called a vandal by NrDg. How can someone vandalize their own page!?
Second, what's so bad about wanting to move your page to a cool name (User:Mr. Krabs' page of money, User talk: Mr. Krabs' talk of money)? I don't see anything wrong with that. The full name moves I did I understand what the wrong part was, but with me wanting to move my user page over to a cool name, I am not seeing the wrong part.
- Thanks,
Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If you wanted them to be a "cool name" then you should have created a "cool userid". Moving your personal userpage into article space turns it into an actual article - and since it isn't an article, it could be considered as vandalism. Besides, Wikipedia isn't about being cool, it's about creating an Encyclopedia. Around here, coolness is earned. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I see the wrong part. Thanks for clearing it up. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Since creating his account on 30 December, this editor has made 29 moves. In spite of his conciliatory comment just above, he has since made some further dubious moves. I've left him a final warning, though he's removed it from his Talk page. If he undertakes any more moves without consultation he should probably receive a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Underfist: Halloween Bash[edit]

An IP keeps on adding this which looks like vandalism or the editor's point of view. User:J'onn J'onzz (most likely the same person as the IP) reverted one my reverts and called it vandalism. Schuym1 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He may have been attempting to revert what you reverted, but reverted you instead. HalfShadow 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
IP blocked for edit warring. If you're curious about J'onn J'onzz's motivations, you could ask him, I suppose. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cerejota[edit]

Discuss at the talk page, other wise, you are a vandal. :D--Cerejota (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking is a warning to this user who sent me this kind message minutes after being asked to read WP:VAN and WP:NPA.
NOTE: I answered him on the talk page of the article 20 minutes before he sent the above message. Squash Racket (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Warn him if you want and then report him to WP:AIV. If you are being ridiculous, you could get blocked though. I don't see what's the issue, since I am not in the mood to try to guess the underlying fight at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or wherever. I'm guessing it's over his removal of your subheading which doesn't seem like an issue to me (if you are responding to his section, why create a new section?). How about you actually discuss it at the talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I was notified by Ricky here, not by Squash Racket: extremely bad form to forum fish without informing people. The history of my talk, Squash Racket talk and the article is all there. *yawn*--Cerejota (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was here, Squash left me another gift: [8]. Ricky (or someone), can you block him for 24 to calm down? Its stalky. Thanks.--Cerejota (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
He is revert warring while editing my comment which is also NOT allowed here as far as I know.
I guess "forum fishing" means posting on many forums. where else did I report you? False accusation?
He called me a "vandal" with zero reason (per WP:VAN) and added a smilie right after being warned. If that's a non-issue, forget it. Squash Racket (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As ricky said, you should have replied in the existing thread - refracting is not vandalism as anyone will tell you. Nor is doing a bunch of consecutive ocnsensus edits for MoS 3RR or edit warring. Nor is consolidating tags reversion. Forum shopping means stead of talking it out with me or on the talk page, you come here to try and get me banned. And the consensus is that edits such as yours are vandalism. --Cerejota (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have a small debate over the proper tag, that's fine. I did answer you on the talk page. The problem arised when you called me a vandal and added a smilie on my talk (please don't tell me that is totally acceptable on Wikipedia).
"get me banned" - I asked for a warning here, please read my comment and stop misrepresenting it. You added a section title on the talk page (with my name highlighted) that made it seem like I changed a tag on the article without discussion. No. Fact is, someone else changed the tag that originally I inserted. Squash Racket (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Squash, I'm going to tell you right now. Drop it and go discuss the real issue at the talk page. I don't care about this distraction and if you keep bringing it up, I'm going to block you. Cerejota, don't call people vandals, until they are actually vandalizing. You should have stopped refactoring after he reverted it. One time, fine. He reverts because he disagrees, fine. Both of you, leave it alone. Leave it for someone else if they think it should be refactored. Two minor issues and everyone just keep escalating for the fun of WP:DRAMA, it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on my watch list since leik 2005. ;) Yeah I agree I should have dropped the refract and let someone else do it. But I was channeling consensus from the talk page when I called him a vandal (there was another user doing the same tag thing). Ok, I go to my room now... :D--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The other user removed it, because "who's to say what is a dispute" and didn't add anything instead.
I drop the issue, the tag may remain, just stop the personal attacks and the arrogant edit summaries despite the warning on your talk page. That's all I was asking here. Squash Racket (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Then say so, in the talk page. No need to "escalate". --Cerejota (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I DID say so in your talk page, I received an attack despite that a few minutes later. Squash Racket (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You both need a block of 24 hours to calm down — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wiikiiwriter, thank you for your very first edit on Wikipedia. Squash Racket (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and meatpuppetry on g-force[edit]

Can I get some help with HDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and with Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). There has been abundant discussion on Talk:G-force where the facts of the matter have been overwhelming proven regarding two points of fact (regarding how a unit symbol is written in the real world, and regarding how gravity is an acceleration that accelerometers respond to). Other editors have weighted in to point this out. Yet Wolfkeeper continues to ignore and edit against consensus and slap {fact} tags on points that have been clearly proven. He is in violation of WP:POINT. The end result is to have assertions of fact that simply don’t match the real world nor fundamental physics.

Further, the other editor,HDP, only recently jumped in with the very same edits and has made only a minimal, facade of an effort to discuss issues on the talk page. The end result appears to be a concerted effort to employ a meatpuppet in order to circumvent 3RR violations.

Further, Wolfkeeper has long been *citing* a Canadian government manual of style for justifying what he is doing. When another editor pointed out (by using Google Book) that the manual of style seems to say no such thing, Wolfkeeper conveniently ignores this inconvenient truth. We’ve repeatedly asked that he cite just where in that manual it supposedly says what he says is there, but he refuses to do so. Based on our searches in the Google Book view, and our utter inability to find anything in the book that says what Wolfkeeper asserts it allegedly says, we can only conclude that the citation is an error or a fabrication. But his refusal to address the subject leads us to conclude that he perceives no need whatsoever to demonstrate that citations actually say what he says they do. This citation is fundamental to his position since it would be the only leg he has to stand on since the evidence regarding the real-world practice is overwhelming.

There also appears to be a troubling pattern here with this editor. He has ignored this advise on his talk page regarding editwarring, and there is this recent complaint about editing against consensus without discussion on yet another article.

I ask that both editors be advised on these matters, as well pointing out that circumventing expected conduct via a meat puppet is also not allowed. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • In fact you have only flimsy facts! Fact is that g in physics books for university grade prove that g should wrote italic (lowerchase) to avoid confusion. --HDP (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Greg_L's called me over to that article and has been attacking me, assuming bad faith, and ridiculing me more or less like this ever since, and he has been systematically removing citation flags. That's it really. Maybe he should try decaff or something, I don't know/care.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither of you seem to be addressing my points about POV-pushing without citations, and meatpuppetry to engage in tendentious editing. You seem to be trying to justify your violation of rules by citing fictitious references. So…

    Fine, let’s briefly talk facts. You will now note my references here (references 1, 2, and 3). They are indisputable and highly authoritative. I have cited the SI-using European Space Agency, the BIPM (the people behind the SI), NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a world-wide manufacturer of accelerometers, a Australian distributor of accelerometers, and others. If you would like me to take an extra moment or two, I can also cite the world-wide, preeminent weekly periodical, Aviation Week & Space Technology, which has advertisements for missile systems and fighter planes and is directed to governments and industry leaders throughout the world. The practice of Av-Week too, is lowercase, roman g, as in “a 9 g turn.” How do I know this? I subscribe to it (really really—not like your “Canadian government manual of style” reference).

    Now, what does any of this have to do with tendentious editing and breaking rules of conduct here??? Just because you think you are right (but can’t prove your point with a single, authoritative, verifiable citation; particularly since the one you had cited all this time didn’t say what you alleged it to have said all these years), is no justification for breaking rules. As I noted above, you seem to be making this sort of behavior a standard practice on other articles lately and ticking off other editors—including the part where you bypass the requirement of explaining yourself on article talk pages. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider your position to be actually untrue on all major points here, and I did in fact give a major reference to a well regarded textbook (Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton) and this has been verified by other users, and is still a valid reference that is contrary to your position. I also challenge, and I continue to deny that your ESA reference is valid in this context for technical reasons, but the other 2 you give are certainly valid. One reference to a Canadian style guide that was used in good faith over a period of time that was suggested by another user, when we were able to check it did not seem to support this particular usage as a reference, but this cannot really be considered truly 'fictitious', and its removal is certainly fair enough. I do find your abrasive, insulting, and intemperate disposition and incredible bad faith is to be deeply regretted in an editor of the wikipedia and to be, in every way, not conducive to a pleasant or productive atmosphere, and this ANI is part of this pattern of behaviour you exhibit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also add this evidence of Wolfkeeper’s tendentious editing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: [9]. He now deleted an important reference he apparently found *inconvenient*. If admins really want to get into content issues to see what is underlying this, see ESA: GOCE, Basic Measurement Units, Gravity, g. The citation is absolutely clear and the European Space Agency is indisputably authoritative and is an SI-using entity. The citation speaks straight to the heart of the issue. Yet Wolfkeeper deleted the citation after earlier complaining about a lack of citations. This is inexcusable and makes improving articles an exasperating experience no one should have to tolerate. I request an immediate block for tendentious editing and disruption. Greg L (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but removal of challenged references is a normal part of the wikipedia, you simply reinserting it and claiming, ranting really, that you're right and everyone else is inherently wrong is not productive or useful either. There was another reference that also supported that fact, and was not challenged or removed, so it's unclear why you really care about this one particular reference to the degree you apparently do- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am proud to say that I agree with nothing you wrote there. It is utter and complete nonsense. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

* I think you can mark this as resolved—at least with regard to Wolfkeeper. Although he wasn’t exactly *contrite*, and while inviting me to do something that isn’t generally considered to be physically possible, he indicated (∆ here) that he is “gone”, which I take to mean that he won’t be causing any more problems. Greg L (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that comments about Wolfkeeper's behaviour have also been made by different users on a different subject at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Glider edit abuse and 3rr avoidance JMcC (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO probably not, as that was raised by me to do with your behaviour Jmcc150.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wolfkeeper, you are making a pest of yourself on Wikipedia and are exceedingly uncivil [10]. Please take a break for a week or two. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And calling him a pest is civil… how? Short version: knock it off, both of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that the best advise you’re going to dish out? “Shake hands and stop bickering?” There are (or were) three posts in a row on Wolfkeeper’s talk page complaining about tenditious editing and refusal to get the point. There is no point to having rules of conduct if there is no remedy when someone chronically flouts those rules. I cited above that Wolfkeeper has been exceedingly uncivil (writing “fuck off” on my talk page if you’re not going to bother clicking on the link). Then, I write that he’s making a “pest of himself” and suggest he take a break and I’m criticized for that? This isn’t passing my *grin test here*. If you’re going to dish out advise, try reading the posts and understanding the issues. Greg L (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Constant reverting without debate[edit]

At Aspartame controversy editor Verbal doesn't tolerate critical statements, even though fully sourced and valid within Wikipedia's guidelines. Verbal reverts many times my edits immediately, and to avoid the 3-revert rule, as you can see on the history page within 2 minutes another person at 16:47, 13 January 2009, Tom Harrison came who otherwise is not an active editor of the article and reverted my edit, which I suspect Verbal had contacted. Verbal seldom participates in discussions on the Talk Page but is against anything being critical of aspartame. I suspect wikipedia:COI which Verbal hasn't responded to. When I recently removed a clearly false statement from a sourced study, Verbal reverted it immediately, claiming for extra time to investigate it. Next day I removed the false statement again, which was reverted immediately. Verbal doesn't engage in a discussion about it. Since the article is a valid controversy, it means there are at least two sides. Verbal tries to ridicule one side and promotes his side as the only valid one. Critical edits are constantly very much scrutinized, even though fully correct within Wikipedia's guidelines, while incorrect pro statements are not allowed by me to be removed. This scares off anyone who wants to join editing the article for a better balance, as you quickly grow tired of it. When I concluded that a majority of editors agreed on an edit and the rest is silent, that a consensus has been reached after waiting more than 20 days since the last edit in a particular discussion, Verbal immediately reverts such an edit, claiming that consensus suddenly hasn't been reached, which puts me back where I started and I have to start discussing with the other editors again. Can anyone do something about this? (Immortale (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

I was only able to follow the discussion on that talk page up to Dec 21st or so, and it seems Immortale is making a nuisance of himself, on the anti-Aspartame barricades. Verbal might be a more blazee editor and whatnot -- which I understand can be frustrating. But Immortale forgets to mention Scientizzle's active involvement on the talk page; Scientizzle is an administrator, and up to Dec 21st at least has been a very accommodating (if dismissive) discussion partner for Immortale. I will continue the investigation and follow up on this. --Gutza T T+ 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, done reviewing: no administrative action is needed, and if any, it should probably be directed solely against Immortale.
Context: As hinted above, Immortale has indeed been pushing for an anti-aspartame POV throughout his involvement in that article. Moreover, he has been wikilawyering (the so-called consensus he's still pleading for above) and revisiting the same questionable topics over and over. The other editors have probably had enough of it and stopped responding to his repeated pounding, although they did seem pretty malleable at first -- all in all, the interactions are the natural results of human nature and I was unable to find proof of any COI, genuine malice or bad faith on either side.
Current state: Regarding the current revert war, there are two aspects to consider: who's edit warring, and who's right:
  • Who's edit warring: both sides, but if anything, I highly suspect Immortale of sockpuppettry via User:78.70.36.35 and User:Eraserhead123 (single-purpose account). Given that I found no proof of bad faith on Immortale's part so far I will do him a favor and not ask a checkuser to look into that. However, that can be done at any time by anyone based on these findings.
  • Who's right: I have to start by stating explicitly that "who's right" is an editorial matter and administrators such as myself have no place to make any definitive decision. However, since I have looked into the matter I want to include my findings (subjective as they may be) in this report. Having said that, I believe the current edit war is waged around an iffy topic and that neither side is clearly right. Personally I side with Immortale on that one, in that it's inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to volunteer conclusions not explicitly drawn by the authors of the study itself (disputed diff vs. presumably supporting study for that diff). I do want to emphasize again however that this is just one opinion as anybody else's, I am no expert on any related topic and my quality as an admin here is totally irrelevant.
Findings on the involved parties:
  • User:Verbal does indeed seem to be a more cynical, less talkative contributor, although he did get involved in constructive discussions. Although his nature might aggravate Immortale on a personal level, there is nothing inherently wrong with his approach, he has certainly not violated any Wikipedia rule and the allegations of any presumed COI on his part are utterly nonsense as far as I was able to tell.
  • User:Immortale obviously puts a lot of heart into the anti-aspartame position for some reason -- I was unable to determine whether that's a position he strongly held personally prior to getting involved into this debate on Wikipedia or whether this is a result of his interactions here, but it's obvious that he's currently genuinely convinced he is right, everybody else is wrong and so on. I strongly believe that is a good faith reaction on his part, whatever his reasons, and that even if he didn't come to ANI with clean hands he shouldn't be reprimanded -- I strongly hope this incident report was his last resort and that these findings will make him reconsider if not his position on the subject matter, then at least his position towards his fellow editors on that article. Failing that, administrative action is needed in order to protect Wikipedia.
  • User:Scientizzle hasn't been nominated here explicitly, but since he's a Wikipedia administrator who has been constantly involved in that article's talk page, Immortale's lack of disposition to defer to his judgment might be considered as a tacit way of questioning his conduct, so I'll volunteer my findings on his conduct in this matter. In my opinion Scientizzle has made some tactical errors between December 4th-5th 2008, but overall his conduct has been way beyond reproach: he has tried to discuss all topical matters extensively, constructively and from a balanced POV with Immortale, and he has never even hinted at abusing his position as an administrator in editorial matters; he has explained his actions, has explained the policies and has interpreted them correctly. All in all, chapeau, Sir.
Given all of the above, I consider the matter resolved, and I think any persistence from Immortable is likely to blow up in his face. --Gutza T T+ 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Immortale signs with a ( in front of his name. Didn't we have someone who recently got blocked with the same sig style... and then socked as IPs with the same style sig? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Funny you should ask that, I thought the same thing. You're thinking of User:Ibaranoff24 and this AN/I thread. —Travistalk 04:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
AGF, guys -- there is no reason to make that connection. --Gutza T T+ 04:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Check my name all you want, I have always had one account and one name and never cheated. I signed a few times with my IP 78.70.36.35 as I had forgotten to sign in. I put my name between brackets as I thought that's what I read to do when I started with wikipedia. Of course in an article that's called Controversy, there are differences of opinion and controversy. The article is POV tagged, because it's very biased towards the industry. To bring balance in the article I decided to spend some time on editing it. Scientizzle may be a administrator, but when I went to sources/Noticeboard to get a neutral comment of other editors about a source, User:Verbal and User:Scientizzle were the first ones to respond there. According to protocol I debated and contested my statements and some of them made it to the article and some of them not, which I have accepted. Pro aspartame and pro industry statements are allowed to stay even though it's verifiable wrong and no one seems to care, not even Scientizzle. To me this is POV no matter how you wikilawyer yourself out of it. Anyone can read that critical statements are constantly being scrutinized in the extreme while pro statements seem to flow in much easier. What I do find offensive here is that when I visit the appropriate pages to get clarification about the mentioned matters, which is my right as a wikipedia editor, I get told to stop doing that and unfounded suspicion in cheating is directed at me. Immortale (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TOTSE[edit]

There's some strange things going on over at TOTSE. It's an article about a net site that's recently shut down, and the page seems awash with IP and SPAs trying to plug their new sites and send the TOTSE traffic to them. None of them have any sources, and I have no idea if any of them have any connection to the original site. Any ideas on how to handle it? Dayewalker (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the recency of the site's closure, it's unlikely that any site can truthfully claim to be the "successor" to TOTSE at this point, so none of them should be linked. The TOTSE home page currently links to the article urging users to "add their thoughts", so semi-ing the page for a few days is probably in order. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree on the semi, since it took exactly one minute for an anonymous IP to put a new site up on the page after you deleted the section. Dayewalker (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have sprotected for 3 days, so concerned editors can determine how this should be dealt with (and allow the situation in RL to become clearer). Any unprotects or extensions can be referred to me as well as the usual places. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User|Tales23 again[edit]

Tales23 (talk · contribs)

If you look at this diff [11] for Euclid's Elements, you will see that Tales23 has taken part of an edit by NittyG (talk · contribs) and created an article from it, Uclides. NittyG has asked Tales23 to delete it (see Tales23's talk page), but of course he can't. At the moment Tales23 is a few hours into a 12 hour block, his second this week. Looking at some of his comments here, 3RR, the Logic talk page, etc., he needs a bit of a clue. dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but how can anything posted in an article on Wikipedia be plagerized? How can it be plagerism to take part of another article and make a new one? I am not commenting on the value of the article, whether it is accurate or should remain, but only NittyG's comment about plagerism. I was under the assumption that there was essentially no such thing as plagerism in using things posted on Wikipedia in other parts of Wikipedia, since no one owns what they contribute, and by contributing you waive all rights to the work as your own. Am I missing something? Theseeker4 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It isn't allowed, but for the different reason that cutting and pasting other people's work between articles violates the GFDL since the author isn't attributed in the edit history. (see help page). If he'd added a link to the source article that would not be a problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense, TS4, but none of what you have just said is correct at all. People are still credited for their contributions, and must receive attribution. neuro(talk) 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hold on thar. Since when do individual editors retain any kind of "ownership" or "copyright" or "credit" for their work here? As an example, an article about a baseball club might be getting a bit long, and the history portion might be spun off into a separate article and the main article correspondingly shortened. There's no "credit" connected with any of that. Once you write something here, it belongs to everyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Update EdJohnston proposed a deletion of the Uclides wiki, stateing its a fork of Euclid wiki. Well as ther eis currently no mentioning of Uclides i wait for further discussions. Also i cite the reference and i will improve the wiki if nessassary. Or what i think would be best if we can sort this out in the Euclid or more Euclids Elements - there is already a discussion going on for some time about the wiki name, basicly it should be just Elements - is the minor suggestion as far i can tell. --Tales23 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is going on above, too. neuro(talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A note to Baseball Bugs - people do retain attributive rights for their work. neuro(talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Something I think most editors do not understand. There is a lot of copy and paste from one article to another with no attribution, is there a way we can make clearer what we expect? dougweller (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, we bend the rules all the time, like when we use the subst function. There is a different between what is an ideal actuality and what actually occurs. neuro(talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Once someone posts some text, it is subject to change by anyone else. There is no practical way for any one editor to retain any "rights" of any kind to what was written. In fact, I've been on here 4 years and this is the first time I've ever heard this cockamamie notion. I would very much like to see what specific policy is being cited in support of this idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha - I was also wondering about this myself. Tales did this first by copying an edit I did to Euclid, not Euclid's Elements, though that article has the same info in it. Tales literally copied the same info and put it in the article on The School of Athens. It's interesting and a bit difficult - first of all, this edit literally does not make sense - this is not at all what C.K. Raju meant by "images". And since it is written word for word by me, it becomes associated with me. But yes, anything in wikipedia is for wikipedia. In this case, it's not so much that he copied it, but he copied and pasted an entire paragraph or two. You have to write things to be original, more out of social and quality conventions. If you look at the article he started on the subject, it does not follow any conventions for a new article either (does not start by stating the subject, etc). This article needs to be deleted, for several reasons, which I have said on the talk page. NittyG (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NittyG it is just not correct that i 1:1 pasted your text whatever this is what you claim is yours. Further what i added to the school of athens wiki was i added a link under the euclid image for uclides - as that what is this wiki mostly about. Btw i just reworked everything see Uclides and the talk. --Tales23 (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Work is based on all, especialy the key argument of Rajus translation error. 2. NittyG i asked you 4 or 5 times to tell me what you want me to change as it is not your work and links - just parts of it where you formed a sentence for the wiki talk infos already (still) there. 3rd i still dont get what you mena with Images?

The point is i edited Athens and Elements And the related info is relevant - is importend to undertsand the history. And i have to say i been quit disapointed after i read the euclid is uclides hypothesis - As this reperesents the most scintific approach for the authorship or origin of Elements. The way this could be just a link and the info about a translation error so on. So NittyG, either help with improveing the article and content - and im all open ears and eager to read your writtings. --Tales23 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't this thread be closed? The article on Uclides has been proposed for deletion. That ought to take care of the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What about this theory that editors somehow have a copyright on material entered here? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If there is a decision to keep the article, which seems unlikely, we can fix up the edit histories so they trace the contributors properly. EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. In the example of the spinoff articles for baseball team histories, there is no attempt to "attribute" anything, and why would there be? The information being spun off is the product of dozens of editors. What policy is being use for this "attribution" theory? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnstons argument for his delete proposol been Uclides is a fork - which it is not as Uclides and the wiki content is nowhere interpreted at all. --Tales23 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Since Tales23 removed the PROD, the discussion now continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uclides. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Aparnarules[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indef (ACB). neuro(talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been here twice recently regarding problems with the contributions made by User:Aparna rajesh, here on 23 December and then here on 7 January. I won't reiterate everything that was said in those discussions, but the end result was that the user was indefinitely blocked for persistant copyvios and nonsense edits. Just three days ago it came to my attention that this user was back using the account User:Kala24ma; I reported this account as a sock puppet here which led to another block. Today I've logged on and checked my watchlist and saw a number of edits made by User:Aparnarules. Clearly this is the same user (edits the same articles, creates short stubs with broken English and with minimal content, etc.); no more copyvios as of yet, but these nonsense edits persist ([12], [13]), though he does at least seem to be reverting himself now.

Incidentally I think I finally know what he's trying to do with these edits. It appears that he's creating a red link for an article he wishes to create by adding it to an existing article, and then when he's done goes back to remove it. Which besides being a rather odd and long winded way of doing things, seems like a somewhat inappropriate use of article space.

Now believe me when I say I have no desire to hound someone off Wikipedia for good; if he can stay and be productive in his contributions then we're all winners. But it remains a concern that he seems unwilling or unable to take on board what's been said to him, and that he apparently seems determined to evade his block. PC78 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef as obvious sock of Aparna rajesh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). If he can be taught to contribute usefully, he should request unblock through his main account.  Sandstein  14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of free speech[edit]

Resolved: Not ANI issue Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a new user, but I am nevertheless outraged that the "List of unusual personal names" page was deleted. There is no reason this page needed to be deleted, a humor banner at the top would have fixed it. This article needs to be reinstated or wikipedia will risk losing its whole reason for existence: an alternative to britannica. Nameless9123 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exits to humor its readers. Grsz11 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination), you could ask for a deletion review. It was close. Among logged-in editors, I counted 6 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 10 deletes. If you add in the non-logged-in editors, it's 8 keeps, 2 weak keeps, and 10 deletes. Since rough consensus is supposed to be a lot somewhat more than 51%, this might be subject to review. Depending on how you count, it was between 50-62% for deletion. But beyond rough consensus, AFD is not completely about headcount, it's about the strength of arguments. I found the arguments on both sides to be valid. I didn't see the article but there are POV issues, but as someone else said, that's true of "Beauty, Terrorism, Pornography, or Christianity." Others suggested it was unencyclopedic and one user said it would make a good user-page. Several editors said the term was undefined or undefinable. One editor called it unencyclopedic. Arguments to keep included that at least part of the article was sourced and the rest could be addressed by editing, that the article had been around for years, which I assume was him implying a historical consensus to keep, that you can define "unusual name" by relying on reliable sources to define the term for you, and that there really isn't a lot of disagreement over whether a name is or is not unusual. Had I closed this, I would have closed it "no consensus" or kept it open/relisted it as there was discussion and a "listing on" announcement in the last 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The closing admin has added his reasons for deleting the article. Nameless, if this resolves the issue please add {{y}} '''Resolved''' explained and a blank line to the top of this section. If it doesn't resolve the issue, say so and ask for help so this can be resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, without a list of strange names, Wikipedia is certainly doomed to fade into obscurity. I bet the Britannica editors are already compiling their own list, so we better act fast! We're nothing without this page! Mr.Z-man 03:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the free speech thing: see this. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 04:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Various other items in the bill of rights are supported by wikipedia. For example, soldiers are prohibited from being quartered in the homes of wikipedians. Except for vandals, who are sometimes drawn and quartered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
...and then cooked to order. Vandals are mighty good eatin' once you crisp up their widdle puddin' haids. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ya know, this "unusual name" idea has some merit. Consider the name "John", for example, which draws snickers because it's a synonym for a loo, and hence kids don't get named "John" any more due to its unusualness. And let's not even get into the high unusuality of "Richard". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I take offense! WP:NPA!!!1!!!!eleven!!! 05:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And who are you? I suggest you change your sig so that it follows policy, I can't even figure out where your post ends and your user name begins, less if that is even your username. Per WP:SIG, it needs to have, at least, a link directing to your talk or userpage.— dαlus Contribs 10:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That was User:JPG-GR, an admin, and I take it his first name is the unusual name of "John". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That...or he has a penchant for hookers...--Smashvilletalk 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to bring up that possibility. A little too much information about an editor. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/ threat[edit]

Resolved: banhammer engaged

By user:Lava476 [14] on Ryan P.'s page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite a few threats, vandal edits, etc. VirtualSteve blocked the editor for 31 hours; I've upped that to indefinite and, since the editor was cursing VS out on his talk page, have protected that too. Problem solved! Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer's strong bias against middle-aged women ... and my request for help[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: take it to WP:DRV if you desire to have a deletion overturned. This is not the forum for this matter

Letter to Wikipedia Arbitration

I have written two books: one about my neighbor Movie Icon Lana Turner ... and the other about lonely misfit dog worshippers, "Is Pet Ownership Destroying the Lives of Americans?" My dog book created a firestorm of anger within the Pet Industry and among dog owners.

I have twice applied for consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. Both times your reviewer "schuym" has sent me unusually tart (and unhelpful) replies to my Wikipedia requests.

Your reviewer "schuym" presents the appearance of expressing a deep-seated hostility against middle-aged women. Here is what "schuym" wrote to me last month:

"LEAVE ME ALONE Stop posting on my talk page! I will not review your new submission and I will not send it to another editor so leave me alone!"

I am asking your Arbitration group now for nothing more than honest useful feedback. Thank you for your consideration.

Attachment: my Wikipedia submission


<advert removed>

Alumnacarole (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

speedy delete clear hoax. No one is this weird and needy. Oops, wrong forum, sorry.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Where do I start.... well, probably by pointing out that a) Schuym has not made any comments to the complainant indicating any sort of bias; Schuym tagged the article for speedy deletion; it was deleted by User:Fritzpoll as an WP:CSD#A7, quite appropriately. Two print-on-demand books don't assert notability. Thus... this is a deletion review issue, not an admin issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Move to close, this isn't an admin issue, not to mention I call bullshit on this whole thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mudvayne[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: User has been blocked indefinitely by the admin Gwen Gale Also, let it be made of note, that the checkuser has come back positive. Most, if not all of the IPs listed below are that of the offending sockmaster, User:Ibaranoff24. Here is the report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24‎dαlus Contribs 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved: User:Ibaranoff24 blocked 24hours for violating 3RR on Mudvayne

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Prophaniti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing this here instead of WP:AN3 because the user has not technically violated the three revert rule, but is gaming 3RR. User:Ibaranoff24 repeatedly reverts my edits, plus another editor's based on the claim NME, The Rolling Stone, etc., are not reliable sources. See the history of the article for a clearer explanation, he has now resorted to personal attacks such as calling User:Prophaniti a liar and using uncivil edit summaries such as "rv idiocy." I have reverted my last edit so not to edit war myself. Any help would be much appreciated. Landon1980 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti started a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and they were said to definitely be reliable sources. The Rolling Stone and NME are widely used throughout wikipedia and are well-known to be reliable sources. I warned Ibaranoff24, he reverted the warning then reverted my edit. the last attempt to discuss the issue ended with a rude response on the talk page with the edit summary stop it, vandal. Landon1980 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ibarinoff's threat to ban Prophaniti is also problematic, and seen in the RS noticeboard section.ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the diff of Ibranoff24 threatening to ban Prophaniti. I can supply several more diffs of uncivil/rude commentary if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a bluff or an attempt at intimidation. Ibaranoff24 is not an admin, and hence is in no position to ban or block anyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to it too. Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material. The sources have mostly been verified: Rolling Stone and NME are perfectly valid, popmatters and Metal Observer are not the best of sources, but they meet the criteria to be used in the professional review sections for albums: they have an editorial and writing staff. So I don't see a problem using them to back up the other sources we have. All my edits are doing is adding those sources. I'm not changing anything in the opening line, nor the genre section of the infobox. I'm literally just adding extra sources.

Ibaranoff24 has taken a highly hostile, aggressive and even threatening tone. As Landon has said, he has repeatedly warned me I will be banned, and while this carries no real weight it's still hardly pleasant. He has repeatedly called my edits vandalism (how adding in sources is vandalism is beyond me), repeatedly said I am "strongarming my POV", and repeatedly accused me of lying, though about what I still do not know.

He simply seems to refuse to accept reality: adding sources, whether valid or not, is not vandalism. The sources are valid. And he has even stated that I am removing sourced content, which I've not done at all. I'm at a loss as to what is to be done about it. Prophaniti (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem is that Prophaniti thinks that he owns the articles he edits, and has repeatedly attempting to enforce his own POV upon articles, including repeatedly removing sourced content. When confronted with these allegations, he denies them and moves the blame to another. The only edits I made were to fix Prophaniti's vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Adding reliable sources is not vandalism, and you repeatedly calling Prophaniti a liar and a vandal are personal attacks. Also, you do not own my talk page, Prophaniti is more than welcome to comment there. Stop reverting his edits. Your behavior is unacceptable, the personal attacks need to stop. What on Earth makes you think adding sources is vandalism? Landon1980 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Prophanti and yourself undid my clean-up and fixing of formatting. That's clear vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Also, Ibaranoff, please stop harassing Prophaniti at the reliable sources noticeboard. Landon1980 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no harassment took place. Prophanti's edits were reverted because the genres do not need more citations, and "nu metal" is not considered to be the dominating style of the band. Stop twisting things to fit your own reality, the both of you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Once again, Prophaniti is allowed to talk to me about whatever he wants, stop reverting his edits to my talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here Ibaranoff24 is reverting yet another editor on the Mudvayne here he is edit warring with me on my very own talk page, removing Prophaniti's edits. Here he is still making personal attacks by calling Prophaniti and I vandals. Landon1980 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I could go through and yet again explain all the incorrect statements you're making, Ibaranoff, but I know from experience that you would not listen, and I think any reasonable editor or admin who looks at this will see them quite clearly without me needing to explain them. And Landon is doing a fine job with it. So all I will say is thank you to Landon for his support, and that's he's quite correct: your behaviour is on all counts unnacceptable, and if he wishes to stop me talking on his page, he can. You do not own his talk page. Prophaniti (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries are clearly over the line, I've posted a warning on the user's talk page not to do it again, and reminded him of the various civility policies. I'll leave the content matter for you to hopefully work out amicably, but if the user continues acting in this aggressive fashion, then a short block might be called for. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for taking the time to leave him a warning, he has now reverted you just like always, not that it matters. This user has already received multiple warnings for edit warring, civility, etc., and the next step was bringing it here. He reverts anyone that touches the Mudvayne article the last few days, even nominated an article for deletion because Prophaniti was editing it. Oh well, I suppose he knew he could get away with it, he has done a good job of gaming 3RR. Landon1980 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Landon, I nominated The Metal Observer for deletion because it's not notable. It was even deleted before after a nomination! The new revision's only sources come from the website itself! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
It comes off as rude, but s/he is explicitly permitted to do that. The user's conduct has clearly been disruptive up until now, hopefully he'll get the hint, but just in case he doesn't, I'll keep an eye on the user. If they cross the line again I'll block them myself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC).
I haven't done anything wrong. The only disruptive edits are being made by Prophaniti and, whether intentionally or not, by Landon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Ok thanks. I understand they are allowed to remove their warnings, my point was he has already received multiple warnings in multiple places. Hearing you say you will keep an eye out for future similar behavior is good enough for me. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lankiveil, Ibaranoff may be allowed to edit his own talk page in hostile ways, but he is NOT allowed to disruptively edit others' talk pages, as he does by deleting one editor's comments, then making a long series of edits to his own message. It obscures the fact that the editor whose talk page it is, was contacted by multiple editors. It's disruptive, and when done specifically to editors you're in a conflict with, incivil as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove messages from his own talkpage (in fact, I'm glad he's done it, because now he can't claim he didn't know), as he did to my message. He's not allowed to do the rest of that stuff you described, and he'll be blocked if he does it again. Sorry if anything I said above was unclear in that regard. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC).
He still will not quit messing with my talk page. I have asked him over and over to stop. Landon1980 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You are not allowed to remove any message that is not a personal attack or vandalism. I have never "messed" with your talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
I beg to differ. Users can remove whatever they like from their talk pages. Please cease edit warring over User talk:Landon1980 - if your post is removed again, do not revert or undo. ➨ ЯEDVERS a reasonably good buy 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That is not what is going on, he is removing another users edits, and has been warned repeatedly. I am not removing his posts, only when I undo his edits that he has also removed Prophaniti's edits within them. Ibaranoff is also still reverting everyone's edits on mudvayne. Ibaranoff removes everything that hits his talk page, it is shocking to see him say that. I suppose Lankiveil's warning was a personal attack/vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Landon1980, you fully well know that none of this is true. Everyone who looks at the edits can see that you are lying. So why do you continue like this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

I do not appreciate being called a liar, you have been warned repeatedly to stop with the personal attacks. I can supply several diffs of you removing Prophaniti's comments if you need me to. Landon1980 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I moved content directed toward me to my talk page. These were again, actual personal attacks and accusations, much as you have been directing towards me. I never made any personal attacks or accusations toward any editor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
    • If you deleted others comments from other people's talk pages, even to move it to yours, you broke the rules. Copying it would be OK. Deleting it from someone else's page is not. NEVER mess with other people's comments on their pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The comment is not directed at you and I suggest you not remove it again. Vandal, liar, childish, and whatever else you have said are all personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It is the absolute truth that your edits in this issue have been disruptive, and yet you still deny this, and lie about being "harassed" when I bring the issue up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Will someone please put a full protection on my talk page for the duration of 36 hours? Ibaranoff has been warned over and over again, but reverts any edits I make, no matter where I make them. I cannot comment on my own talk, an article, or even on an AFD without him repeatedly reverting my edits. Landon1980 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is what I mean. You make posts like this after you get your talk page protected in order to make it seem as if there's an issue that isn't there. You/Prophaniti really are hopeless. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Ibaranoff24 seems to think that backing up another editor and agreeing that a deletion nomination is the result of an edit war is a personal attack (as he linked to above). Landon was perfectly justified and it was in no way a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a vandal for adding sourced content, that's a personal attack. Accusing someone of being a liar, that's a personal attack. Telling someone they'll be blocked if they don't stop "strongarming their POV" into an article by adding sources, that's a personal attack. Edit summaries like "rv idiocy", that's a personal attack. It should be painfully clear that if anyone has done wrong here, it's not Landon. Prophaniti (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Landon's comments absolutely were personal attacks. You/Landon were accusing me of nominating that article for deletion as the result of spite or whatever. Such accusations are considered personal attacks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Ibaranoff24 has now violated 3RR on the Mudvayne article, he has received multiple warnings for this. He reverts anyone and everyone that touches the page. Should I start a report at WP:AN3 or can that be dealt with here? Landon1980 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Landon, I did not violate 3RR. I reverted the reinsertion of the unreliable Muze source. I am not doing any of the things that you or Prophaniti are accusing me of. It seems that you want me to send you messages, because you continue to make unwarranted attacks and accusations, and outright lie, as you have done in the past. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
The source is from NME, and you have been told countless times by countless people that it is reliable. You have received several warnings very recently for edit warring as well. Landon1980 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of the page. Read the copyright information. The content was created by Muze, which, as far as I know, is not a reliable source. YOU have received several warnings for edit warring -- but you deleted them so you wouldn't have to listen to reality. Secondly, 3RR is reverting to the same page more than three times within 24 hours, not making three completely different edits to the page in the span of 24 hours. Get your facts and policies straightened and stop making disruptive edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
You have violated 3RR whether you will admit it or not, there are 4 reversions within 24 hours and you know that. Also why are you deleting and moving my comments on this page. I'm getting really sick of you calling me a liar and a vandal? Landon1980 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Landon, there was clearly no revision of 3RR. He made three separate edits. 3RR is reverting to the same revision more than three times within the course of 24 hours. No matter how you slice it, you are lying. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Right, that's about enough of that. Both of you, stop your bickering. You have a few options:

  1. seek mediation at MEDCAB. I'm not terribly sanguine about the chances of that, given Ibaranoff's rejection of mediation the last time he was in one of these disputes.
  2. leave each other the hell alone
  3. Be forcibly kept apart. I'm about five seconds away from proposing that you all be topicbanned from music articles and restricted from interacting with each other to stop this ridiculous disruption. I have a sneaking suspicion that such a topicban will be largely supported.

I'm off to class. I suggest the two of you disengage from this thread and from each other. //roux   18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff did start a mediation for this dispute. Landon and Prophaniti refused to participate. The last occurrence in which a MEDCAB was opened for one of Prophaniti's edit wars, Ibaranoff did participate. Prophaniti, as always, lied about the participation and acted as if Ibaranoff was being unreasonable, which he was not, then Prophaniti proceeded to contribute to the discussion without his username to make it seem as if Prophaniti had more support than he actually did. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
You have got to be joking. The only disruption is with Ibaranoff24, the rest of us get along just fine. Five seconds are up, if you truly feel that I disrupt all music related articles to the point of being banned from them start a thread on it. I don't feel I have been disruptive in the least. If you are correct I'm sure my topic ban will be unanimously supported so why not go for it. I will now add that if I have been disruptive I have not meant to be, but I'm fairly certain you are wrong about this. Landon1980 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Not joking. It does take two to tango, and ending the disruption is the key point. You need to learn to disengage from him and not get sucked into these things. Either choose to learn it yourself, or the community will decide for you. //roux   00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started due to User:Ibaranoff24 edit warring on Mudvayne. He has now been blocked for violating 3RR. As far as I'm concerned the matter is over. I see no need for any further comments to be made. If you truly feel I deserve a topic ban from all music related articles start a different thread. So this can be archived as far as I'm concerned. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Landon, you've been busy! Ooh...looks like you forgot to think of a few things, namely that Ibaranoff made three separate edits to the page rather than reverting to the same revision four times as you claim. Oh well. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
Ibaranoff, like I told you above. You do not have to revert to the "exact same version" to violate 3RR. It can be to a different version and just be reverts of others edits in general. However, in your case, all 4 times you removed the NME source. Which is reverting the same material. Landon1980 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24 and personal attacks[edit]

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Let us not forget that WP:NPA is a policy here at WP, and as far as I can tell after having reviewed this thread, the user in question has indeed broken it. As stated on the page of the policy in question, is is disruptive to the building of this encyclodpedia to have someone running around throwing insults. Yes, this user was blocked for 3RR, twice in fact. As a small side note, blocks usually esclate in time if the user fails to abide by policy. My point here is that the block, at least in regards to 3RR, should be more than 24 hours.

Continuing on when what I was originally saying, this user has made quite a few personal attacks, he has been warned against doing such, and yet he has continued. More than that, he's denied having ever made any, in the face of hard evidence. To the point, the user has not said that he would stop making such attacks in the future, and in regard to his block history, and the above, I believe a longer block is justified. At the moment I do not see a constructive contributor.— dαlus Contribs 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is just how Ibaranoff is, this is just one of his flaws. We all have them I suppose. No matter what he does, if you call him out on it he says "NO, you are the one" Even when supplied with hard evidence of the allegation he will deny it to the bitter end. He does make some good edits though, he has many constructive contributions. As long as no one challenges any of his edits that is, and in that case be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors involved and brace yourself for some personal attacks. I completely agree with you and I'm in no way condoning his behavior (see above). I doubt anyone will be willing to extend the block. Even though I agree that as disruptive as he has been here recently, and with his previous block for edit warring the duration should have been longer. Landon1980 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is not how it works on wikipedia. We do not just let someone go around insulting people just because that's the way they are. They can either learn to play by our rules, or they can leave. If this editor is not going to stop personally attacking people, then he needs to have his block lengthened to prevent further disruption.— dαlus Contribs 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, my point was I don't see it happening. Landon1980 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
And that is where you are making your mistake. You should not be preparing to editwar with him. You revert once and gain consensus on the talkpage. If he keeps reverting against consensus you have someone uninvolved deal with it. You do not participate in the editwar. //roux   02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am quite correct on this as well. When you have one editor edit warring with several editors it is more than appropriate for the "several" editors to revert the one disruptive editor. What you are suggesting is overkill in situations like that, a quick report to WP:AN3 works quite well. What do you not understand about not being in a position to tell me what to do? From the looks of your block log I believe I'll get my "edit warring" advice elsewhere. If you have nothing to say other than insulting my vocabulary, and making rude edit summaries such as "cluebat" there is no point in continuing. If you feel I have a problem with edit warring start a thread, this thread is not about me. Landon1980 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind the fact all I said was "be prepared for him to edit war with no matter how many editors were involved" I never suggested I was going to be edit warring with him. Landon1980 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Still missing the point, and your insults are becoming tiresome. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Roux, your 'patience forever' meme is naive nonsense. Landon1980 and others have been behaving perfectly, while one editor's being a continual provocation, and your response is to chastise everyone BUT the offender? You defended Ibaranoff's right to vandalize the comments of a second user on a third user's talk page on the grounds that 'anyone can edit' applies with impunity and without boundary, and now you assert that it's ok for the same provocateur to play other games to cause disruption? Here's a trout slap. ThuranX (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you on about? I defended nothing that Ibaranoff was doing. Try reading again what I've written. //roux   04:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ibaranoff never "vandalized" anything. Landon1980 and Prophaniti are the only users at fault here. Ibaranoff made absolutely no disruptive edits. These users repeatedly reverted Ibaranoff's clean-up and restoration of sourced material repeatedly deleted by Prophaniti, and then proceeded to lie about Ibaranoff's edits, make personal attacks toward Ibaranoff, and continue to vandalize the article as they pleased. Ibaranoff's edits were perfectly valid and within his rights. Ibaranoff never broke any of Wikipedia's rules. The evidence is in the edits. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Sock much, Ibanaroff? ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I am not Ibaranoff. And sock puppets make disruptive edits, not contributing to the discussion as I have done. (65.10.86.155 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
    • Socks do alot more than just disrupt, they also argue in favor the the blocked editor. You aren't fooling anyone, so why don't you just take off the mask before I gather evidence and submit a request for a checkuser. You realize that if you just admit to being a sock, that they might let you off easier for evading your block?— dαlus Contribs 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
But then again, let us look at the evidence:
  • Your only edits, apart from the sandbox edit, are to this noticeboard, defending this editor.
  • You sign your posts the same way he does.
True, there isn't much evidence, but the edits speak for themselves. Throw down the veil and stop hiding who you are, you aren't fooling anyone.— dαlus Contribs 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The user has now proceeded to claim that the other two users who were originally involved in this dispute are the same person, and, when asked to supply diffs in regard to this accusation, has completely blown me off.

To put it simply, he baselessly accused User:Prophaniti and User:Landon1980 of being sockpuppets of one or the other/the same person/sock and master/master and sock.— dαlus Contribs 07:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So now Ibaranoff has evaded his block to further his disruption. I find it extremely unlikely this ip which is saying all the exact same things in the exact same way as Ibranoff is someone other than Ibaranoff. The edits to ANI are the IP's very first edits. One of the last things Ibaranoff said was the claim about not violating 3RR with the same wording the IP used. You are not fooling anyone, Ibaranoff, and I hope you had enough sense for that IP to be an open proxy. Landon1980 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WQA Link Just a quick note that a related issue arose Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive56#User:_Ibaranoff24 in WQA a very very short time ago... you'll be very interested in the discussion. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked as a sock of User:Ibaranoff24. Landon1980 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
To BMW, there are valid points there, but editing while blocked is still not allowed.— dαlus Contribs 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I never disagreed with the fact that Ibaranoff was an issue, and the blocked-with-socks is very very very bad. I just wanted to provide some background information, and a link to a past attempt to resolve this dispute. Odd that such a minor article would elicit such major WP:DRAMA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Block evasion on just a 24-hour block? That's fairly desperate. And presumably the original block should be extended. Maybe to a week. And then the user could be renamed Ibaranoff24x7. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is the checkuser case, if you want it. Although the IP has been blocked an obvious sock, we need hard evidence, as the user is denying all claims despite the obvious.— dαlus Contribs 11:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the block evasion should the duration of the original block be lengthened? If so to what?[edit]

  • support block lengthened to one week. Block would be very much preventative, not punitive. Ibaranoff24 continues to deny any wrongdoing whatsoever despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even in regards to personal attacks, and violation of 3RR when you can clearly count 4 reversions. Landon1980 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have re-blocked Ibaranoff24 for 24 hours. I believe this is a sensible middle road between a reset according to WP:EVADE and the lengthened block suggested by various parties. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with 24 hours, a total of 48 hours is what the original block should have been for the second block for edit warring. Have you not read over his talk page, have a look at all the "NO, YOU ARE WRONG NOT ME ACCEPT IT's" Evading such a short block is not a sign this user is here for constructive reasons. I thought a week was lenient considering the circumstances. He still denies violating 3RR and is still making personal attacks. He is accusing me of sock puppetry and refuses to give any evidence that supports his claim when asked. Landon1980 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this throws a spanner in the works, but just a note of caution, because I extended the block for someone in similar circustances a while ago, and it turned out I had been wrong. The fact that the IP mimics Ibaranoff24 is good reason to block the IP, but you have to be careful of joe jobs. Absent a checkuser, or a history of socking from Ibaranoff, we know the IP is either a sock or someone out to frame Ibaranoff (so we block it either way), but we don't really know if Ibaranoff is a puppeteer or a victim of a frame. I am absolutely not a fan of Ibaranoff's conduct yesterday, and I could easily be wrong, and have nothing to back this up, but something feels wrong about this, and I'd be tempted to reduce the block on Ibaranoff back to the original, or at least I'd request a Checkuser. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A checkuser has already been requested. See his response here to an admin when told he was violating 3RR. This is a sign he just doesn't get it. Landon1980 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't notice that link above. I'll comment there. And again, to be clear, I'm not defending his behavior, I'm saying that we should be pretty damn positive before blocking for sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Barneca, I know you commented on the RFCU, but I feel that you, and any other involved admins need to comment as well, as Coren has closed the case as not useful, despite the fact how it is noted in the case that such a finding would be useful. We need it confirmed by hard evidence, assumptions based on behavior, no matter how similar, cannot be taken into account, because, as said, someone could be framing this user.— dαlus Contribs 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To throw something in here: his behaviour was indeed brought up at the wikiquette alerts board. And the response I got there only served to lessen my faith in wiki proceedure. His behaviour since then is certainly worse, but even then he was breaking wikiquette guidelines. But no one seemed willing to actually do anything about it. I'm just glad that someone finally has acted on things, and that there seems to be some acknowledgement of his unnacceptable behaviour. My personal take on the issue as it stands: Like I say, I'm glad things have finally gone somewhere. I would support any further action taken regarding his behaviour, since this current block is because of the edit warring, not that. But at the same time, I acknowledge I'm a biased editor in the case, since I was on the receiving end of most of his attacks. But there it is anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • There is now a new IP in the same range taking over where Ibaranoff left off on the Mudvayne article. Also, see the latest string of personal attacks on this users talk page. A longer block is definitely called for to prevent further disruption, the personal attacks are getting worse instead of better. I'll supply diffs shortly. Landon1980 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[15] [16] [17] There are more of these if this is not enough to show a pattern. These are not borderline incivility breeches, they are blatant personal attacks. Landon1980 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)