Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 17 January 2009

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (7 October 2004 to 22 December 2005):
• Archive 2 (25 June 2006 to 31 May 2007)
• Archive 3 (31 May 2007 to 3 June 2008)
• Archive 4 (6 June 2008 to 2 September 2008)
• Archive 5 (17 September 2008 to 15 January 2009)
• Archive 6 (next to start)

User talk:Landon1980, again

Yesterday you were given a final warning, telling you not to post to this user's talk page again, yet you did so again today. Explain your actions, please. GlassCobra 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The warning was about removing comments. I did not remove any comments. I made a new post, and I took the time to restore earlier, relevant comments in relation to Landon1980's recent disruption, attacks, accusations, and edit-warring. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

• As you were explicitly told, Landon is allowed to remove whatever he likes from his talk page. As this is a wiki, previous versions of a page are viewable by anyone. You do not have permission to judge what comments do or not belong on Landon's talkpage, despite whatever time you took to decide. You are clearly trying to prolong and exascerbate the drama surrounding this incident; do not post or remove comments from his talk page again, or a short block will be placed on your account. GlassCobra 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• And I am extending the above restriction to include User talk:Prophaniti. —Travis 16:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prophaniti and Landon1980 have been making a series of disruptive edits, including reverting to their own personal opinions, and accusing anyone of pointing this out to them of "harassment". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on January 15 2009 to Mudvayne

You made 4 reverts, only three of which were marked as such. The 4th was marked clean up. Anyone else's claims are irrelevant; no-one blocks people at AN3 based on what the reporters say; we check the edit histories first. Your attacks below don't help you at all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Bear (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made three seperate edits on the article during the period in which I am being blocked for. None of them were reverts. Further information explained below.

Decline reason:

2009-01-15T17:59:05 Ibaranoff24 ((Undid revision 264274979 by 206.53.144.145 (talk) - again, the bio was written by Muze, not NME) (undo) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• In spite of Landon1980's claims, the edits clearly show that I made three separate edits, not four revisions to the same page within the span of 24 hours. As Landon1980 continues to lie, accuse, attack and disrupt the proceedings, the quality and standards of Misplaced Pages continue to be lowered. I hope everyone involved is proud of themselves for blocking me for no reason. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Please, in light of WP:NPA, if you are going to accuse other editors of attacking you, cite the diff in which they do so, less your accustations could be labled as attacks themselves.— Dædαlus 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here he accuses me of nominating an article for deletion out of "spite", posting the following remark: "Oh that is exactly what is going on, Ibaranoff24, and you know it is." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Claiming that you posted something out of spite is not a personal attack. Now, you said he has been attacking you, and the word attacking implies more than once, so less I've mis-quoted you, why don't you go ahead and cite all instances in which you believe he has attacked you.— Dædαlus 05:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Administrators' noticeboard, Landon repeatedly accused me of "messing" with his talk page, lied about me making personal attacks toward him, and continued to justify his disruption of the article. In this edit he removed personal attacks and accusations he made towards me, and in this edit, he accused me of edit-warring (repeatedly removing the edits of others) even though that is what he and Prophaniti have been doing. He has repeatedly been attempting to lie about my edits in an attempt to save his own butt, accusing me of things that I clearly never did. It's ridiculous that this guy thinks he gets to treat me as if I were repeatedly vandalizing the article when, in fact, this is not true. I've had several successful FACs and was nominated twice for administration. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

If you want to get along here, you're going to have to play by our rules. First, in the first diff which you present, he is removing a message by you from his talk page. An action which he is allowed to do and is completely within our policy, please see WP:TALK. To your second diff, accusing someone of edit warring is not a personal attack, and actually, after reviewing the history of the article, you were edit warring. The consensus of the article was that the content was sourced. You disagreed, after you were reverted, with a note in the edit summery to see the talk page, mind you, you simply reverted back, and you continued to do so until you were blocked.

It was the other way around. Prophaniti/Landon was removing sourced content, and I asked him to stop. By taking on the username 'Landon', Prophaniti gets to accuse me of edit-warring when I was only reverting his removal of not only my clean-up, but restoration of sourced material, and removal of unsourced/poorly-sourced material, most recently the addition of the Muze-sourced biography which Landon/Prophaniti refuse to admit isn't a reliable source because they claim, incorrectly, that the content was created by the magazine New Music Express - even though the content is hosted by NME, it was created by Muze, which isn't a reliable source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Finally, in that very paragraph above this one, you accuse the editors who have disagreed with your against-consensus edits liers, and that, is a personal attack. Please become more familiar with WP:NPA before you continue to edit here.

It's not a personal attack if it's true. Prophaniti/Landon was lying about my edits in order to justify his own. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Lastly, I'm still waiting on the main instances which you claim to exist in regards to personal attacks directed at you.— Dædαlus 05:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've posted several instances in which Prophaniti/Landon lied about my actions and removed sourced content, sources, and clean-up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Oh, one more thing. You say you've been nominated for adminship. Care to show me the links?— Dædαlus 05:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. I just did a search for you, in regards to requests for adminship. Do not try to give false information in order to make yourself look like you are more qualified in what you do.

You had one RFA, and you nominated yourself. That doesn't prove anything.— Dædαlus 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Most recently, I have been approached to run for adminship here and here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Neither of those are nominations, one has a possible hint at a possible nomination(but, strictly speaking, isn't one), the other is asking if you're interested in applying, not hinting at a possible nomination like the other one.

But alas, that still leaves my other questions, regarding providing evidence of personal attacks on yourself by others, unanswered.— Dædαlus 05:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strike that, first, I reviewed your contributions to the article, and your edits, and edit summeries, displayed the fact that you were in fact removing sourced information from the article, and the other two editors you speak of were adding it back in. Second, you have yet to display a single diff in regards to your accusations of the falsifying of information, and that my friend, is a personal attack. Don't say that they are lying, or liers, anymore. It is not acceptable behavior.

If you looked at the article, then why are you still claiming that I removed sourced content? This revision clearly shows Landon/Prophaniti removing my clean-up and restoring UNSOURCED and POORLY-SOURCED material, including that link to Muze. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Thirdly, It was the other way around. Prophaniti/Landon was removing sourced content, and I asked him to stop. By taking on the username 'Landon', Prophaniti gets to accuse me of edit-warring .

That is an accusation of using multiple accounts for abuse, and, as said, unless you back it up with significant evidence, it can be considered, and will be considered, a personal attack, until you.— Dædαlus 05:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The timing of the two individual users' edits is seemingly perfect, their editing style is the same, and they always seem to back each other up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I've provided several instances of disruption, denial and attacks on Landon/Prophaniti's part. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Do not look me in the face and tell me that you did not remove information here.— Dædαlus 05:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous revision which did not contain the numerous unsourced material, including claims of influences that are in no way backed up by citations. My edit also restored sourced material that was removed by Prophaniti. These accusations hinge upon the preconception that I supposedly had/have a predetermined bias in editing based on my own personal opinion of the band's genre, which is entirely untrue. I do not have any opinion of the band's genre whatsoever. I am just trying to abide by the sources, content and rules. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Wrong. You removed sourced content, the sources were brought up at the source noticeboard, and found to be reliable, but you still removed them. This is not acceptable behavior, you cannot say otherwise in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.— Dædαlus 05:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I did NOT remove sourced content. I reverted Prophaniti/Landon's addition of UNSOURCED content. What "evidence" do you speak of? You are making up statements and coming up with an answer without looking at the evidence. I never did any of the things you accuse me of, period. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, you did, as clearly seen here.— Dædαlus 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't deny the facts, you removed sourced information, the source is reliable, it was found such at the reliable sources noticeboard.

You removed sourced information. You simply can't deny it.— Dædαlus 08:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Daedalus, I reverted to the non-POV version of the article, and added the sources and genre to the "musical styles" section. Stop changing things around to try and back an untrue claim. You are wrong. Accept it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrary Break

Or

• here
  • That is an attempt to not give off the predetermined bias of Landon/Prophaniti by not suggesting that there is a consensus on the opinion of the band's genre, when none exists. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
• here
  • See above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
• here, not to mention the edit summery of, and I quote: rv idiocy. This, by the way, is a violation of WP:NPA.
  • Restoration of clean-up removed by the vandal. The "idiocy" summary may have been slightly out of line, but that summarizes the level of contribution given by this editor who repeatedly reverts clean-up of the article and adds poorly-sourced or unsourced statements just to promote his bias. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
    • It doesn't matter if you think it summerizes the intelligence level of the other user or not, this is unacceptable behavior.— Dædαlus 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue on shall we,

• where hereyou called another editor's edits vandalism, a violation of WP:NPA.
  • Removing clean-up and adding unsourced material/bias IS vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
    • You were the one removing sourced material, not them. Do not look me in the face and tell me this, when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.— Dædαlus 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Once again, this is entirely untrue. The revisions clearly show that I attempted to clean-up the article and Prophaniti and eventually "Landon" repeatedly reverted these edits. Any material that I removed was biased. There is absolutely no proof that there is a consensus over the band's genre, but they tried to claim that there was ("Mudvayne is commonly described as"). My edits reflected an unbiased view, correlating to the fact that the band has been described with many style terms, but not inserting my own opinion into the proceedings by picking any of the terms as a dominating style. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Last one there. So far, none of the edit summeries by the two users above have been a violation of WP:NPA, but yours have. Care to explain yourself?— Dædαlus 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Forget the edit summaries, and look at his actual talk posts as Landon/Prophaniti. He repeatedly attacks me without inserting the attacks in his summaries. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Still waiting on those diffs from you. Lastly, retract your accusations of sockpuppetry, or back them up with diffs showing how they are the same user.— Dædαlus 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And I must ask you to not accuse me of sock-puppetry. EVER. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
      • Too bad, but the shoe fits. A random IP appearing on the admin's noticeboard and, after having never participated in anything, defending your edits. No. The case is already filed, so, you can either admit now, because well, the evidence is overwhelming, or, you can continue to deny it, and get caught red-handed. But besides that,

• • • • I am still waiting on those diffs of people attacking you. I'm not going to check the talk page, I want the diff, the unchanged edit, the edit as it happened, and I want you to find them, since you apparently have them. But besides that, I also want the diffs you claim you have linking those two accounts to one user, because, as far as I can tell from my own diff hunting, they are indeed two separate users.— Dædαlus 07:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, you're in no position to order me around, tell me what to do, or whatever, when there exists significant evidence against you.— Dædαlus 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest

This has become ridiculous in the extreme. Amusingly, the dialog above brings back memories:

"Son, leave your sister alone."

"I didn't do anything!"

"But I just watched you poke her."

"No, I didn't!"

In other words, Ibaranoff, you are consistently denying what is obvious to the rest of us. Your continued insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong is severely testing the patience of the community. I strongly suggest that you take a voluntary wikibreak of a week or so to allow the situation to cool down before someone has to give you an involuntary break. —Travis 14:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Even a blind person could see that the edits I made were completely separate from each other and were completely within my rights. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
  • No, what you did is called abusing your rights.— Dædαlus 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I abused no rights. Stop lying. Remember, Misplaced Pages and computer world are separate from what goes on outside your house. Turn off your screen and get some fresh air for once! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

• If you want even more evidence that Landon/Prophaniti is a vandal, check their latest accusation. They are claiming that I am not here as a valid contributor! I have several FA and GAs, and was nominated for adminship three times. Landon/Prophaniti is a straight-up liar and vandal. He is the one who should be blocked, not me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry

See the case here, where your suspected sockpuppet is under review. As a note, to you, if this user is found to be a sockpuppet of you, it will likely result in an extension of your block to prevent further disruption, as blocked users are not allowed to edit while blocked.

To continue on, in case you may not know, Checkusers have several useful tools that they can use to determine if two users are the same user, but you need to compile evidence first, as I have, as presented on the case linked to above. But to the point, it is well known by users who have dealt with sockpuppet cases, that CUs can see the IP behind the username, which is normally hidden from view,

To the point, it is quite apparent due to the edits of this IP that it is you, and blocked editors are not allowed to edit while blocked, so, if you want your case to go smoothly, I suggest you admit it before the case is finished.— Dædαlus 11:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, since you already know everything, can you explain how I am able to make any edits when my account's been blocked for something that I clearly did not do? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Yes, I can. It's called logging in with a different browser which does not have cookies enabled, therefore allowing you to edit while logged out. But besides that, the IP meets the duck test. Every single edit takes exactly the same style as you. The IP even signs their posts the same way. What's more, the IP had no previous edits before it randomly came in and argued in your favor. This is completely random behavior for a new user, and for your information, block evasion is disruption, whether you think the block had a purpose or not, this is not for you to decide.— Dædαlus 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? I don't have a "style". It tells new users how to sign your posts ON the talk pages you edit. You are out of your mind if you think that you can get away with accusing me of this crap and continuing to bow down to vandals like Landon/Prophaniti (WHO IS THE SAME PERSON, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY DENY IT). This crap is inexcusable. You are using Misplaced Pages as a substitute for real life and taking it out on me because I am a more productive editor than you are. THIS IS A HOBBY! Get a real life! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
      • Whether I have a life or not is irrelevant, secondly, yes, it does tell users how to sign their posts, but it does not tell them how to put a ( in front of their ~~~~.

Lastly, there is strong evidence that you have evaded your block to try and defend yourself on ANI as an IP user. This IP comes out of nowhere and defends you? Please.— Dædαlus 06:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)\

• If it looks and sounds like a liar, it's probably a Daedalus969. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
  • So, let me get his straight, you want to be unblocked, yet you persist with personal attacks? I have laid out the evidence, several admins have had the chance to look at it. The only one who refuses to face the facts is you.— Dædαlus 06:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So, do you care to explain why an IP address, which has never before edited the encyclopedia, comes out of nowhere to defend you?— Dædαlus 06:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have to explain anything. I didn't evade my block, and you know it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Secondly, since you seem to know for a fact that the two users who you claim to be a single user are in fact a single user, could you please explain this huge arguement they had on the talk page of another article?— Dædαlus 06:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't care about whatever fake fights he had to have to convince people that he is two seperate people. He is a troll, end of story. He repeatedly reverted sourced content, and then had me blocked for doing what editors are supposed to do when faced with removal of legitimate content. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
  • You honestly need to stop saying that, no one here believes you are telling the truth but you. I have seen the differences in reversions. Others have seen the differences. Several admins have seen the differences, and they all agree that it was you who removed the sourced content. Seriously. Give it a rest, you'd have more luck becoming an astronaught.— Dædαlus 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No one believes that I removed content, but that vandal with two accounts. And HE'S LYING! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

At The Drive-In

Hey there. I noticed you reverted the "emo" content on the ATDI article. I just wanted to mention that Allmusic is the most widely-used reliable source for any music articles on Misplaced Pages. I edit as part of 'WikiProject Punk music' and it is the agreed-upon source since it handles music in an encyclopedic fashion and is used by many other sites as info. So please do not revert it again; I don't want an edit war. And I know how strange the emo label is when applied to ATDI in today's terms, but that's not how it always was. In 2001, if you'd asked someone, "Can you name an emo band?" chances are they'd have mentioned ATDI. But that aside, it is sourced properly so please don't undo it. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. :) --Tim010987 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Allmusic frequently miscategorizes artists. It is not a reliable source for musical styles. For biographical information, it works fine, but for musical styles, it does not. And your opinion doesn't mean anything in regards to the style of a musical artist. Additionally, you are not supposed to include citations in the Infobox. Find some better sources, and include them in the "musical styles" section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Re-blocked

When your block expires, you are welcome to contribute constructively and politely. In the meanwhile, the following links may be helpful.

• Civility policy
• No personal attacks policy
• Edit-warring policy
• Dispute resolution guidelines

SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Bear (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never tried to evade my block. There is no evidence of these claims.

Decline reason:

From what I can see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24, three separate admins (at least one a checkuser) have confirmed that there is clear evidence. — Hersfold 06:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sugar Bear (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I need my account to make edits, respond to questions and revert vandalism.

Decline reason:

Activities that you get to take a 24 hour break from. Enjoy your newfound free time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sugar Bear (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=As I remain unavailable to improve articles, the quality of the articles I frequently edit are going down with the addition of poorly-sourced material, removal of properly-sourced material, and overal vandalism that is going unchecked because some vandal with two accounts accused me of trying to evade my block. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=As I remain unavailable to improve articles, the quality of the articles I frequently edit are going down with the addition of poorly-sourced material, removal of properly-sourced material, and overal vandalism that is going unchecked because some vandal with two accounts accused me of trying to evade my block. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=As I remain unavailable to improve articles, the quality of the articles I frequently edit are going down with the addition of poorly-sourced material, removal of properly-sourced material, and overal vandalism that is going unchecked because some vandal with two accounts accused me of trying to evade my block. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock