User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 17 September 2008 and 23 January 2009.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive5. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Sorry

Sorry about the Mfd, I was reckless.

I'm really sorry. Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

recent edits

I'm well within my rights to do so when I have a totally valid source for the information. Prophaniti (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits

First off, please don't try to tell me in such a tone how to manage my talk page. Most users I've encountered remove sections when done with. I likewise remove things from my talk page when they have served their purpose. Don't try to order me around like that again, thank you.

Now, to the subject at hand: No, the genres haven't been sourced properly. The only reference in the "styles and influences" section which makes any real reference to their genre is the Naperville Sun one, and that link doesn't work. If you have real sources giving those genres, I suggest you add in some clear links.

My changes thus constitute removing unsourced information, something not only accepted, but indeed encouraged on wikipedia, and adding in sourced information, something at the very core of the whole site. Your removal of this information simply because you personally don't like it constitutes at best a bad edit with good intentions behind it, and at worst vandalism. Prophaniti (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, this: "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page, (legitimate or not), it should remain removed." (quoted from "Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments"). Also see user page, the section on "Removal of comments, warnings", for further evidence. I am perfectly within my rights to remove whatever I wish from my talk page. So again, do not attempt to order me about regarding it, nor undo my comment removals there, be they yours or anyone elses. Prophaniti (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ibaranoff24. I saw your report at WP:3RRN. I'm not an administrator, but I help at that noticeboard. re your comment "Please do not remove messages from your talk page UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES": it's best to avoid using all-capital letters, as it can give an impression of shouting. Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. I'm also putting a message on Prophaniti's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Zappa support

Hi! Thanks for your support at the Frank Zappa FAC! Since you have previously brought Freak Out! to FA, I was wondering if you had plans of expanding other Zappa album articles? In that case, I would be happy to help out/collaborate.--HJensen, talk 10:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reponse. Hope you get your machine to work soon again! Drop me a note whenever you think of something to work on. Kind regards, --HJensen, talk 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab

A MedCab case has been opened here, regarding Hed PE. I would appreciate it if you could please visit the case page and indicate if you will be participating. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] 18:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ibranoff. I'd really like it if you would engage in the MedCab case. Obviously I can't force you, but it makes sense to at least attempt to resolve the dispute, don't you think? I'm sure we can all come to an agreement that satisfies everyone. [ roux ] [x] 20:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you of our policies on being polite and not making personal attacks on other users. [ roux ] [x] 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Just a quick warning to let you know I've added a report regarding your edits to the wikiquette alerts board. Prophaniti (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be wise of you to acknowledge the WQA about you located at WP:WQA. Hopefully this will prevent future similar occurances. You will see the other editor continues to have concerns about your actions. A slight ... "apology" might help. -t BMW c- 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have started a thread regarding you abusing the rollback feature. Landon1980 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the consensus at that thread, and my own review your rollback has been revoked. You are more than welcome to reapply in a few months. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ICP

I see you are the editor who got Insane Clown Posse to FA. Well I was reading through the TNA section and then went down and looked at the sources you used to source that section. I think you should replace the Online World of Wrestling sources since that site is unreliable. It would be best to change them to PWTorch.com sources. Their reviews are more in-depth and reliable.--WillC 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I just thought to inform you of the sources so if it ever comes up for FA removal, that the TNA section is reliably sourced.--WillC 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Most Dangerous Game (film)

Hi. Can you tell me your source for labeling this film as "public domain"? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the response. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Category sorting

Just to remind you that the DEFAULTSORT magic word is used with a colon, not a pipe: thus {{DEFAULTSORT:Butcher Shop, The}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Butcher Shop, The}}. —Paul A (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the tips man. Yeah thanks for deleting that post though, really doesn't deserve any purpose for the article.

Right now I am working on expanding all the Hed PE related articles, because most of their albums and member articles are stubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofthehour1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Your article looks great. I'm rather busy at the moment. I'm sorry I can't help right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ralph Bakshi

Unfortunately, I cannot help you at the moment (my browser is currently having problems displaying some pages, and unfortunately, this article is one of them, not sure what the problem is though...I don't think it has anything to do with the article, just my browser acting weird) but I am sure that there are other editors over at the Guild who would be happy to help. Thank you for thinking of me though, and I am sorry I could not help! Scapler (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just noticed that you nominated the article for FA again. User:SandyGeorgia has removed this as you need to wait a couple of weeks before renominating the article. This is to ensure that the FAC process does not get overwhelming backlogs and that articles improve in the mean time. May I suggest you send the article for a Peer review? I'm sure you'll find some helpful editors to improve the article with you there.

One aspect I can instantly see is that the lead is quite long. The purpose of the lead is to provide a brief, condensed overview of the article while the main article deals with more in-depth issues. With such a long lead you are not enticing readers to read the rest of the article as they pretty much know it all from reading the lead. I'm sure a peer review can help you with a few other pointers. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song GAN

Hi. You've been pretty active on-wiki in the past few days, but you haven't yet done anything in regards to the Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song GAN, which has been on-hold for two days. I'm just notifying you in case you missed it. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Big Problem ≠ The Solution. The Solution = Let It Be

I have a copy of the Crispin Glover album The Big Problem ≠ The Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. What about it does this article need to have the "unreferenced" tag removed? ----DanTD (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror needs your help

Sugar Bear/Archive 5 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks a lot for the support on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah! Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kool Keith

Hello, I noticed that you reverted back to the somewhat-controversial changes that you made to the Kool Keith article. I say "somewhat-controversial" because if you look at the talk page there has already been a discussion regarding the aliases that the artist has used in his career, and a compromise reached. When I requested that you bring things to the talk page, not only did you fail to do so but you reverted and didn't even give the slightest explanation for it.

Let me be frank with you here. In the discussions regarding the aliases, I was on the side of having them removed. At one time they were taking up more than half of the article space, and were a copyright violation of the artist's web site no less. So I had them removed with only a short blurb about how he has used aliases and a link to his page that explains them. If you have a good argument against including them at all, please bring it to the talk page and I might even support you if it seems reasonable. It's just not right to unilaterally remove that material when it has already been discussed. And if a consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the material out of the article, then if someone wants to add it later then it would be easier to keep it out and to get administrator support if necessary. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you refuse to discuss it I'll let things be, since I don't really care if they are in there or not. But in the future please take care to consider consensus, and remember that edit warring is strongly frowned upon. -- Atama^chat 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the content was or wasn't notable. Remember that WP:N refers mainly to whether or not an article itself is notable, it's not for regulating content. WP:HTRIVIA is a better guideline for determining whether or not information is notable to the subject. But that's not for you to unilaterally decide against consensus. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. However, as I said before I'm not contesting your edits any further, since you're essentially insisting on an edit war rather than discussion my only recourse would be something like an RFC or mediation and honestly I just don't care deeply enough to bother. Thanks for your reply on my talk page. -- Atama^chat 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You did start an edit war. Please see WP:EDIT_WAR. Granted, it takes 2 people for an edit war to occur, but the second time I reverted your changes I specifically requested a discussion; it was an attempt to end the edit war and help to come to a consensus. You don't seem to understand that just reverting changes because they are correct in your opinion is inappropriate behavior. I strongly encourage you to read that policy. -- Atama^chat 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hed PE

Allmusic is a fine source for genres. Really what you need to do is establish a consensus of genres, by evaluating different sources, if you want to establish why it's incorrect on any particular issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Landon1980

As you were told at AN/I, Landon1980 is allowed to remove almost anything from his own talk page. Consider this a final warning: Leave the page alone or you will be blocked. Thank you. —Travis^talk 14:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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^talk 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[1] made on January 15 2009 to Mudvayne

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 separate 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 08:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't, as clearly seen here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:49, 18 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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^talk 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 ^Contribs 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I abused no rights. Stop lying. Remember, Wikipedia 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 Wikipedia 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 ~~~~.
        • I have seen dozens of users sign their post the same way. It is ridiculous that this is your only evidence that I made those posts. Get a life. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 06:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. You are making all of this up out of thin air. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:44, 18 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 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 separate 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 ^Contribs 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))

No, everyone believes you did, hence, why you are still blocked. Let's look at the facts, shall we?

You changed:

'''Mudvayne''' is an American [[nu metal]]<ref name="berelian">{{cite book | first = Essi | last = Berelian | title = The Rough Guide to Heavy Metal | page= 244 | month = August | year = 2005 | publisher = [[Rough Guides]] | location = [[New York City]] | isbn = 1-84353-415-0 }}</ref><ref name="The Metal Observer">[http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=15349 Mudvayne at Metal Observer]</ref><ref name="Rolling Stone">[http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/mudvayne/albums/album/24024306/review/24196346/the_new_game Mudvayne at Rolling Stone]</ref><ref name="NME">[http://www.nme.com/artists/mudvayne Mudvayne at NME]</ref><ref name="Popmatters">[http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/m/mudvayne-lostandfound.shtml Mudvayne review at popmatters]</ref> band formed in [[Peoria, Illinois|Peoria]], [[Illinois]] in 1996. Members are [[lead singer]] [[Chad Gray]], guitarist [[Greg Tribbett]], bassist [[Ryan Martinie]] and drummer [[Matthew McDonough]]. Signed onto [[Epic Records]], Mudvayne has released four studio albums, two compilations albums, and two DVDs.

To:

'''Mudvayne''' is an American [[rock music|rock]] band formed in [[Peoria, Illinois|Peoria]], [[Illinois]] in 1996. Members are [[lead singer]] [[Chad Gray]], guitarist [[Greg Tribbett]], bassist [[Ryan Martinie]] and drummer [[Matthew McDonough]]. Signed onto [[Epic Records]], Mudvayne has released four studio albums, two compilations albums, and two DVDs.

That is clearly a removal of sourced content. Explain yourself. Any reversion or deletion of this content will look like you're trying to evade hard facts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Except that I didn't remove the citation, liar. I moved it to the correct section. Your entire evidence on my supposed removal of sources hinges on taking things out of context in an attempt to prove a point. I did not remove content from the article. And the fact that you block my emails shows that you are continuing to evade facts and ignore all reasoning. You are hopeless. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

The pictures don't lie my friend. Lastly, personal attacks will not fly here, and you will never become an admin here if you stick with the attitude you have right now.

Are you intentionally ignoring the facts? LOOK AT THE EDITS. I didn't remove the citation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Lastly, I blocked your emails because I'm sick of your insults to me and others:

It's pathetic that you repeatedly accuse me of the very things that you have repeatedly done. One look at the edits you made to Hed PE shows that you repeatedly reverted to a vandalized version of the article in an attempt to push your own bias, and, might I add, violated the 3RR several times over. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:53, 18 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 Wikipedia. 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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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^TALK 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24, three separate admins (at least one a checkuser) have confirmed that there is clear evidence. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

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 reason:

This is the third time you've requested an unblock, and the third time it's been denied. Because you're abusing the unblocking process, I'm fully protecting your talk page for the remainder of your block. — EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:05, 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.

Sorry to say, but I'm increasing the length of this block to one week, owing to what appears to be continued sockpuppetry and edit warring from the blocked user. Please reconsider this path. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The reasons that I was blocked were fabricated and the editors who actively campaigned for my blocking are biased. As I remain unavailable to edit articles, these editors continue to vandalize articles, strongarm their POV and add poorly-sourced material to articles. Moreover, I have had six featured articles and countless good articles. Why would I attempt to evade a 24-hour block? There is absolutely no evidence of any of the claims that have been made against me. And furthermore, the accusations that I attempted a sockpuppet are ridiculous, considering that the "editors" that accused me of sockpuppetry ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON! They don't even try to hide it. All of these editors sound exactly the same. There is absolutely no difference between Landon1980, Prophaniti, Daedalus969, etc. They are all unreasonable, disrespectful, and lack all sense and logic. These users conduct themselves by engaging in edit wars based in what was already established as the accepted facts about whatever subject is being written about, then get irate whenever their own POV isn't being represented in articles, when Wikipedia's rules are supposed to abide by a NPOV writing tone. Is there anyone who does not get this?

Decline reason:

This addresses absolutely none of the reasons for your block. Please review WP:GAB. Contrary to your belief, the encyclopedia will not fall apart with you gone for a week; your continued protests that it will seem to be enough motivation for you to evade a block; the number of FA's you've written is irrelevant when you are being disruptive; your accusations against other editors are completely unfounded, ridiculous, spiteful, and not helping your unblock chances; and none of this even remotely deals with your own behavior, not even that which led to your initial block before all the block evasion began. Another unblock request that does not address those concerns will result in the protection of your talk page for the duration of your block. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 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.

{{Unblock on hold|1=Luna Santin|2=There's absolutely no evidence that I made the supposed "sock" edits. Daedalus969, Landon1980 and Prophaniti's only basis of claim is that the editors made changes that they disagreed with. All of the edits, despite the accuser's statements, are entirely different, baring absolutely no relation to any edit I have ever made. I have never engaged in any edit war, and I only wish to continue to have the ability to improve and maintain the quality standards of Wikipedia. I have brought six articles to FA status, and countless articles to GA status. I am clearly not here to disrupt Wikipedia, and there is absolutely no reason for me to evade blocking or operate a "sock".|3=w^{L<speak·check>} 08:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)}}

"the number of FA's you've written is irrelevant when you are being disruptive"

• Except for the fact that the edits I made were NOT disruptive, but that the people who actively campaigned to have me blocked were the ones who were making actual disruptive edits? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

It is disruptive to remove accurate, sourced information.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Except when the editors who are removing accurate, sourced information are Daedalus969, Landon1980 and Prophaniti, in which case, it's okay, apparently. I never removed "accurate, sourced information". I removed inaccurate, unsourced information. I added and moved accurate, sourced information. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Except that you didn't. The difference between reversions clearly shows that you removed sourced information from a source that was deemed reliable at the noticeboard for reliable sources.

Except that Muze is NOT a reliable source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Lastly, your claim that we're all sockpuppets of each other is completely unfounded. So what if se disagree with you, you might as well claim that ever person who's posted to this page is a single user, as they all disagree with you. The only who who has agreed with you is you, so, unless you want to back up your claims, such as how we can all edit at the same time, or you feel you can explain why this random IP comes out of nowhere to defend you, stop throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around, it's getting tiring. Serious, either back up your claims with diffs show how their editing style is the same, or stop.

I never tried to evade the block. Stop telling me to "stop throwing accusations around" when you are doing the exact same thing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Shall I display pictures of the diffs for you?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed no reliable sources. This is clearly shown in the edits, if you had actually took the time to look at the revisions carefully. Why do you continue to ignore the facts, Daedalus? Do you have something to hide? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I have nothing to hide, say it flat out and cite your evidence. They can pull a checkuser on me, if you can find enough evidence for your claims, but it will find nothing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that you repeatedly violated 3RR rule on the Hed PE article, then claimed that I had made the edits in order to evade being banned yourself? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Also, the information below states otherwise:

You changed:

Mudvayne is an American nu metal band formed in Peoria, Illinois in 1996. Members are lead singer Chad Gray, guitarist Greg Tribbett, bassist Ryan Martinie and drummer Matthew McDonough. Signed onto Epic Records, Mudvayne has released four studio albums, two compilations albums, and two DVDs.

To:

Mudvayne is an American rock band formed in Peoria, Illinois in 1996. Members are lead singer Chad Gray, guitarist Greg Tribbett, bassist Ryan Martinie and drummer Matthew McDonough. Signed onto Epic Records, Mudvayne has released four studio albums, two compilations albums, and two DVDs.

This is the last time I'm posting this, if you remove it again, I'm posting a screen capture showing the same thing, and you can't deny that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• For starters, I didn't remove that from this page. You've posted it twice now. You can clearly see it by scrolling up. I did not remove those citations. I moved the reliable sources to the "musical styles" section. I removed unreliable sources -- PopMatters and Muze. These are not reliable sources for defining a band's genre. My edits to the article were in order to lower the amount of POV on the part of Prophaniti/Landon. I have repeatedly told you this, and yet you still refuse to listen. Do you wonder why you are not treated as a respected editor on Wikipedia? Because you never utilize rationality in your editing and correspondence. Treating me like this in spite of the overwhelming evidence against you makes you appear extremely ignorant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

That's rather funny. Before I respond, please inform me who thinks on this site doesn't respect me as an editor?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Respected editors don't accuse editors with six featured articles and countless GAs of only existing on Wikipedia to vandalize, even though his edits are perfectly within his rights. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

You are one person, you don't speak for everyone else. Get that straight, secondly:

See that big block of red text? Do you see the sources? The band genre is referenced by several sources, all of which were found to be reliable at the reliable sources noticeboard. You can't deny this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you were paying attention, you'd notice that you could clearly click on the revision and see that all the reliable sources WERE STILL ON THE PAGE, just not in the lead, because the genre term 'rock' was used in place of the term that wasn't as well-sourced. This is why I say that you are biased, because you repeatedly change things to fit your own POV. If you were anything other than a Michael Moore-grade hack, you would post THE REAL EVIDENCE, which clearly shows that I DID NOT REMOVE RELIABLE SOURCES. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I did a search for the sources while on that revision, and they were clearly not there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't, because you are biased and irrational. And stop trying to clutter up my page with crap that is already repeated TWICE now. The bias is clearly there. You just refuse to see it. I could upload a picture for you, clearly showing that the sources were still there, but I can't because you had me blocked so you wouldn't have to deal with reality. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Also, you changed sourced information, and that is not acceptable either.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I did NOT change sourced information, MICHAEL. I rewrote text for a NPOV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Lastly, that insult is now another nail into your coffin, I suggest you retract it immediately, lastly, as stated, and as is quite visible above, the sources were reliable, as found on the reliable sources noticeboard, so stop claiming they aren't. The genre was well sourced, not poorly sourced as you keep claiming. Give up already. No one believes you but you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• How is it that "nail in your coffin" isn't an insult, but that "Michael" is? "Michael" is not considered an insult. Secondly, Muze is a mass-published provider, not a reliable source. PopMatters is an entertainment magazine, not a established authority on music genres. Finally, "no one believes you but you"? What are trying to pull here? The only people who are on your side are THE VANDALS. Prophaniti and Landon are the only people siding with you. That's a good reason for you to GIVE UP. You've lost. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Don't play coy, you referred to me in the above post as, If you were anything other than a Michael Moore-grade hack. Hence it is an insult as it is referring to that post. Take it back, now if you want to get better chances of unblocking. Personally attacking editors is unacceptable behavior here.

I'll take it back if you STOP CLUTTERING UP MY PAGE WITH YOUR CRAP. Seriously, the "evidence" you have has been posted several times, and it's ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT. That gives me more than enough reason for me to call you "Michael". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Lastly, ROLLING STONE is a reliable source, and you remove them, and the other noted source. Funny how you don't mention that. Oh, forgot to mention, rolling stones lists the band as that genre, yet you still change it. You can't get away with this, you have been extremely disruptive, and I do not see you being welcome here in the near future.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to remove Rolling Stone, and, in fact, I restored it in later edits, with proper {{cite web}} formatting. Funny how you NEVER mention this. And, lastly "I do not see you being welcome here"? Who are you? You are the person who had a respected editor blocked because you didn't agree with his edits. You are a person who repeatedly tried to enforce his own POV. Give it a rest. You just keep digging yourself deeper with this nonsense. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm not the person with a block log dating back to 2007 for disruption. I don't see any evidence that you're a respected editor here, all I see is you spewing personal attacks and baseless accusations which you refuse to provide evidence for.

I've never made any legitimately disruptive edits. The only people who accuse me of disruption are people who, like you, are trying to push their own opinion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

But since you are apparently not the only editor who doesn't respect me, why don't you provide some diffs, and links to editors who don't respect me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about every editor you've had blocked for trying to maintain the quality standards on Wikipedia? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

And I must ask you to please stop adding the out-of-context image to my page when I have repeatedly asked you not to. Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

And I'm going to have to say no, as those images are completely relevant to the conversation, and secondly, stop refactoring my posts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have an idea, how about you take back all of the insults you've thrown at me and others, claiming I'm a sock of Landon, that he and that other user are the same person... all that stuff you have no base for other than they don't agree with you, take if all back, and I'll leave it at a link.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take back all of the insults if you stop this quest to have me blocked, stop accusing me of operating socks to evade my block, and let me restore the edits that you and others repeatedly removed without reason. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

No, I am the one setting the terms, not you. I cannot just look to the side as disruption and sockpuppetry run free. Take back the insults, and I'll leave the images as links, those are the terms, period.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that I NEVER DISRUPTED WIKIPEDIA OR OPERATED ANY SOCKS. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Meh, screw it, I shouldn't be setting terms, but either way, I am not delisting the case. The fact of the matter is, I've been sockpuppet hunting for awhile now, I've dealt with many disruptive users, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last. I know what behavior to look for, and quite simply, all the evidence points directly to you. Lastly, yes, you did. When you edit-warred. It takes two, or three, to edit war, and when you edit-warred, you caused disruption, not to mention those quacking socks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence. Your only evidence is that you don't agree with the edits made by the IPs. Secondly, I didn't edit-war. I was restoring sourced content and NPOV disrupted by Landon and Prophaniti. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I am sick of playing this stupid game with you. You can deny the diffs all you want, it won't change anything. See you once you try to sock again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I NEVER TRIED TO SOCK IN THE FIRST PLACE. You have absolutely ZERO evidence. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

These images are NOT relevant to the conversation, as they are taken ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT. Do you not understand this? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, they are. You are arguing that you did not change and remove content, but the images obviously show otherwise. They are completely relevant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, these images are taken ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT. Do you not understand what WP:NPOV means? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Sockpuppets

As you well know, you have been accused of sockpuppetry, please see the case here. Please post your response to these accustaions below, and, take note, your response must be explaining the evidence that has been gathered and shown, if you just go on a rant about how others were socking, I shall not copy it over.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no evidence that I made these edits. Daedalus969, Landon1980 and Prophaniti's only basis of claim is that the editors made changes that they disagreed with. All of the edits, despite the accuser's statements, are entirely different, baring absolutely no relation to any edit I have ever made. Lastly, I have never "warred" over any article. The editors that have been warring over these article are the accusers. Daedalus969, Landon1980 and Prophaniti are all biased, unreasonable, irrational, disrespectful, lack all sense and logic and frequently disrupt Wikipedia, as shown by their frequent attempts to alter these articles to fit their perspective, no matter who is editing which article. They frequently make attempts to remove sourced information and facts, and when faced with the undeniable truth, claim that established users such as myself are the ones who are removing content, even when this is clearly untrue. I have had six featured articles and countless good articles. I should not have been blocked in the first place, when all I have ever tried to do is improve the quality of Wikipedia, even in the face of attempts by editors like these three to lower the quality of Wikipedia by removing sourced information, strongarming their own POV, and repeatedly reverting any attempts to improve the quality of any given article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I did post this reply, but I suggest you re-write it. Defend yourself, do not throw accusations every which way and argue about others. You're arguing to defend yourself here, not get others blocked. It only makes you look bad.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The accusations I've made are true, as one can clearly see by your posts here, in which you clearly show no respect for the rules of Wikipedia, or other editors. The investigation should never have gone underway in the first place, being that IT'S A COMPLETE LIE. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that any of these edits were made by me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The checkuser page on the matter cites evidence, and you need to try to refute that evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the first IP's defense of me or use of a signature style similar to mine proves the IP as me. None of the IPs have been, as Daedalus claims, "reverting to the version last edited by the suspected sock master". All of the edits made by these IPs are entirely different from any edit that I have ever made. Lastly, there is no evidence that because a user simply edits an article that I have edited in the past, that they are supposedly me. I have edited pretty much every article on Wikipedia. There is NO evidence to support Daedalus' allegations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

In response to the lack of response in my attempts to have my account restored so that I may restore order, I present the following evidence. One of the articles I am accused of evading block on is the article Hed PE. But if you look at the revisions, you can clearly tell that there is a difference between the edits that I made on the article, and the edits that are being attributed to me.

Here is the edit that my accusers believe is being reverted to by a "sock" of me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&diff=263343081&oldid=263310245

And here is the most recent reversion of an edit that is being attributed to a "sock":

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&diff=264921318&oldid=264920892

Now, if you look at the edits of the editors that are being called "socks", you can clearly see several striking differences that send out a clear signal that these edits were NOT made by me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&oldid=264866090

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&oldid=264917865

Firstly, there are SEVEN citations in the lead. Not only do I not use citations in the leads of articles that I am CURRENTLY editing, I do not use more than two citations per statement. Secondly, the "discography" section contains a best-of compilation which I would have certainly removed had I made these edits. Finally, none of the content in this edit points to a revert to any past edit made by me. The most recently reverted edits are the amalgamation of several edits made since I was blocked without any attempt to clean-up the formatting, which I most certainly would have done had my account not been blocked. Now, if you look at the revisions of the Sockpuppet investigation, it shows that the editor who added the IP who made the above edits is Landon1980:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FIbaranoff24&diff=264917350&oldid=264830350

I had previously stated my opinion that this editor, Landon, had me blocked only so he could continue pushing his POV. These recent actions just prove it. These edits clearly show violation of Wikipedia's rules and prove me innocent of any wrongdoing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Now that I've had enough sleep, finally... I guess if seven hours is enough.. To the point!

I'm not going to withdraw the sock case now, as I don't know how to split sock cases. Looking over the edits of all the IPs, aside from the one that looked distinctly like the suspected sock master, I would have to say that I do not believe that Ibaranoff is the controller of these IPs. In the history of the article, it can be seen that he and IPs who are similar to the reported IPs have basically warring over the content in the article. The goal of the IPs is to add sources, a great deal of sources, and it seems, to removal reliable sources, all while changing the genre of the band to suit their POV.

They are someone's socks, that I know for sure, but who, well, I just hope the checkuser is accepted. If anything, the checkuser can at least figure out a range for us so that this IP user can be range-blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• In response to your comment: I saw no reliable sources being removed. I looked at the edits, and all of the sources used to back up the lead's assertion of "rap metal" had already been in the mainline of the article. If you look at the References section, citations 1 and 7 are the same, as are 2 and 11 and 3 and 19. This repetition of sources just goes to show that Landon is changing the genre of the band to suit his POV that the band is "rap metal", when the majority of sources, including ones that are not being utilized in the article, describe the band as punk-based, not metal-based. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • So, you're saying that The Rolling Stone, is not a reliable source then? I checked both Rolling Stone sources, and, although they both are from rolling stone, they are from two separate articles which souce the band as being that genre. Just so you know, this is not Landon's point of view, this is sourced content, and since the edits were removing that sourced content, and changing the content, he was reverting.

• • • No. What I said was that the majority of the sources state punk, not metal, is the genre of the band. Rolling Stone is reliable in noting an opinion or certain biography information that cannot be backed up elsewhere. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

All that aside, no matter the circumstances, per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, it is never okay to personally attack someone. Although I will change my proposal at AN/I, if you want to increase your chances of getting unblocked, I suggest that right now, you strike through every single one of your personall attacks, calling me a lier, Landon and whats-his-name sockpuppets without evidence, calling me a Michael moore-grade hack, etc.

• Well, Landon's revert of sourced content certainly proves that something is wrong here. I apologize for any insult I may have directed at you, but for the longest time, I saw you as being uncooperative, and I merely wanted my block lifted so that I could defend myself against the continously ongoing and expanding accusations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is as much getting articles to featured status as it is editing harmoniously with all those around you, and this insulting and incivil behavior just poisons the atomosphere. It is simply disruptive to insult people here, and like it or not, you were editing disruptively whenever you put in an edit summery such as rv idiocy, or when you continuously insulted me. That was disruptive. This is how NPA and CIVIL work: If someone insults you, you reply in a polite manner, and you keep doing so even if they keep insulting you, period. As you have so far noticed, this is what I have done, I have not insulted you a single time, yet you continue to insult me. This is not acceptable behavior, and although I will not be requesting an indefinate block, I will be requesting an extended block, and that you are forced to edit under a mentor, as this behavior is unacceptable.

As stated by an admin, it doesn't matter how many FAs you've had if you've been disruptive.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for these actions, but you have to understand that I have been an editor for a long time here, and I have always tried to follow and maintain the rules of Wikipedia, and find myself frustrated with outright violations of the rules. An extension is ridiculous -- the three days I have been blocked is too many, and you want me blocked for longer than a week, even in the face of this new evidence? Lastly, I do not need a mentor. I have been an editor here for a long time, and I would just prefer to try and discuss these issues a little more rather than be treated like a child. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually, per

• this edit by Ibaranoff24

and

• this edit by IP 65.2.201.118

I'm going to have to retcon what I said above about the IPs perhaps not being Ibaraoff24, and therefore my ANI report stays the way it is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Being that I have absolutely no ability of editing any article, being that the IP I use is permanently associated with this account (which I found out after attempting to edit this talk page without signing in first), I am unable to edit anything. Your recent statement that you now believe that I have been making any edits outside my account in spite of the overwhelming evidence against this claim does not bode well for you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • IPs are not permamently associated with accounts, as they can change along their ranges, but anyway, that statement is meaningless unless you actually show us the diff you refer to.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Logging into Wikipedia has been the first thing I've done since being blocked. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Secondly, you do need a mentor, as you obviously have a problem with attacking people who disagree with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I never attacked anyone purely for disagreeing with me. I may have gone overboard in trying to maintain the rules of Wikipedia, but I do not need a "mentor". I have been here for four years. I have gained enough clout to be considered three times for adminship. I do not need a "mentor". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Your personal attacks suggest otherwise. People can be here for years, and not run into any problems, but once they do, it is obvious when mentorship is needed. The fact that you have insulted me, and others, and others still through email, is enough to prove you need mentorship in the area of editing nicely with others. This sheer inability to not attack people is what the problem is, and it obviously needs to be fixed. Mentorship is the only answer. Yes, I have gotten frustrated with others in the past, but that is no exuse to insult and personally attack them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You have never been blocked for no reason. You have never been a member for four years. You have never gone four years on Wikipedia without running into any problems until an unstable editor who can't handle any difference in opinion tries to have you blocked. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
      • You just don't get it do you? The fact of the matter is is that editors who personally attack others continously are not welcome on wikipedia. You continue to do this, such as the above, calling me unstable. Secondly, how long you have been here is irrelevant, I have been here four years as well, except, unlike you, I have a clean block record. I was not blocked for disruption in 2007, as you were. That is only proof that you've been disruptive in the past, and your behavior now only indicates that you haven't learned since then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, what this is is proof that you can and will take things out of context to get the results you want, which is why you refuse to face up to the facts and withdraw your accusations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Reply

In reply to the e-mail sent to me, I have to stay out of this. Multiple users and admins are already examining the situation and Wikipedia processes are already underway. If you feel the process is against you then I recommend, if you haven't already, seeking Wikipedia Mediation on this issue. If this has been attempted without success then Arbiitration is available as a last resort (but mediation and all other dispute resolution processes available through Wikipedia need to be tried first). 23skidoo (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you need to be working with higher ups than me on this. I'm just a lowly admin and I don't have time to conduct investigations and I don't have the authority to override what's going on. The users listed in the Mediation link I gave you above are trained in dealing with this sort of thing. I am noting the thread below where it appears you may be e-mailing some of the users involved. I strongly advise you not to do so as this only harms your case. You need to follow the mediation procedure. 23skidoo (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The contacts are in the Wikipedia Mediation link I gave you above. Please use my talk page for further correspondence as I prefer not to receive half the conversation via e-mail. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am unable to post on any talk page other than my own, as my account is still blocked. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Please do not email me

I received your email, however, any discussions you wish to have about wikipedia should remain on wikipedia talk pages. Any attempts to email me and begin personal attacks through correspondence will be deleted.

As far as I remember, I have never accused you of sockpuppetry. Whether or not the IPs who are making the exact same edits to articles that you previously did are connected with you isn't even relevant to the discussion. When I referred to them as "socks" I was referring to them in terms of the IP user who edit warred previously.

Please note I'm not making a comment as to whether those IPs are socks of yours or not, only that I don't really care. That's a matter for admins. Dayewalker (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you mean for me to respond on here, because I have no way of editing your talk page while blocked for things that I didn't do. Being that the multiple edits made to that article in the last few days have absolutely no connection to each other, the most recent edits could not have been a "sock" of the previous editors, and being that none of these edits have any connection with the style of my edits, I could not have made the first set of edits, and I certainly did not make the most recent set of edits as Landon1980 continues to accuse me of. This just proves bias on Landon's part, and that he and Prophaniti are the cause of the disruption, that they are violating Wikipedia's rules. This is a strong indicator that my account should be reinstated, that the sourced genre of "punk rock" should be restored on the Hed PE article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

If you feel your block is unjust, take it up with an admin or use the unblock template. If those socks of that person aren't you, you should be taking your case to admins, not emailing me to make personal attacks.

And for future reference, when my first personal contact with you is opening my email to find insults, I'm not going to bother investigating your case. I'm going to assume you were blocked for a good reason, and ignore you. Dayewalker (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I attacked you, but I don't exactly find being blocked without reason or being accused of things that I did not do to be relaxing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

If you are innocent the checkuser will come back as such. If these are not your socks you have nothing to worry about. Landon1980 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am innocent. I want my account access restored, and I wish for you to stop trying to push your own POV. And you NEED to stop accusing every editor that disagrees with your opinion of being a sockpuppet of me. The sources for Hed PE clearly show that the majority of sources agree that Hed PE is a punk rock band, not a rap metal band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Then the checkuser will exonerate you. Either way you cannot be allowed to run around here half-cocked edit warring, attacking anyone that doesn't agree with you. You still deny violating 3RR, you denying things like that when confronted with definitive evidence tells me/and others you are here for the wrong reasons. You have had one RFA, which you nominated yourself which ended in more opposes than supports. You do not decide whether sources are reliable or not, you have a bad habit of treating your opinion as fact. Landon1980 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See, saying things like that doesn't work when you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on any given music genre of being a sock puppet, and repeatedly try to twist things to fit your perspective. The real evidence is that I have been here for four years, and I have only ever tried to present factually-accurate articles, and never tried to push my own opinion, as you clearly have tried to do with yours. And I have been asked to run for adminship twice outside of my own self-nomination. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

As of now they are hesitant to waste their time running a checkuser on the grounds it is blatantly obvious it is you and you are already blocked. Landon1980 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Again, this is untrue. There is a staggering amount of evidence pointing against these edits being performed by me. The evidence suggests that you are, indeed, pushing POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

You do realize a checkuser is who extended your block don't you? They magically found their way back to you upon reviewing the "IP socks a plenty" thread on ANI which did not even so much as mention you. Quite a coincidence they traced back to you. Landon1980 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My provider has several IPs being used by multiple users. This means absolutely nothing in face of the staggering evidence against you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

If multiple users on wikipedia are using that IP range the checkuser will also confirm that. This is the excuse you are going to use when the checkuser comes back "confirmed" isn't it? You've got to be kidding. Landon1980 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. You know fully well that I never made those edits. You just want to push your own POV, as evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge the fact that the consensus for Hed PE's genre is that they are a punk band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Stop beating around the bush. If you are suggesting those IP's are mine just come out and say it. Landon1980 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Then who do they belong to then? Landon1980 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea. But I never accused you of making these edits, being that they conflict with your attempts to push the POV opinion of the less-attributed genre term (rap metal) rather than the genre term that was backed up by seven citations that you removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Good Faith Advice

I'm going to offer this advice to you on good faith. If you are innocent, stop arguing on this talk page. Getting snide with Daedalus, Landon, and myself does you absolutely no good. You were blocked by an admin with checkuser abilities, so just saying "it wasn't me" doesn't help you. If you wish to plead your case, ask for an unblock or contact an administrator. Stop emailing people with attacks, stop trying to drop in how many times you've been nominated for admin, and just stop trying to say that you were right in the first place.

If you want to debate this, ask for an admin or make an unblock request. Anything else is just prolonging the drama. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I apologized for attacking you. I haven't sent any emails containing attacks since calming down. I respond to the comments posted here because, being blocked, I have absolutely no way of defending myself against these allegations. As these posters continue to make these statements here, I have to respond to them, because the truth needs to be said. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Also, make sure your unblock request only addresses your behavior, and the actual problems which lead to the block. If you lace the request with accusations, personal attacks, etc, it is not going to be successful. Landon1980 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I only present the evidence, which includes the fact that you reverted sourced material and accused any difference of opinion of being a sock puppet of me in order to promote your POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Exactly, you argue your POV, you do not explain the reason you were blocked, hense, why your unblocks keep failing. Like Daye has said, if you want your unblock to have a possibility of success higher than 1%, I suggest you write an unblock request which addresses, and I stress this, your behavior, not the behavior of others. Failure to do so will not result in you getting unblocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was initially blocked for accusations of violating 3RR. Now, my block has been extended to a week based on unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry. Based on the overwhelming evidence against these accusations, I request that my account be unblocked. I wish to undertake discussions in the issues involved and hope to come to an agreeable compromise between all parties involved.

Decline reason:

You do not provide the "overwhelming evidence" that you speak of in this section. —  Sandstein  21:48, 18 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.

Please correct the discrepency where you say, accused of violating 3RR. It was found that you did violate 3RR. Also, reviewing admins, please note that this user has engaged in numerous acts of incivilty and personal attacks upon others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Daedalus, this is why I have repeatedly called you biased and unreasonable. Even after thoroughly discussing all of these issues, you still refuse to acknowledge that I have been a user of Wikipedia for four years, and I have been asked more than once to run for adminship. But you focus on accusations by users who actually do engage in numerous acts of incivility, and directed personal attacks toward me. And, for the last time, I made four separate edits. I did not make four reverts to the same revision. I did not violate 3RR. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • We've already been over this. First, back up what you say, I already acknowledged that you've been here for four years, but as I also said, the length of time you've been here is irrelevant. Second, not a single person has attacked you, I have seen the diffs provided, and they are not attacks, we have already been over this, however, you have attacked people, as evidenced on this talk page. Me, Landon, that other guy, Dayewalker, several people. The differences between reversions can't lie, it has been shown threw the listed evidence that you did in fact violate 3RR. And no, you have not been asked more than once to run for adminship, you have nominated yourself once, and in fact, that was the only nomination you have ever received. A message your your talk page by another user suggesting adminship is not a nomination, it is only a nomination when all the paperwork has been filled out, and filed at the request for adminship page. But also to note, that this is irrelevant, whether you've been nominated for adminship or not does not say anything about you, and the fact that you're using this as reason to get unblocked just makes you look bad.
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive3#Would_you_still_be_interested_in_running_for_adminship.3F
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive4#Admin
    • Well, what do you know! I HAVE been asked to run for adminship twice! How about that? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
      • Please notice now neither of these editors follows through with a nomination. Being asked and being nominated are two different things entirely.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, I never stated that I was nominated more than once. I stated that I was asked to run more than once. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • And for the last time, you violated 3RR, and I mean, as others have, and the ones who blocked you have, the spirit of the rules. Wikipedia is now a law firm, we don't follow rules by the letter, we follow the spirit of the rules, but then again, would you like me to link to the four times that you reverted?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Here is proof that I did not violate 3RR, edit by edit:
      • First revision
        • Shows revert to past edit (meaning, separate from the other reverts) without discussion. This does not count in 3RR, because it is entirely separate from the other edits, AS I'VE STATED.
      • Second revision
        • After looking over the edits, I cleaned up the Rolling Stone source, but removed the link to the unreliable source Muze.
      • Third revision
        • Reverts to second revision.
      • Fourth revision
        • Second revert.
    • Well, what do you know? TWO REVERTS. The four edits WERE SEPARATE after all! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

• First revert
• Second revert reverts to first.
• Third revert makes the same changes found in first and second reverts, along with others.
• Fourth revert again makes same changes found in first, second, and third reverts, along with several minor changes.

(two edit conflicts)Well, what do you know, four reverts. The reverts are clear as day.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Those edits were made on several different days. You apparently do not understand what 3RR means. 3RR means four reverts to the same revision within the span of 24 hours. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy which applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)

Please review the following, first, from WP:3RR, then, from WP:EDITWAR

WP:3RR]

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy which applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring.

WP:EDITWAR

The most common measure of edit warring is the three-revert rule, often abbreviated 3RR. The three-revert rule usefully measures edit warring, as it posits that surpassing three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours is edit warring. While nobody should interpret the three-revert rule blindly, reaching this threshold strongly signals that serious misconduct is afoot. The 3RR metric is not an exemption for conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits.

I have bolded the relevant note within the second quote.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• And, again, I made two reverts, not four. And 3RR is specifically for edits made within the span of 24 hours. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • No, I do believe the evidence I posted a few moments ago shows otherwise, but since you appear to be selectively reading, I'll post it again right here:
    • First revert
      • Revision as of 21:36, January 7, 2009
    • Second revert reverts to first.
      • Revision as of 00:05, January 9, 2009
    • Third revert makes the same changes found in first and second reverts, along with others.
      • Revision as of 03:23, January 13, 2009
    • Fourth revert again makes same changes found in first, second, and third reverts, along with several minor changes.
      • Revision as of 22:53, January 13, 2009
    • Fifth revert same as past four, this is what we call edit warring here at wikipedia.
      • Revision as of 02:27, January 14, 2009
    • Sixth revert same as past five.
      • Revision as of 03:10, January 15, 2009

This clearly shows four reversions of material, I shall now go over each of these diffs to calculate the time between them. I've also added more diffs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• This clearly shows four reverts OVER SEVERAL DAYS. I'm sorry, you are clearly acting out of your own bias. The 3RR rule is reverting four times within the span of 24 hours. Would you like me to post it again? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy which applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)

I guess you aren't getting what I'm hinting at, so I'll just post it flatly: You are gaming the system by reverting once every day back to your own version, it is in this way that you violate wikipedia's edit warring rules, and 3RR.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Again, these accusations are COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED. What you fail to realize is that I have been here for four years, I've been approached for adminship more than once, and I have written six featured articles. Why would I do the things that you accuse me of? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • And again, you fail to realize that it doesn't matter what you've done or how long you've been here if you've been disruptive, and once again, these accusations are not completely unfounded, the evidence of you gaming the system can be found above.

• • Listen to me very closely, as I have stated many, many times before, if you want to obtain any success from your efforts, stop noting what you've done and how long you've been here, it makes you look like you have a superiority complex, in that you are using your contributions as justification to edit war and game the system. Just like Nixon argued It's not breaking the law if the president does it, you're trying to argue It's not violating the policy if a editor who has been nominated for adminship, and has featured articles, does it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Right now, you are clearly lying. The rules are there. Can you not read them? I have violated no Wikipedia rule. Are you intentionally trying to offend me so you can push me over the edge? Sorry, pal. Not working. As long as you continue to insult my intelligence, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
      • Whether you believe me or not, I'm actually not lying, the fact is that you were gaming the system by edit warring and reverting your version continously, as stated above, but besides that, I am not the one who is digging my own grave, try looking in a mirror and you'll be much closer to your answer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Wrong again. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you are clearly lying. The rules are as clear as possible. Would you like me to post them again, so you can read them clearly? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy which applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)

No, I'm not referring to 3RR, I'm referring to edit warring and gaming the system, which is what you were doing. Take the time to read my posts, and take back your insult, if you ever want to better your chances of being unblocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, you were referring to 3RR. You've repeatedly said "3RR, 3RR" over and over again, thus proving that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what 3RR means. And yet you are telling ME what to do? I have been here for four years, I have brought six articles to FA status, and countless to GA status, in addition to being approached to run for adminship TWICE. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Also, I am accusing you of breaking two policies. That is not a lie, despite what you think. The fact is, the opposite party will always believe what they believe is right, so calling me a liar based on what your idea of truth is is factually incorrect when based upon the evidence and arguments that have been posted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, it is a lie, because I did not engage in any edit war, nor did I "game the system". You refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against your claims, and this is why I accuse you of bias. (00:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Again

Since the useless argument on this page continues, might I again suggest you discuss your complaints with an admin. Posting DIFFS here after an admin has already declined your unblock doesn't help.

You seem to be proud of previous editors who suggested you apply for adminship. Perhaps one of them would be willing to listen to your requests. Dayewalker (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

As stated in my previous request for my block to be lifted, I was initially blocked for accusations of violating 3RR. Now, my block has been extended to a week based on unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry. Based on the overwhelming evidence against these accusations, I request that my account be unblocked. I wish to undertake discussions in the issues involved and hope to come to an agreeable compromise between all parties involved. Since I was asked to provide this evidence, I present the following that I have gathered over the last few hours. One of the articles I am accused of evading block on is Hed PE. But if you look at the revisions, you can clearly tell that there is a difference between the edits that I made on the article, and the edits that are being attributed to me. Here is the edit that my accusers believe is being reverted to by a "sock" of me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&diff=263343081&oldid=263310245
And here is the most recent reversion of an edit that is being attributed to a "sock":
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&diff=264921318&oldid=264920892
Now, if you look at the edits of the editors that are being called "socks", you can clearly see several striking differences that send out a clear signal that these edits were NOT made by me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&oldid=264866090
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&oldid=264917865
Firstly, there are SEVEN citations in the lead. Not only do I not use citations in the leads of articles that I am CURRENTLY editing, I do not use more than two citations per statement. Secondly, the "discography" section contains a best-of compilation which I would have certainly removed had I made these edits. Finally, none of the content in this edit points to a revert to any past edit made by me. The most recently reverted edits are the amalgamation of several edits made since I was blocked without any attempt to clean-up the formatting, which I most certainly would have done had my account not been blocked. Now, if you look at the revisions of the Sockpuppet investigation, it shows that the editor who added the IP who made the above edits is Landon1980:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FIbaranoff24&diff=264917350&oldid=264830350
Thus suggesting an apparent bias in favor of the opinion that the band Hed PE supposedly performs rap metal, which is not backed up by consensus, although suggested by one reliable source (Rolling Stone).

Decline reason:

The evidence is on the WP:ANI thread is pretty compelling; just because you tried to make some differences in your sock edits does not mean they are by other people. --fvw* 22:27, 18 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.

• I DID NOT MAKE THOSE EDITS. "Just because you tried to make some differences in your sock edits does not mean they are by other people"? WHAT?!? Do you not pay attention at all? I have been here for FOUR YEARS. I have six featured articles, countless good articles, and I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO RUN FOR ADMINSHIP TWICE. Do you REALLY think that I am evading block? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I was initially blocked for untrue accusations of violating 3RR. Now, my block has been extended to a week based on unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry. Firstly, let's go over the 3RR accusations. Here are the edits that I was blocked for: ****First revision *****Shows revert to past edit (meaning, separate from the other reverts) without discussion. This does not count in 3RR, because it is entirely separate from the other edits, AS I'VE STATED. ****Second revision *****After looking over the edits, I cleaned up the Rolling Stone source, but removed the link to the unreliable source Muze. ****Third revision *****Reverts to second revision. ****Fourth revision *****Second revert. Four separate edits. Only two reverts to the same revision. Does not violate 3RR. Moving on to the accusations of block evasion, one of the articles I am accused of evading block on is Hed PE. But if you look at the revisions, you can clearly tell that there is a difference between the edits that I made on the article, and the edits that are being attributed to me. Here is the edit that my accusers believe is being reverted to by a "sock" of me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&diff=263343081&oldid=263310245
And here is the most recent reversion of an edit that is being attributed to a "sock":
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&diff=264921318&oldid=264920892
Now, if you look at the edits of the editors that are being called "socks", you can clearly see several striking differences that send out a clear signal that these edits were NOT made by me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&oldid=264866090
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hed_PE&oldid=264917865
Firstly, there are SEVEN citations in the lead. Not only do I not use citations in the leads of articles that I am CURRENTLY editing, I do not use more than two citations per statement. Secondly, the "discography" section contains a best-of compilation which I would have certainly removed had I made these edits. Finally, none of the content in this edit points to a revert to any past edit made by me. The most recently reverted edits are the amalgamation of several edits made since I was blocked without any attempt to clean-up the formatting, which I most certainly would have done had my account not been blocked. Now, if you look at the revisions of the Sockpuppet investigation, it shows that the editor who added the IP who made the above edits is Landon1980:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FIbaranoff24&diff=264917350&oldid=264830350
Thus suggesting an apparent bias in favor of the opinion that the band Hed PE supposedly performs rap metal, which is not backed up by consensus, although suggested by one reliable source (Rolling Stone). I have been an editor here for four years. I have brought six articles to FA and countless more to GA status. I am not the kind of person who would evade a 24-hour block.

Decline reason:

No new arguments here, no new answer either. --fvw* 22:57, 18 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.

• "No new arguments"? Are you kidding me? Are you INTENTIONALLY ignoring everything I say? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Gooba gabba gooba weeble wobble wabble ikki ikki ikki ni ni ni noo ooke ooke ooke oh-e-oh-e-oh. If the next block reviewer is actually reading this, I apologize for that. Let's summarize everything that's happened so far. Firstly, I have been blocked for violating 3RR, which I did not do. This block lasted 24 hours. Upon the finish of this duration, I was blocked again for supposedly evading the block, even though I have absolutely no way of doing so. The editors who accused me of evading the block have shown extreme levels of POV in their decision to continue to hound me and accuse me of sock puppetry in spite of an extreme lack of evidence. I wish to have the block revoked so I can defend myself and have the block investigation overturned. Without the ability to defend myself against these attempts at slander, you are not giving me a fair chance, even though I have not violated any Wikipedia rule, and these allegations come from editors who have.

Decline reason:

You have full read access to everything that happened, and can document whatever wrongs may have been done to you here on your talk page. At least, unless you keep posting pointless unblock requests and get your talk page protected. --fvw* 23:18, 18 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.

• I NEED the block to be lifted. I have clearly shown that I have done nothing wrong. I have provided more than enough evidence that these accusations are unfounded. Do you really think that it's perfectly fine to block a respected editor for a week for NO REASON? Especially seeing as how I now have absolutely no ability to defend myself, as my accusers are COMPLETELY BIASED are refuse to acknowledge the massive amount of evidence disproving their claims. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC))
  • You keep saying that. You want to define it? Bias as to what, your own point of view?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You are clearly biased, being that you have posted NONE of the evidence that I have provided that proves my innocence, nor have you overturned the investigation, which was NOT needed in the first place being that I MADE ABSOLUTELY NO EDITS WHILE BLOCKED. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
      • No, listen to me. Biased implies that I support a specific point of view. Clarify now what that point of view is, because I can say matter-of-factly that I don't support any point of view. I go by what is visible to my naked eye. The evidence speaks for itself, so then, instead of throwing terms on me, you might as well throw terms on the evidence, and thus, all the evidence is biased against you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, listen to ME. You are biased, because you only show one side of the argument, and make no attempt to show the evidence that I have given for my innocence. You are biased. Goodbye. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't see how you can argue you did not violate 3RR, you have been shown the diffs dozens of times. All it takes is 4 reverts on a single page within the span of 24 hours, which you clearly did. Contrary to your belief it does not have to be to the exact same revision, just reverts of someone's edits in general. Do you not realize how bad this makes you look, those edits are in the page history and anyone with eyesight can see them. Why would you lie about something completely visible to others? How many people must tell you you violated 3RR? You know you violated 3RR, and there is no point lying about it. Landon1980 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material. Landon1980 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon, I clearly showed earlier that those were four separate edits. Do you want me to show you again?

First revision

Shows revert to past edit (meaning, separate from the other reverts) without discussion. This does not count in 3RR, because it is entirely separate from the other edits, AS I'VE STATED.

Second revision

After looking over the edits, I cleaned up the Rolling Stone source, but removed the link to the unreliable source Muze.

Third revision

Reverts to second revision.

Fourth revision

Second revert.

I also showed that you also showed bias in reverting sourced content and claiming that I had made the edits, even though I have absolutely no ability to do so. Please do not make another reply to this talk page. I have repeatedly proven my points, but the fact that you choose not to listen proves that this conversation is going nowhere. I am in the process of gaining administrative help in not only preventing the both of you from harassing me like this, but also in overturning your ridiculous, biased "sockpuppet investigation". Have a good life. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

• Daedalus969, it has come to my attention that the sockpuppet investigation proposal was denied. Thus, you and Landon1980 have absolutely no ground to continue editing the page, especially by adding false statements, as you did here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Again, do not email me

I politely asked you above, and am doing so again. Stop emailing me. I will not respond anywhere except here. I do not want to read your attacks on other editors, and I will not review your case any further than I have already done. You were guilty of the offense that resulted in your block, admins have confirmed this, it's a dead issue. You are merely eating up other people's time in your refusal to serve your block.

I have given you advice on your page as to how to handle things, which has been ignored. Multiple admins have reviewed your case, and your block has done nothing but grow longer.

Here's my final advice to you. Stop. Serve your time, stop harassing other users. Never again try and make a case for yourself being superior to another editor based on someone suggesting to you that you should be an admin someday, that doesn't help your case at all. Sorry to break it to you, but you will not be an admin. Your actions in the last few weeks have caused a lot of lost faith in you, and personal attacks and unwanted email won't help.

If you want to help the encyclopedia and not just fight and settle old scores, then stop disrupting things and sit out the rest of your block. When it's over, it's over, and you won't be judged on it. You can start over, but you have to accept your punishment.

In any case, do not email me again, and certainly do not email me with personal attacks on other, productive users. Trying to convince someone to be on your side in a fight is still fighting, and that's a waste of everyone's time. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize, Dayewalker. This was a mistake. I sent several emails about this email, and I was unaware of the fact that I had already emailed you. I never harassed any users. I am being harassed myself. Pay attention. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Along those same lines...who are you and why are you emailing me? Have we had interactions before? either way (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you please not e-mail me again, you can say what you need to here. Landon1980 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this should stop now

I have lengthened your block indefinitely for sockpuppetry, edit warring, personal attacks, harassment and email abuse. Indef does not mean forever, or even a week. The first step towards getting unblocked may be for you to acknowledge that many other editors have lately found your behaviour to be highly untowards. The sockpuppetry, however, is most worrisome, along with the email abuse, hence I have disabled your email-sending privileges. I hope you'll now begin talking with editors, here on your talk page, about how you might be brought back into the fold, if that's what you want. This can happen soon. However, if you further abuse this talk page, your ability to edit it will most likely be disabled. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, personal attacks, harassment and email abuse. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? I never engaged in sockpuppetry, edit warring, harassment or email abuse. I am being harassed myself. Just look at the edits of Daedalus969 and Landon1980. They repeatedly lied about my edits and prevented any attempt by anyone else at making a valid edit that disagreed with their personal opinions. You are reaching far beyond your ground. I have been a respected member of Wikipedia for four years. I have six featured articles, countless good articles, and I have been asked to be nominated for adminship TWICE. This clearly proves that these allegations are outrageously false. You have overstepped your bounds by taking the side of my harassers. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

I warned you above about falling back on your credentials. No one cares, nor are they applicable anymore since you are serving a indef block. I would advise you to strike your comments about Gwen and realize this situation needs to end, before things get even worse.

(EC) And stop with the unblocks. You've been warned by an admin about abusing that process today, too. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not being given a fair chance. The block is on the basis of actions I never made. There is not one bit of truth in Gwen Gale's claims. This administrator is overstepping her bounds. I do not wish to engage in any edit war. I wish to improve the quality and maintain the standards of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

I asked you to give this a rest. Instead, however, you simply could not let it go and have now earned yourself an indef block. Stop asking for an unblock or this page will be protected from editing. With it unprotected, you will be able to request an unblock at some time in the not-too-near future, i.e. some months from now. —Travis^talk 03:02, 19 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.

I'm loathe to disable your talk page. Please take this as a second warning to abuse neither it, nor the unblock template (the above unblock request is your tenth). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:ANI#Summary_of_events Gwen Gale (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've abused NOTHING. Your threats are extremely disrespectful to the rules of Wikipedia. All I have ever done is tried to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and maintain the standards of quality. I should NOT be treated like a vandal who only registered to muck up articles. My account should not be blocked. I should be an administrator. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Page protected

Sorry, but due to continued abuse of the unblock process after warnings from both administrators and other editors, I have locked this page. —Travis^talk 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Note to other admins - this user emailed me asking to be unblocked, saying he had been wrongfully blocked for edit warring and wrongfully blocked for socking. I used checkuser to look into the allegations of wrongful sockpuppetry block, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24. Checkuser suggests that most, if not all, of the IPs alleged to be his are indeed his. Raul654 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Ibaranoff, if unblocked, can you behave in a reasonable way? E.g, with no sockpuppetry or revert warring? Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

So you no longer deny this? My only problem with you being unblocked was your complete denial of everything down to violating 3RR. I have no problems whatsoever with you coming back and behaving, but the personal attacks, edit warring, etc has got to stop. The user above gave you some good advice, in theory, even if you know you are right sometimes it's best to let it go. In this case though, the content and sources you were removing were found to be reliable at the noticeboard. You cannot take it upon yourself to decide a source is unreliable. Landon1980 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Muze wasn't found to be reliable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

NME was, and that is all that matters. The fact NME used there review means they have endorsed it. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with you. You call me a liar and a vandal, yet checkuser confirms you were lying in every other statement. Why did you not just let the short 24 hour block expire? Why evade your block, why all the IP socks, why make all those spurious AN3 reports? You did a lot of things that were very disruptive and completely unnecessary. If you expect to regain the communities trust you owe a lot of people some apologies, and you need to promise you will not continue with the behavior you were blocked for. I will agree that you do some good work, and I would like to see you be unblocked and be able to contribute constructively again. Landon1980 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. The page clearly said that the biography was written by Muze, not NME. If you don't believe me, take a look. Scroll all the way down to the bottom, and you'll see this disclaimer. "Copyright 1989-2008 Muze UK Ltd. For personal non-commercial use only. All rights reserved." Information from Muze is mass-distributed and appears on various websites, including NME. Just because it appears on the website of a reliable source doesn't mean that Muze is reliable. I've repeatedly apologized for my actions, but any stubbornness on my part does not mean that I was the only person who behaved against the rules. You were clearly being stubborn, as you are now, by denying that the biography is from Muze rather than NME. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

You shouldn't really say "I'm not going to argue with you," and then argue with someone. Landon appears to have come here in good faith, and you seem to still want to argue about the incident that got you blocked in the first place. I hope you can see how that's not a promising sign.

I was merely informing him of why I made the edit, which I attest was made in good faith. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

I'll ask a question here that seems to have come up. You said above you wouldn't sock or edit war if reinstated. However, your statement above clearly shows you still think you were right. If reinstated, would you continue to make that change on the article page? Would you be willing to agree to a topic ban on the pages you were edit warring over? I appreciate your responses. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to stay out of things for a while. I just wish that rather than abjectly reverting my edits, people would discuss things rather than immediately coming to the conclusion that I am trying to control the article. The idea of a topic ban is way over the edge, but I do think that any objection to my edits should be responded to with a discussion rather than immediately reverting the edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

(OD)So, from what I can tell, you still think you were right and you're still willing to argue over it in any forum. You can't say you won't make the same edits that got you blocked, and aren't willing to agree to a topic ban.

No offense, but I think an unblock is very premature in this situation. Ibaranoff24 doesn't seem to understand how he's done anything wrong.

I think you are being ridiculous in your assumption that I can't discuss things. How else did I get so much support on my adminship nomination, followed by two more requests to run, not to mention the fact that I have six featured articles and countless good articles? There is no reason why I should be physically restrained. I'm not a beginner at this thing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

As I told you yesterday, nobody cares about your resume. You are not an admin. You are an indefinitely blocked user, an edit warrior, and a sockpuppeter, all confirmed by admins and checkuser. No offense intended, but you need to understand your situation. This page wasn't opened up again for you to discuss your block and how you were wronged, it was opened up to allow you to show admins that you understand what you did wrong, and you won't continue that behavior in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Ibaranoff(the post above Daye's))Except that you didn't get so much support. If that was the case you would have won. You had a single nomination, which you nominated yourself for, then one person suggested that you run for adminship, and another asked if you would like a nomination. Note how they never followed through. Please stop using this as an exuse to step on everyone in your way.

Secondly, it is not an assumption that you can't discuss things, it is obvious from the revert warring that you cannot. You're so steadfast in your opinion that you're right that you're unwilling to compromise. The basic premise of changing content on wikipedia is that there was a consensus against your actions by several people, yet you continued to revert. Since your material, or rather, removal thereof, was against article consensus, the best course of action is proceed to the article talk page, as for a third opinion, and proceed to gain consensus. Please note, that when material, or the removal thereof, is challenged, the challenged version doesn't get to stay up while you talk it out, but the version that has consensus. What you did is war trying to get your version to stay, before gaining consensus, and that is why what you did was wrong, personal attacks aside.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirdly, one last note. Even editors who have been here for awhile, or have brought many articles to good or featured status, partake in activities that cause them to be banned or blocked by the community. Take for example the user User:Kwember, how was a great editor, but he personally attacked many people, and hence, was disruptive to the project, you can take User:Betacommand. I can't exactly remember why he was banned from the community, you'd have to do some research.

Anyway, the point being, it doesn't matter what you've done once you were disruptive. You blatantly sockpuppeted to get your way even after you were blocked, and even before that you socked to try and argue for yourself as a different person on the ANI page, and when confronted, you denied it. If someone isn't willing to admit they did something wrong, and they keep using their past status to step on people, well, that's why I oppted for the indef block on AN/I.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. The point is that I would not get all the support I got if I was any of these things or if I was trying to do what you accuse me of. There has clearly been a major understanding. And I've repeatedly stated that my provider mixes up IPs all of the time. Why this has not been made apparent, I don't know. But I am willing to discuss my edits even when others are not. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

........You still deny the obvious sockpuppetry? I'm not accusing you of doing it anymore, the checkuser came back positive, and apparently you don't know that much about IP addresses. You sockpuppetted to evade your block, period. The evidence has been gathered, the report submitted and returned. You have been found to have been sockpuppeting. Accept it and stop denying it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Don't believe me. My longstanding record of good contributions speaks for yourself. If you still want to believe that these edits were not wrongly attributed to be, I cannot change your mind. It's not as if a computer would ever make a mistake... even though every spell check I've ever had has tried to tell me that I've misspelled my own name. Open the pod bay doors, HAL. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I, for one, will let bygones be bygones. If this is what you want. All the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong's" and the stubbornness on your part needs to end. This is a collaborative project and you must be able to work with others, and be able to handle other editors disagreeing with you at times. You are not always right. Do you now understand how WP:3RR works? It does not have to be to the exact same revision as you contend. You need to know these things before you are allowed to edit again. Landon1980 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Where and when did you apologize? I'm not arguing with you either, and you still seem to not understand. Edit warring is never the answer, you will be on a very short leash if/when unblocked and you need to understand this. There are many things you can do other than edit warring. I'm not out to get you like you think I am. NME is a as reliable as they come, and if they use a review so can we. I hope your first edits will not be to remove reliable sources, and to pick up right where you left off. Landon1980 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained, the page was sourced from Muze. If NME had written the page, it would be a reliable source, but NME did not. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

OK, if you want to continue down that path I guess I can't stop you. That is your interpretation of how things work, you started by saying NME was unreliable, then that it was biased. My point is, people have differing opinions and that is what the discussion page is for. In the future seek consensus before making controversial edits, and do not insult people as that always makes things worse. Landon1980 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I never said those things about NME. You must have misunderstood me. Based on your edits to Hed PE, I suggest that you do the same. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

sometimes...

even when you know you're right, it is better to concede. Is it really worth all this? You have a lot of great work to do on Wikipedia. Sometimes you just have to give in on some things so you can do good work elsewhere. Just food for thought, Kingturtle (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works best when editors can stay cool during adverse times. It can certainly be frustrating when you are being cool and the editor on the other end is not being cool. But losing your cool is not going to help. Here are some valuable pages to read that you already may know about but wouldn't hurt in reviewing as you go forward: wikiquette, civility, no personal attacks, staying cool when the editing gets hot and don't panic. As I say, it is difficult to hold yourself to these standards when you feel the other side is betraying these standards. Still, you must find a way to remain above the fray - especially if you want to become an administrator someday. These skills are essential to passing an RfA and being useful to Wikipedia. Other great reading is Raul654/Raul's laws. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I had agreed not to engage in any edit war or otherwise step over the line, but have yet to receive any response; my longstanding history of good edits shows that I should not be indefinitely blocked.

Decline reason:

And what about use of multiple accounts? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:58, 20 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.

{{unblock|Unblock request was reviewed before I had a chance to respond to the question of multiple accounts. As I state below, I do not intend to use multiple accounts, which is why I am requesting an unblock. (If I had intended to open a second account, I would not have bothered.) I wish to make myself useful on Wikipedia, get some more FAs listed and make another run for adminship down the line.}}

NOTE to reviewing admin: Unless Ibaranoff24 admits to his sockpuppetry/block evasion (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24) and commits to restrict himself to one account, I would strongly recommend against unblocking. —Travis^talk 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for the evasion attempt, and I do not wish to abuse my privileges. I wish to make myself useful on Wikipedia, get some more FAs listed and make another run for adminship down the line. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

This is what some of us have been waiting to see. Thank you. —Travis^talk 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This helps. Thanks. So, as the blocking admin, if I understand, you're promising not to edit war over content (no 3rr or slow burn back-and-forths, even if you strongly believe the sources and policy are 100% with you), not to make personal attacks and to edit only from this account, no matter how nettlesome things get? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I promise not to edit war over content. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm not here to drag all these promises out of you. I was ready to unblock, but your answer sounds as though you are only promising not to edit war. That's not enough and I can't unblock you at this time. Perhaps another admin can have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• That was not my intention. I'm sorry if I gave this impression. As I've stated, I do not intend to attack or edit from another account. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I have spent the morning reading over this talk page as well as all the incidents that led up to the block. I am generally satisfied with Ibaranoff24's responses to the questions that have been asked of him. Ibaranoff, I would be willing to unblock provided you commit yourself to the conditions laid forth by Gwen above. No edit warring, no personal attacks and no sockpuppetry. Judging by the change of tone over the course of your talk page, I think that you are sincere in your intent to change. Understand that if I unblock, I will be watching closely. I will be going to the extent of putting a link on my firefox buttonbar with your contributions... one minor slipup and I will not hesitate to reblock you. Do you feel you can accommodate these conditions? Trusilver 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of this. I intend on staying out of things for a while. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok then, I have unblocked you because I take "I understand all of this" as a promise to abide within these three bounds: No edit warring, no PAs, one account. If you stray at all, you'll be reblocked and likely for a much longer time. Your long and helpful contribution history along with this promise had lots of sway in this swift unblock, but no editor's contribution history grants them a pass to skirt policy (good faith mistakes are something else altogether). Please don't lean on your bygone history here as an assertion of authority in content disputes but rather, use all those skills to cite reliable sources and find ways to get along with other editors who may not always agree with you, even on sources. More or less no volunteer editor here gets all the edits they want. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Remember that there is no deadline - there is plenty of time to correct Wikipedia after we have established a consensus - and also that there are tools available to help us figure out exactly what consensus is. I hope things work out for you. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Plan 9

I was surprised to see that you deleted our discussion about the aspect ratio of Plan 9 from Outer Space, dismissing it is "spam and insults," when in my opinion, it was neither. I brought up very valid points which you chose to ignore.

This goes against what you promote in your profile regarding letting you know if you make a mistake, or censorship. Why do you feel you have to dominate the Plan 9 page with your own opinion? The Photoplayer 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re [2]; I believe he means this [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)