User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Currently retired from all
WP:CRIME related articles

Referencing

{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.

---

WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter

The December 2009 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the long face?

What do you think of this? She has my vote, but I'm not aware that Wikipedia has any notoriety rules. I wonder if he means "notability". Even so, if it is notable, it's still not exactly an "award". But then neither are the "sexiest". Do Brad or Hugh have some kind of People magazine sexy trophies on their mantlepieces? Or more likely, their headboards? I dunno. On another note, if SJP was the winner, who do you suppose was the runner-up? I'm curious. Rossrs (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait. I should have looked at the source. Hmmm and they say "on the dubious list" ... so we have a WP:RS to say the list is "dubious" .... 2. Amy Winehouse, 3. Sandra Oh, 4. Madonna and 5. Britney Spears. Well, she had some pretty fierce competition, didn't she? Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That could be updated slightly and used as the theme for the next Sex and the City film. It could be playing over the credits as SJP strides along one of those Manhattan sidewalks on her way from the blacksmith's shoe shop. I heard Connie Hines died just before Christmas. I can't imagine anyone else delivering the line "Wilbur" the way she could. Rossrs (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR Notification

Letting you know that I've opened a Good article reassessment for Daniel Day-Lewis, an article you are a significant contributor for. You can see my concerns at Talk:Daniel Day-Lewis/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy murder kit photo

Sorry to bother you, as I see both that you are not feeling well and you've retired from crime articles, but a user named Rockwing is attempting to delete the photo of Bundy's murder kit from the article. If you have a chance I'd much appreciate it if you'd weigh in on the photo's discussion page to keep it. Vidor (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Morrsion Under Assault

Hi Wildhartlivie! Hope things are better for you, and glad to see you're still fighting the good fight! It seems the "Image Police" death squads have been sent out after a feverish rally whipped them into frezny, raping and pillaging articles of their "unnecessary" images ("Text for all! Images for none!" is one of their rallying cries). Now, File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg is under assault at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_5, deemed pretty much "obsolete". If you're available to vote, please make your voice heard, so as to keep as many appropriate historic images of The Doors on WP as feasible! Your help is needed! Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just replied to the e-mail - didn't know you could do that. Anyhoo, it may include my real name, as that how it said it was sent. I don't care about that - just don't create a fiendish series of false identities, using them to create false documents and charge millions of dollars through Nigerian credit operations, please! You never know with you, Sockmaster ;> Doc9871 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure

Of course, I missed you — particularly in the last 48 hours — but c'mon: I begged you to stay. You got angry with me simply because I rose to the defense of editor Catherine Huebscher on that one point, which was important to her and which she really handled with care after you and I had told her we thought she was being a little freewheeling in her editing. I just thought she was a good egg, who had adjusted her approach, and who deserved to be received a little more warmly. Anyway — I hope you and I are on good terms again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The intro is really the only part of the Manson article that has been changed — by the same editor who posted the copy-edit tag. In fact, as I realize now, it's odd that editor Doc9871 was complaining about the long intro while defending the copy-edit tag that had been posted by the same editor who had wrought the long intro. I suspect Doc9871 wasn't paying close attention to what had been going on.

Anyway — in a series of edits that began at 00:02, 23 December 2009, I reverted the intro and removed the copy-edit tag. After that, I simplified some of the awkward sentences, mainly in the section headed "Early life." Before long, the other editor reinstated the copy-edit tag and went at the intro again. On the talk page, he posted an entry headed "State of this article" — and yesterday's exchanges began. Without removing the copy-edit tag, I again began simplifying several awkward sentences (in a series of edits that began at 04:10, 6 January 2010). I don't know whether the simplification I've done has increased the kilobyte count — but I think it's helped the article. It basically has to do with the elimination of many awkward constructions that troubled editor BassPlyr23 way back when.

I plan to carry out one more series of simplifications — and then I'll announce on the talk page that I plan to remove the copy-edit tag. The editor who posted the copy-edit tag (and went at the intro) also changed some of the wording in the "Spahn Ranch" section — but that's about it. I might tidy a bit of that, too — but nothing else has really changed in the article. The main thing, in my opinion, is that you restored the former intro.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If any sentence changes have created citation problems, they're probably my work. As I said, Zeus changed only the "Spahn Ranch" section (as far as I noticed). Other changes — to, say, "Early life" and the murder and investigation sections — are probably mine. With each rewording, I took some care, I think, to preserve citations — or, at least, a single citation that would cover an entire paragraph; but I might have made some errors. Maybe you should look through the article and let me know anything specific that bothers you. If a citation needs to be reinstated, I'll help you find it, in Helter Skelter or whatever.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Forest Whitaker

The article Forest Whitaker, to which you seem to be one of the primarily contributors, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert tool

Hi. I'm concerned about these recent reversions [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. I don't see how those edits that you reverted are "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" (from Wikipedia:Rollback feature). On that same page: "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory"; how are these self-explanatory? They seem to be part of a good-faith content disagreement. From the guideline again: "If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert." I'd say, in these cases, there's doubt.

Can you please explain to me why those edits are appropriate for the rollback feature? Also, it doesn't seem that you've communicated with the editor you were reverting. Are you planning to do that? Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... it doesn't border on vandalism. I'll just say for now that a lot of people would see those reverts as inappropriate use of the tool, and you could have it taken away on account of that. In particular, it would be a lot better if you talk to the person. Communication about disagreements is extremely important on this project.

I am very careful on Wikipedia to only use the "v-word" to describe such edits as insertion of random obscenities, page blanking, inappropriate image additions, etc. We define vandalism very, very narrowly, on purpose, and using a broad definition of it leads a lot of people to grief. Anything that could possibly be a good-faith edit, even a very misguided one, is emphatically not vandalism.

I hope you understand that I'm letting you know this so that you avoid trouble down the road. I don't think you want to lose the rollback tool, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love Casting

By your own standard—verifiability, not truth—your undoing my edit on the casting of Shakespeare in Love was out of line.

I properly sourced the edit—and Salon is a reputable source. Furthermore, there are several other sources that independently confirm the same story.

Sorry, but your own standard obliges me to undo your edit.

--TallulahBelle (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not worth it. --TallulahBelle (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much of an argument. I find it amazing that the source paragraph that plainly states that it's a rumour can get processed into the article, minus the qualifier. We don't regurgitate gossip and rumours, although lots of other sites do and there's probably plenty that repeat the story, which is a very different thing to "confirm" the story. And an edit summary that says "the truth hurts". That's nonsense. Wildhartlivie, you are right to remove it. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rossrs. My comment back included if "You're not worth it" is the best justification for adding gossip and falsely sourcing it that the editor can do, my edit was supported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject edits

What I have done it just based on meta.wiki. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR notice

I have opened a good article reassessment for Ben Stiller, an article of which you are a main contributor. You can read my concerns at Talk:Ben Stiller/GA1. The article is currently on hold for a week, but the length can be extended if significant progress is being made. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Miranda Decision 2

Tacv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You may not have noticed that the mediator already closed it in favor of the status quo, i.e. "Portugese-born Brazilian". In another threat at forum-shopping, Tavc says he wants to go to ANI due to having been badly treated. My guess is he wants to get all the opponents blocked so he can change the article. Can you say "obsessed"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They reduced his block to 24 hours to see if he would improve his approach. He didn't. And now he's taken it to an admin, and of course I've added my dos centavos there. Good grief. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved photo left in Bonnie and Clyde

The way we had the photos in the two backstory sections just after the lead — both on the right — left a big, wide, white stripe of empty space between the Clyde Barrow subhead and its body copy on a widescreen monitor. (This is because the Bonnie text wasn't deep enough to fill out her photo.)

The stripe problem is solved if you move Clyde's photo to the left. Now, the two photos do overlap a couple lines (and I know you don't like that) because Bonnie's picture is so deep, but on a widescreen monitor, the couple-line overlap looks way better than the big swath of no-man's-land — way better. Hopin' you won't revert unless you really hate the overlap.

Happy New Year, by the way.  :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, have you ever filed an RFC on an editor? I've never done it but I think we might think about this as an avenue. Just a thought, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"But I can't and won't say that I know I was edit-warring and that I think this block is just because (a) I know I wasn't edit warring, I was just plain editing, and (b) I won't compromise my integrity by saying I did something I know I didn't do. I really wish you would look into the other editor(s) involved here..". My. my, my... Doc9871 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kate Winslet

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Kate Winslet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It will probably take as long as Scarlett because I am in the middle of the WP:CUP and am not doing as much WP as I use to. It may take me the full 7 days just to do a first pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No rush. I just have some time and want to look at this. Feel free to change what I have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stiller

I planned to get to it eventually, I've just had a really busy week (one straight week of work, I finally get to sleep in tomorrow). The article definitely needed some cleanup, especially since it was one of the first articles I worked on and I wasn't initially that knowledgeable on sourcing. I've also let this article get changed quite a bit as it gets buried in my watchlist. I've also got Leslie Nielsen in GAR, but I haven't had any issues brought up in a few weeks (it's a long review). I probably brought this on by pushing everyone to help complete Sweeps, but I'd be happy to have GARs for all of my GAs at once if it meant Sweeps would be finished. If you need any assistance with sourcing for the GARs let me know. I'm gradually getting Stiller done and will hopefully finish by tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to head off to bed, but I'll try and give you a hand with Whitaker during the week. I always try at least once a year to clean up all of my articles (not going for WP:OWN here, but articles that I've worked to upgrade), by adding citations, removing hidden vandalism, and updating figures. I'm kind of looking forward to flagged revisions, but that might complicate things. I've also been more focused recently on image permissions and have been trying to review as many articles as I can for the Tag & Assess drive. I want to knock the drive out of the way so I can devote my time to article writing (already have three articles picked out). However, I've got to figure out how to get more WP:FILM members to contribute to the reviewing so I don't need to assess so many. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hanson

The edit that added the alias "The Human Hunter" wasn't vandalism but appeared to be a good faith edit. Hanson being called by the nickname "The Human Hunter" is not new. He is referred to as such in at least one documentary about him, several websites refer to him as such, and he is even referenced in Wikipedia's article on human hunting as a human hunter. Will you now change it back? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[10] If you want it back, do so and add a proper reference supporting the name was in use when he was active. I don't plan to revert my edit because someone says they read it before or it is included on some websites or it was included in documentaries. Neither is it referenced on the page Human hunting. That is not properly citing the use, which is absent on that page. Please don't follow around on my editing and make cases that aren't supported by proper referencing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben and Forest and friends

I don't know how much I would be able to contribute, time-wise. I've had a look at Ben Stiller - not a good article in my opinion. Forest looks pretty good, and I don't think it would take a lot to bring it up to scratch. I don't agree with reducing the filmography from a POV point of view. Rossrs (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment at Whitaker about the filmography. It's one of those situations where the alternative to exhaustive is to allow POV to creep in. Rossrs (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the film and TV work for Forrest should be two distinct sub-sections? To me, it's all acting and it's all the one career. I know some people like sectioning everything into little boxes to save actually reading the article (I learnt that at Roman Polanski), but I don't think it flows as well as it could. I think it is disjointed. What do you think? Should I be asking this at the GA review page? Rossrs (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: WP:ANI Wikiproject Dabbling

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bloom

Hes stated in several interviews he will not be returning. You can either remove the rest of the sentence or leave it alone. But He WILL NOT BE IN THE NEXT MOVIE. Also if someone repeatedly adds false info it is vandalism.LifeStroke420 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism: I don't know who's right about the content, but merely inserting the "wrong" thing repeatedly isn't vandalism. No one who's trying to improve a page can be said to be vandalizing it. WP:VANDAL: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism....edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Equazcion ^(talk) 16:50, 12 Jan 2010 (UTC)

From the Manson article

Hi. As you can see from the talk page, I'm stepping in to help get the edit-warring to stop over there. I'm committed to being impartial in this issue - I certainly have no stake in the article - and I'm monitoring the discussion there. Now, a lot of words have flown around on that page, incuding your asking SkagitRiverQueen to "Please stop "improving" the article". In the interest of a good-faith attempt to focus that talk page on discussion of the article, I'd like to ask all participants to make a commitment, or a renewed commitment to leaving personal remarks off of that page entirely. I am absolutely willing to hear any complaints you may have, but I would like to keep them from derailing the talk at Talk:Charles Manson.

Is that a reasonable request, do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at GTBacchus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kate

Hi, I wouldn't worry too much about the assessment being placed in jeopardy. I think instability is inevitable on any article that is not protected, and that includes most of the featured articles. It happens, and I think everyone understands it's part of the price paid for the "anyone can edit" ethos. If it's an isolated event, it passes without causing too much of a problem. I was offended by the recent comments, and commented. Really offended. Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

now that's really nice and much appreciated. Thank you ! Rossrs (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy

Instead of just reverting and wiping out all my changes, including ones not related to the citation formatting, you could have discussed it first. I don't see any reason why having the references more organized is a problem, but of course I wouldn't since you didn't actually say what your problems were. How about taking it to talk instead of just wiping it as if it's vandalism?—Chowbok ☠ 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look closer at the edit history. I did not add the text you claim I did. I don't see why consolidating citations and making them refer to the reference list via anchors is such a radical change that I need to bring it up in talk first. It sounds to me like you have some WP:OWN issues.—Chowbok ☠ 00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I did add it in the revert. That wasn't intentional. I think you should at least restore my additions of OCLCs, en dashes, and other fixes instead of wiping out my contributions wholesale.—Chowbok ☠ 00:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Well, if you're often accused of ownership issues, then maybe there's a reason... I've been editing here for over six years and have never been accused of that. Just something to think about. Saying that your roommate or whatever agrees with you isn't really that convincing an argument, by the way. Anyway, I've left your revert intact, so how about we move on to your actual problems with my edit, rather than bickering about whether I should have asked your permission before editing?—Chowbok ☠ 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You talk about everything under the sun except what is wrong with the edits I made. If you don't want me to think that you were just reverting because of WP:OWN, then maybe you could say in talk what the problem is you have with the edits (aside from the fact that I didn't seek consensus, which is no longer relevant since I have let your revert stand).—Chowbok ☠ 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki weirdness

Saw your post on Gwen Gale's talk page. Feel better. [11]. Malke2010 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, skip the drama thing. Says a lot that they need such a thing, eh?Malke2010 03:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Check email.Malke2010 03:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I like that. I'll use that from now on.Malke2010 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whitaker

I went through and added multiple sources as well as did some minor cleanup. Hopefully those changes will allow for extending the hold if necessary. I also don't see an issues with the length of the filmography, so it shouldn't be held up on that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to help more, but I'm really trying to get more of the assessment drive done. I want to get that knocked out of the way so I can focus more on improving other areas of WP:FILM as well as working on article content. I want to get at least the Start/Unassessed ones done, and if we don't happen to finish the Stubs it won't be that big a loss. Although, the Stub-class articles are the fastest to review. If there are any more issues the reviewer raises, let me know, and I'll try to help out again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good

Glad you got a laugh out of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

You have email from me, please respond. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the ugliness...

going on at Bonnie and Clyde and its "affiliated" articles. I assumed good faith by this guy for a long, long time and tried to work in a collegial fashion with him, and perhaps that was my mistake; I understand now that he was out to disrupt from the very start. This was my first encounter with this type of individual here.

I know your time is at a premium these days — hope the ugliness didn't consume too much of it. Hope also you're feeling better. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

[Said like Norma Desmond's "I AM big..."]: "We all vehemently defend you..." — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a period of one week

Recently a question arose about you and other accounts. Thank you for your correspondence. On further review of the evidence surrounding your activities and those of LaVidaLoca (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Soup's On, Mister (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) you have been blocked for a week. All available evidence, including private evidence and checkuser data, strongly suggests that you are the sockmaster of these two accounts, and that they have been used in contravention of the WP:SOCK policy, which you should thoroughly review during your time off. When you return from your break you are required to strictly adhere to that policy without further warning, as a repeated violation may result in a permanent block.

This block should not be lifted, nor this notice removed, without direct consultation with me. ++Lar: t/c 04:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Message to my friends: For the record, I am not a sock master. When LaVidaLoca came over to post her unblock request using my computer, she inadvertently posted it before logging out and logging herself in. All requests to review the so-called evidence that was used to place a block on me were refused and despite repeated emails back and forth explaining my relationship to LaVidaLoca and how this happened, it was not accepted, even when I stated this has been well known. The email requests even asked for what kind of computer and browser that was used and where it came from. I vehemently deny that I am my friend and I vehemently deny that I used that account at any time or in any way. This is a specious conviction without being allowed to present a defense via a sock case. I also vehemently deny that I in any way harassed another editor via email or on her userpage, simply because I have been subjected to repeated harassment and wikistalking by her. Someone picked up on something about her and began to harass her. That even continued today with posts to her userpage. That was not me, and I believe my friend when she says she did not do it. I was urged to "come clean" and throw myself on the checkuser's mercy or I would be blocked "for a good long time". That is a direct quote from the email. The email stated that I was making things up. The things I allegedly was making up included a frank admission that I have a deceased goddaughter, who was LaVidaLoca's child, or that I had a cerebral event last year, or that free and cheap dial-up connections pop up a new IP location each and every time one connects via one. Since an early email stated the conclusion and left me to deny it, each and everything I wrote was determined to be "made up". I believe the wording was "I'm going to block LaVidaLoca indefinitely and move the tags on that one and <another account> to point to you as the sockmaster, and block you for a good long time as well, unless you can give me an explanation of this that hangs together." No indication despite requests to explain what did not "hang together" or how one could conceivably refute what was stated as a preconceived conclusion. That is essentially a conviction before a trial and a blatant "here's what I think, now prove it wrong." Even when you frankly tell the truth about the events, you're called a liar. Essentially, this sucks and it is untrue. To my friends, I hope this doesn't taint you or reflect poorly on me and you don't hold such an indefensible conviction sway you. I did not do anything to harass that other editor and I am very regretful that this will cast any problems on issues that are ongoing with the other editor. Her wikistalking is very real and the continued attacks and incivility continue, a fact which is repeatedly defended by administrators involved. Nothing has happened to her despite her behavior. The fact that multiple people from here find her a pain and a disruptive editor continues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As a note to you or any other passersby, the evidence that you control LVL is very strong. I welcome review of it by additional checkusers, who should contact me if desired.

You are welcome to respond to the block as you see fit. However, the block notice itself (and this addendum) should not be removed while the block is in force (as it says above). If you remove it again, your ability to edit your talk page will be restricted. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am completely unaware of any policy that states I cannot remove your post about your side of your clear threat to block me for a "good long time" unless I threw myself on your mercy. Please provide the policy that says I have to leave your last, defensive, comment addendum on my talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely understand the situation. Isn't it possible for two real-life friends to use the same dial-up service and be assigned IPs from the same pool, and maybe even log in from each others' homes from time to time? This can't be the first time that's happened. How would something like that normally be dealt with? Does the decision really default to socks? I'm not saying they definitely aren't, but I'd also hate to find out there was a de-facto prohibition on two friends in close physical proximity using the same dial-up service to access Wikipedia. What happens if two people edit from the same household? Is the suspicion based on anything but the IP evidence? Also is there an open sock case on this? I don't see one. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:04, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Despite the guidelines that say this is possible, apparently the presumption is guilt unless proven innocent. I saw no assumption of good faith in the emails I received, which said I had to admit to this or I'd be blocked for a "good long time". I accept that Lar thinks I'm scum, but I steadfastly deny that I am her or she is me. That we use the same dial-up numbers and bought similar computers at the same time is enough without a shameless confession of guilt when you know someone came in and made a mistake. And no, there was no sock case filed, only acting on what someone said. I still don't see the policy that says I have to leave his follow-up post on the talk page here. You all are free to write to me if you feel the need. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. On the face of it, Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca may look like the same person. They've said that they're close friends, and that they've edited from the same dial-up, and that the nature of the internet services they use assigns IPs from the same pool. It's been dealt with before. It seems to me, that if it was assumed that they're telling the truth, these other points fall into place. If it's assumed that they're not telling the truth, these points look like damning evidence. I've been in contact with Wildhartivie for a long time. Well over a year, maybe closer to two. We both edit film and film biography articles, and have similar attitudes. I agree with a lot of Wildhartlivie's opinions in relation to editing here, and I expect that a close friend like LaVidaLoca would also be on a similar wavelength, and if they weren't, they probably wouldn't be so close as friends. Wildhartlivie and I have emailed privately over most of that time, and in numerous emails, Wildhartlivie has commented about her friends, her family and her life. I've also heard from LaVidaLoca and communicated with her when Wildhartlivie was ill and unable to contact me. If Wildhartlivie is lying, which is the clear statement being made, then every email I've received from her must contain at least one, or even several lies. If she's lying, she's been stringing me along for a couple of years with a line of fiction, and for what purpose? So that in any edit dispute Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca can pretend to be two people so she can get her way? So that I can be one small voice saying "yes I believe her"? That's a hell of a lot of groundwork, and a huge amount of energy, solely to gain the support of someone like me who has minimal influence here. It makes absolutely no sense. Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ross. No, I don't have the kind of energy to string anyone along. It's good to know my close friends know about this and know we are not the same person. It's good to hear you say so. Please watch after the Kate Winslet GAN this week if any other issues with it come up. If you need to, you know how to get hold of me. I appreciate it this more than you can know. Geez, even Ted Bundy had the benefit of the assumption of innocent until the trial. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Things didn't work out so well for Ted. Are you sure you can't think of a better example? Like, for example... geez Wildhartlivie - anybody but Ted! Yikes! Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Further detail behind this block

Some explanations (and note this is more explanation than I normally give, or that I am bound to give, for the record, but I choose to give it since Wildhartlivie is a long term contributor) to address various points raised: I ran checks because of a request at my user page: [12]. It is not necessary that there be a SPI case filed in order to investigate something, and in this case there doesn't happen to be one. Someone could file one I suppose although I don't see the need.

The checks started from Soup's On, Mister (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) which was being used solely to harass another user [13], [14]. When I ran that user, it was  Confirmed that user was an exact match to LaVidaLoca (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Although I also found a  Confirmed connection to Wildhartlivie, I started from the assumption that despite the checkuser evidence, which is compelling, that there were two people involved, which is why I only blocked LaVidaLoca for a week (as the putative sock master) and indef blocked the sock that exactly matched LaVidaLoca. Concurrently, I brought another CU in to review the data and my findings, without saying what my findings were at first. She independently came to the same conclusions I did.

I then contacted Wildhartlivie, asking for explanations. In my replies, unlike what WHL alleges, I made no comment about the veracity of any statements about Wildhartlivie's real life circumstances such as age, health, children and the like, as they aren't necessarily relevant. What I did say is that the explanations did not hang together. I asked probing questions about the circumstances (the machines allegedly used, who allegedly came where when and what things were done when) during the course of several email exchanges. The LaVidaLoca identity also emailed me starting somewhat later. I think it was shortly after the first email to Wildhartlivie that an unblock request was posted on LaVidaLoca's page. It was written in the voice of LaVidaLoca. However it was posted by Wildhartlivie!!!! Only about 25 minutes later does LaVidaLoca post to correct this [15] and [16].

That sets off alarm bells, or should, for anyone experienced with socking. It's what we call a giveaway slipup. Truth be told, there are multiple users on the same IP in my own personal case too. My wife, for one, edits from my house alongside me when I'm home... and in that case our edits come from the same IP. But from time to time we are in different places, and when that's the case, our edits come from different IPs. Wildly different. I run checks on myself from time to time to remind me of what multiple user patterns look like when there really are two people involved, so I have some experience here.

I am not going to go into technical details here, although I will gladly share them with any en:wp CU, but the evidence is consistent with only the following two cases, unless I greatly miss something:

1. WHL and LVL are the same person.
2. WHL and LVL are different people who are always edit from the same place, (they live together) and who are never apart, or at least, when they are apart, they never edit.

The explanations offered by the WHL and LVL originating emails are not consistent with either of those cases. I am willing to share those mails with other CUs as necessary, although not with anyone else unless WHL gives permission.

Given that a review of the contribution history of WHL and LVL shows interleaving of interest areas and support for each other (I do note that some warnings are given by WHL and the like: [17] and [18], but these warnings are not consistent with a disclosed preexisting friendship, they are consistent with someone trying to either give examples or make it look like there is no connection) there is problematic editing here. The WP:SOCK policy is clear, in cases where there is a question about whether it is one person or two people acting in close concert, we don't care which it is, we treat it as one person. I think this IS one person, the evidence I saw is pretty compelling, but even if it is not, it doesn't matter, we treat it as one user anyway absent better explanation of circumstances (note that I have been involved in multiple cases like this in the past and often, when a consistent explanation is offered, I have resolved them with a requirement for crosslinkage and a lifting of the blocks. I don't see that happening here though, I just note it for the record)

SO, where to now?

Wildhartlivie, you need to accept that there is compelling evidence that you were socking, and that your explanations given so far do not fit the evidence, not even close. You were given multiple chances to come clean and you chose not to. Casting aspersions on others is not the route forward here. You are a long term valuable contributor and I would prefer you return to constructive editing. You have a choice here.

• Sit out your block (or even better, explicitly acknowledge that you were socking and ask that your block be lifted early, which I would look on very favorably) and return to productive editing... in that case all will be well.
• Sit out your block and return to socking... in that case all will not end well.

Up to you. As before, I require that this text be left in its entirety for the duration of the block. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lar for this extended comment, it helps seeing how you came to your conclusions. Question, now that you and others think these are all one person, how would they go about proving that they are actually good friends and not a sock? I admit to being a friend of Wildhartlive which has been ongoing for quite some time. We just started sharing more personal information with each other. With that being said, I am having problems believing these are all one person. Would comparing contribution histories help if it shows overlapping editing at the same time? What else can I do to learn for myself the truth in all of this. Sorry I was and am totally shocked by all of this though I do see your reasoning with the last edits that went on. Thanks Lar, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A few observations. Checkuser is not a perfect tool. As we like to say,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and  CheckUser is not a crystal ball. So when a checkuser says " Confirmed" what is meant by that is that the data available suggests it is highly likely that the two accounts are related, and highly improbable that they are not related. Not certain, highly improbable. There is no certainty in this area. And to a certain extent it's an arms race, as we improve our methods and techniques for determining correlation, so too do clever sockmasters improve their methods and techniques for evading detection. So we often are circumspect about what exactly it is we found. (Security through obscurity never works in the long run, but sometimes it can at least postpone things).

On the matter of people being closely associated, but not the same person. I think I have considerable experience in this area. In addition to the personal experience I have around what the CU data looks like for myself and my wife Josette (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) I've also had experience with a number of other cases in the past where the defense offered was that two people were closely related and lived together, or worked together, or hung out together a lot. When we CUs are presented with this defense, we examine the evidence and we ask questions to determine "does the evidence fit this scenario?". I think myself somewhat good at this, compared to some other CUs with less experience, but I am by no means the only CU who does this. I could rattle off cases I've looked at in the past, but I'm not sure that's necessarily relevant, suffice it to say there are quite a few. Sometimes we ask for explanations and ask specific questions to see if things "hang together". Sometimes we ask for various sorts of proofs that we adjudge hard to fake. I am not going to say how we look at the evidence, and I am not going to say what kind of proof we ask for. But in many cases, the outcome has been that we require a tag crosslinking the accounts so the relationship is disclosed and that is that. That doesn't always work. Sometimes people are unwilling to provide what we ask for, which is their prerogative. (remember, no one has a right to edit here, this is not a system of justice, there is no due process, and we make no promises of every outcome being fair, although those are goals worthy of trying to do, the project itself comes first, before any individual editor. The recourse for any editor is to discontinue editing, and there is no other). What we do is not exactly "proving the negative" but it's close.

With that background, in this particular case, "proving the negative", (or something close, as above) is going to be exceedingly difficult, in my considered judgment, and that of the other CU who was consulted (as well as the arbcom member I sketched the case details out to). What is being alleged is that the two accounts belong to two people who do NOT share the same internet connection because they do not live together, and don't edit together somewhere else routinely either. That is not consistent with the data we have. Why it is not consistent with that data, and what specific scenarios it is consistent with (beyond what I already said, two people who live together, or one person) I decline to say.

I take the allegation that a 47,000 contribution editor is socking very seriously. It is not one I make lightly. I spent considerable time checking and rechecking, and I went to great length to elicit alternate explanations for what I found, but they were not forthcoming. It is with serious regret that I made this finding, it is not what I wished to have found, and I derive no personal satisfaction from it, rather pain. But taking up the CU responsibility means that sometimes (often?) one finds things that one does not wish to find.

I hope that helps. I remain open to additional questions or discussion, either here, on my talk page or via other means. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're basically saying you're sure but you can't tell us why you're sure, but we should believe you because you think you're good at this. I'm sure you can understand how that might make some of us uncomfortable. If I wanted to open up a sock case to at least confirm these results with multiple other CUs, how could we do that? And who is the other CU that you say originally came to the same conclusion you did? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:27, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Yep... "...you're sure but you can't tell us why you're sure, but we should believe you because you think you're good at this" is the basis for CU here. I've asked the other CU and the arb I consulted to chime in and corroborate what I've said, they can choose to do so or not. If you have particular CUs you trust more than others, I'm happy to ping any or all of them. You also can take this to SPI if you want, I suggest you start a new subcase under the existing Wildhartlivie one, referencing this page. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true I suppose, regarding how CU works. This whole thing not being on the SPI page being discussed "in public" is throwing me off. That doesn't mean I don't trust you, just that without being able to hear the evidence, I would like to get confirmation from someone on this finding. I'll start an SPI on Wildhartlivie's existing subpage, IF Wildhartlivie wants me to. The block is just for a week, not indefinite, so it might be easier just to ride it out. From what I've seen of SPI cases, they can easily take longer than that just to get looked at. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:16, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Wild- I would not worry too much SRQ is a troll who enjoys disrupting certain pages and seems to be at least partially mentally disturbed. Of course, I am not telling you anything you don't already know.

Kate Winslet

I've left a message at User talk:TonyTheTiger - here and I'll have a look through the article and talk page. Leave it with me.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)