User talk:Leafsong1

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Rklawton (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your unblock request smells like a grassy knoll. You are aware Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability (which is objective) as opposed to truth (which is very subjective)? — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dagon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dagon Dagon was a fertility god and the king of the northwest semitic pantheon before the Akkadian empire swept over those lands and the Akkadians substituted their own king-god El (an air/wind/sky god) as a way of extending the late Sumerian hegemonic system and ruling these far-flung territories through religious awe. El/Dagon was possibly cognate to the Greek Kronos at some point. When the Akkadian empire faded, the worship of Dagon revived in some of the fringe areas of the empire, but mostly, El remained in place as father of the gods but no longer king of them. That honor passed to whatever son gods that were prominient in the pre-Akkadian pantheon, but these gods were now assumed to have inherited their kingship from El. They were called heir of El, or, "Bael/Baal/Bel." This title eventually meant "lord" in Biblical Hebrew and, "El," due to the wide prominence of the god and the name's similarity to the Semitic root ilu, became a word meaning "god."


 * The post on Dagon is not useful as it is not sourced, and we don't publish opinions or original research. Rklawton (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if it had a source, preferably an academic one. As it is, I'm not sure you understand what Wikipedia is for. Expound further on what you want to do with Dagon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Block review
As the blocking admin, it seems worth chiming in here. 1) Based on this user's edit pattern (choice of edits and sophistication), account creation date/time, and writing style, it was obvious to me that this user was abusing multiple accounts. 2) Wikipedia already has sufficient conspiracy theorists, so Wikipedia has little to gain from lifting the block. As a result, I would object to the lifting of this block. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Rklawton, who do you think he's a sock of? Just for the record - you obviously recognised his editing style. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I recognized was the pattern of behavior: a conspiracy theory oriented editor (we ban these people daily when they become odious) jumping in on a talk page and arguing reliable sources with his/her first edits. It was obvious this editor has been here and done that many times before. Per wp:DUCK I didn't think it worth a CU's time to waste on yet another conspiracy theorist. Rklawton (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. Who is he a sock of? Demonstrating familiarity with Wikipedia is a warning sign, however it's not conclusive proof. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Without some idea of which other accounts this user might be associated with, I would have a hard time keeping him blocked as a sock. Especially as we don't ban editors daily, it's quite an unusual occurrence, so I'd really like to know which banned editor he is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on this. Conspiracy theorists are a dime a dozen. Most are indef-blocked when they pop up as banning tends to be reserved for long-standing problem editors where there might be some dispute. Cranks typically get indef'd long before then. In this case, I found this editor's edits identical in nature and style to the IP he's supporting in the OBL talk page. Rklawton (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At the most that is evidence that it may have been the same person editing without an account and then with one. Is there any evidence of using the account abusively? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, editing the same talk page with two accounts to support a conspiracy theory is abusive. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to give hir enough rope. I'm unconvinced that there was abuse when the block occurred (even cranks are allowed to register an account and being a "type" isn't against policy) and it seems like the editor is interested in productive editing. If not, we can always re-block. Danger High voltage! 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call original research productive editing. Rklawton (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And I wouldn't call a newbie's failure to cite a source original research or non-productive. So I suppose we have a failure to communicate. At any rate, I think we're all waiting for you to do the honors. Danger High voltage! 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wondered why the silence. I wouldn't object to another admin lifting the block on the condition that an admin volunteers to serve as this editor's mentor with the understanding that he or she will brook no shenanigans. Rklawton (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)