Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 25 November 2008

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Archives

January 2008 & prior February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sockpuppetry

User:Undrwood9098 is back and has made more edits that can be deemed detrimental. After looking at his user page, it was noted that he was blocked indefinitely, but has somehow managed to come back and make more edits.i could be wrong on this but because i saw your name under the sockpuppetry headline, i figured you should know about it...cheers --EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15

RFPP

Hey Tan, thanks for marking Grunge music as already protected. I was just about to mark it when my connection started to mess up; I really appreciate it. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

an explanation

I reviewed an AIV report where you had commented that the school ip had not edited since the last warning/edit. Your report was correct, yet I blocked for 1 month on the basis that I considered that the next edit - whenever it was - would constitute vandalism. A review of the ip's contribution showed nothing but vandalism, less than half a dozen times in one day and often seperated by a few days. Under the circumstances I considered that a months block would result in a dozen upwards articles not needing cleaning up and might even disincline the individuals from trying again (the last being a very long shot!)
From what I have seen of you I don't suppose you worried overmuch about your comments being "disregarded", but I thought I would let you know that they were considered when I made my mind to block. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but you're right - I'm not worried about it :-) See you around - Tan | 39 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Re this block, I debated another block (same 72 hours, actually), a 4im warning, and eventually settled on the level 2 warning. However, my immediate reaction was the block you actually gave. Help me come to the right decision in these cases; I don't want to seem heavy-handed and yet...some of them look like they simply won't stop unless the block is applied. It's deciding which side to come down on that I'm working on refining (constantly, it seems). Would appreciate your input. Thanks -  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank. You would have been perfectly fine to go through the standard rigmarole of level 1-4 warnings before blocking. However, given the nature of the vandalism - "Ozzie Osbourne is a f-g", along with the persistence of making changes to the same article - I came to the conclusion that this editor was probably (read: definitely) not about to start making constructive edits to the project. It's all a subjective responsibility, of course, and there is almost always a range of actions that would be considered appropriate. Tan | 39 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input!  Frank  |  talk  15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Network"

Hey there. Sorry about having less-than-civil manners earlier; that's totally not like me, and I feel bad about it. I know you haven't been following this as closely as other admins, or even myself, so you don't know the extent of this, and I really didn't need to chew your, or anyone else's, head off. It's just really frustrating having to deal with the same issues each and every day, be it on one article or another, knowing the solution being provided to me won't solve anything. So, hopefully, you see where I come from on this whole disaster, not of your doing, mind you, but from drunken frat boys with nothing else better to do (when I was in college, I was looking for hot girls to score with, not make stupid pictures on a website site - talk about mixed-up priorities).

So, I'm asking you if it's possible that you could make your blocks on Camden and TKE longer, probably 2-3 months? I know that seems like an awful long time for something you're only seeing for the first time. User:Horologium and I have been talking about this situation, and he asked me to invite you to his talk page to see a little bit of the whole issue. He, of course, won't step on your toes, and I wouldn't ask anyone to, but I want you to be able to see if you can get a clearer picture of what they're doing here.

It's not trying to disrupt anon's creativity; it's trying to stop a group determined to make their vandalism stick. It's their self-proclaimed mantra, and since they have a nationwide network (IPs from CA, MN, MD, and as far away as London and Toronto), blocking the IPs won't work. Very little, if any, valuable contributions from IPs has been made on either article in their recent histories. Sure, they may get smart and sign up for accounts to bypass it, but they haven't yet, and Delaware River has been semi-'ed for 2 weeks. The vast majority of good, cited edits have been from registered users, so we wouldn't be affecting anyone but the vandals. All I ask for is your time and consideration. Anything you can do to help curb this problem once and for all is all I'm asking for. Thanks! EaglesFanInTampa 20:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Replied on Horologium's talk page, he can feel free to re-protect as he sees fit. Tan | 39 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey there,

Can you help me with something? Yesterday you blocked a user named "Piglet Best" who was a sockpuppet of the user "Forring." Well, today there is a new user called "Corporation Pride" who I believe to be yet another sockpuppet of "Forring." "Corporation Pride" has been editing the article Blue Bird Corporation with nonsense, and what tipped me off is that he/she used the same misspelling of the word contributions ("constributions") that Forring and Piglet Best used. I was going to open another sockpuppet case under Forring but the case is closed and I'm not really sure what to do at this point.

Thanks,

BMRR (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the case I filed yesterday:

BMRR (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Do me a favor and add him to your SPP case (don't worry if it's "closed", just add it to the page anyway). Tan | 39 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help! —BMRR (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Icepick 47

Would you be able to block this account? From the name and contributions he's fairly obviously a sock of User:Trotskyrein3, who you blocked a few minutes ago. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 16:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw it; thanks for your help :). Ironholds (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrongly blocked me

I was blocked for removing this unsourced material that was violating BOLP. If you checked the reason I was removing it and the then current sources you would see that both of the sources had nothing to do with the section I was removing. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_%28political_commentator%29&diff=252083014&oldid=252081287#Shawn_Hornbeck Please check both of the sources that were then up at the time. One does not mention BOR and the other is a made up source that says nothing about him. The whole section was original research. I was wrongly blocked. I am worried that you did not take the time to look at the circumstances before you blocked me Fru23 (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You had just come off a block for edit warring and you went right back to doing so. My block was reviewed by another admin and they upheld it. Tan | 39 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you honestly say that the sources comply with BOLP? I had every right to remove that section, 3RR does not matter regarding the removal of contentious and unsourced material from bios. My edit summary stated the exact reason why I was removing it. Fru23 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only real exception to 3RR is vandalism. Edit warring is still editing warring regardless of the content. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions: Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course New York daily is reliable, I never said it was not. But the section of paper on that day that was sourced has nothing to do with Bill OReilly. The made up source is an excuse for the original editor to write a section using his own Original Research. No one but me bothered to check it. The other source was worthless. I can not fathom why, after I specificly mention this in the summary multiple times I was banned. Fru23 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is as egregiously unsourced as you claim. Source 82 is a statement that backs up that Mr. O'Reilly canceled his appearance. Source 83 is an off-internet source, but seems properly done - why do you think this is "made up"? Tan | 39 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the data base.Fru23 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"The data base"? Tan | 39 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to new york daily and you can search for past articles, nothing came up. I mentioned this on the talk page, my talk page and when I was trying to get unblocked. Fru23 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also that only says he canceled his apperanced, I deleted the section because it was mainly unsourced and orginal reasearch. If anything the people who kept readding it should be blocked. Fru23 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can get like a pardon or something? Fru23 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)