Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 28 May 2009

User Page User Talk Launch Pad Contact Contribs E-mail Subpages Awards Image Favs Statistics Welcome to my talk page. PLEASE READ THE BELOW INFORMATION BEFORE POSTING TO THIS PAGE. I will reply to you on this page unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you comment. Click HERE to leave a message on this page. Further, please note: Please use a ==descriptive header== and sign & date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Please use ] when mentioning users and pages. I will not reply directly to attacks, innuendo or general incivility. You will be wasting your time if you're here for that. I may however reply via a warning on your own talk page or a report to the Administrators' incident noticeboard. Save your time and mine so that we can both use it to build a better Misplaced Pages. Additionally, if you're a good Wikipedian or catch my attention via your actions throughout Misplaced Pages, you may be awarded by me this Barnstar. Please note that I archive talk posts so if commenting on an old thread from the archives, consider starting a new thread. Please note that I am a "regular". Do not template me as I will surely revert. For more info, refer to WP:DTTR. With all that said, ask away and I'll try and help. Thanks for visiting! - ► RATEL ◄ 10:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Unified login:Ratel is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Your comments and my replies:

Cookie

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

blocked

Given this outlook of yours, it is likely that you have no plans to meaningfully abide by en.Misplaced Pages's policies as to the biographies of living persons and hence your edits are a risk to the project. I have blocked you from editing indefinitely. This is not forever. If you undertake to carefully follow the project's BLP policies and further, agree not to edit war, you may be unblocked. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ratel_.2F_David_Copperfield_.28illusionist.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also deleted User:Ratel/material4inclusion as CSD G10, negative, unreliably sourced BLP content. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

{{ is still there; the other editor I was supposedly "warring" with left the material on the page because it was accurate and properly sourced. The alleged "warring" involved very little removal of his material by me, and vice versa. It was not edit warring at all, really, simply concurrent editing. Check it carefully and you'll see (does anyone check anything carefully anymore?). I also find it disturbing that I've been blocked by an admin who was identified as being friendly with the one other editor who hates my guts here: Collect (talk · contribs · email). In a recent Arbcom hearing on Collect's appalling (and so far insufficiently punished) behaviour, another editor said " will never acknowledge any wrongdoing unless confronted by impartial Administrators. Gwen Gale is not impartial." I concur, and that's why she should have recused herself from taking any action against me, even more so when the instigator of this block cited an unindexed scratchpad page in my own userspace as the reason he was "disturbed"!! Unreal. Please unblock me. Of course I'll adhere to the BLP policy. And please re-instate the page you deleted, unless WP has a policy (of which I am unaware) that states that inadequately sourced material may not be stored on unindexed pages in userspace awaiting better sources.|An indef block for being honest on a Talk page about motivations? This must be a first. I've never seen such a thing before. And although I discussed adding material that was poorly sourced to the page, I never did add it, or edit war it back if any was added and subsequently removed (so I do act in deference to BLP policy, which I do follow, keeping data that does not YET meet BLP standards under my own userspace with a "noindex" tag (and therefore unsearchable, awaiting better sources). So in fact there are no BLP violations of which I am aware. As far as the "edit warring", that charge is in the main false too. 90% of the material I "edit warred" is still there; the other editor I was supposedly "warring" with left the material on the page because it was accurate and properly sourced. The alleged "warring" involved very little removal of his material by me, and vice versa. It was not edit warring at all, really, simply concurrent editing. Check it carefully and you'll see (does anyone check anything carefully anymore?). I also find it disturbing that I've been blocked by an admin who was identified as being friendly with the one other editor who hates my guts here: Collect (talk · contribs · email). In a recent Arbcom hearing on Collect's appalling (and so far insufficiently punished) behaviour, another editor said " will never acknowledge any wrongdoing unless confronted by impartial Administrators. Gwen Gale is not impartial." I concur, and that's why she should have recused herself from taking any action against me, even more so when the instigator of this block cited an unindexed scratchpad page in my own userspace as the reason he was "disturbed"!! Unreal. Please unblock me. Of course I'll adhere to the BLP policy. And please re-instate the page you deleted, unless WP has a policy (of which I am unaware) that states that inadequately sourced material may not be stored on unindexed pages in userspace awaiting better sources.]]}} ► RATEL ◄ 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to offer diffs of my actions or edits which show a lack of neutrality towards User:Collect or you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Gwen, I quoted another editor above about your friendship with Collect. He's always buttering you up on your talk page, with lots of friendly return repartee from you, and I'm not the only one who has noticed. If the cap fits, etc. This has nothing to do with lifting the block. ► RATEL ◄ 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please give some diffs which show my actions have not been neutral towards Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, keeping unreliably sourced negative BLP content anywhere on-wiki is a violation of WP:BLP. Saying I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer can and should be taken as straightforward way of saying you plan on blowing off WP:BLP. Truth be told, I agree with you that some celeb articles are far too fawning but you must abide by the rules here, BLP has more sway than any other policy on en.Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I regret if that statement of mine was interpreted as an INTENTION TO SUBVERT the BLP policy. It was not meant as such. Let me rephrase to add the phrase "...within the limits imposed by Jimbo's BLP policy". ► RATEL ◄ 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please think about this a bit more. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know if the allegation about User:Collect is true. Even a cursory inspection suggests that this is a problem user. Gwen, is it true that you are 'friends' with this user? If that is so, isn't that a conflict of interest. Peter Damian (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Being friendly with most editors who post on my talk page and send me emails is not a conflict of interest. If there are diffs showing my actions (or even content edits) have not been neutral as to Collect, I'd like very much to see them, because I can't recall any and yes, Collect is a worrisome editor who has been edit warring in a most nettlesome way for many months now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you need to cut this defiance stuff and give believable commitment about your respect for BLP. The comments you made give wikipedia admins prima facie evidence that you will and indeed intend to violate the spirit and word of WP:BLP. BLP is a high-stake issue for admins at wikipedia, so your current approach to this block (attacking Gwen's integrity and minimizing the seriousness of your comments) won't get you anything except more time in your block perhaps along with a worse reputation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, my comments relate to the inclusion of the report by TMZ, not adjudged an unreliable source, that were excluded from the David Copperfield page (after being there for a long time, BTW). The TMZ report was discussed at the RS noticeboard and opinion was divided. The report was very thorough, including PDFs of printouts Copperfield gave his employees giving them detailed instructions on how to pick up women for his pleasure. It also included a letter from Copperfield's lawyers to the employees warning them about discussing any of the things they did while in his employ. This report looks and smells reliable, and indeed, TMZ has not been adjudged unreliable, nor did Copperfield sue (a sure sgn it was an accurate report). The report was reprinted on hundreds of websites and newspapers. Now I still feel this report should go onto the Copperfield page. The only reason it cannot go on is consensus, which I do not have. I am opposed by people who work for Copperfield, in the main. You should see my comments in the light of this argument. ► RATEL ◄ 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know if his allegation is true. I have read his unblock request, and that seems prima facie reasonable. Peter Damian (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gossip sites and mags are entertainment outlets, PDFs can be forged and private memos can be published wholly out of context (I happen to know lots of LA celebs have standing orders to their employees about the kinds of girls to look out for and how to lure them in, which is legal behaviour in itself, Hollywood has been awash in all kinds of sex since the 1910s, it's a swath of the pith, though I don't know anything about DC's behaviour along those lines, if any). This said, I believe Ratel's claim of being thwarted by employees of the celeb. As for the assertion that the lack of a lawsuit means the allegations are true, that's original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish WP had a list of sites that can be considered RS and those that are not. TMZ is used as a source on a number of pages (eg. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears) for data that is not complimentary. Used there, it is apparently okey-dokey, but not on the highly litigious Mr Copperfield's page. I have a suspicion that this guy has contacted WP via his lawyers already. That's the only possible reason I'm getting this kind of heat. If anyone wants me to drop this issue because something has happened that cannot be openly discussed, please email me. ► RATEL ◄ 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything like that. I came here owing to the thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ratel_.2F_David_Copperfield_.28illusionist.29. Gossip sites are handy, maybe, for hints as to what one might look for elsewhere but they are not reliable enough to cite in a tertiary reference encyclopedia like en.Misplaced Pages (unless they are cited in topics about gossip sites and mags themselves) and do not meet the level of heed put forth at WP:BLP. If they've shown up in other articles they may not belong there either and see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I still think your post about taking delight with putting negative content into celeb BLPs because of what you think about celebs altogether shows a worrisome lack of neutrality and a risk to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, my motivations should not matter as long as I follow protocol. That I've done. Banning me for expressing my feelings because you suspect that one day I may edit something untoward onto a page is not fair. Ban me when (and if) I ever commit that crime. As Collect pointed out elsewhere, I defended Bill Moyers against people who were trying to insert non-BLP data, so I do see both sides of the coin. ► RATEL ◄ 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP is always a worry but we're not talking about crimes here. As I strongly hinted in the block notice, this block need not last long at all. Please forgive me for asking, but have you read WP:BLP? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it well, and it's very conservative because of the legal implications. I realise that. And I realise that in the Copperfield case I simply don't have the consensus or sources to act. However, I await the inevitable publication of a tell-all biography on Mr Copperfield. That should make for some very interesting reading and a great source. I'll be patient. ► RATEL ◄ 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, please hang on a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You have acknowledged WP:BLP and that you have neither the consensus nor the sources to add the negative content to that article. Request handled by: Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Please keep in mind, a published "tattle-tale" bio in itself may or may not be taken as reliable enough for a BLP (or sometimes a BDP, if the source is very weak/sloppy, which tattle-tale books often are). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages