User talk:Sparklerae

September 2018
Hello, I'm Kadane. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gabriel Hart seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kadane (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC) You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Huon's decline is far more polite than mine would have been.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Kadane deleted the post and messaged me September 16th. I responded to his message today September 18th, very shortly after responding I was blocked by you. Why wasn’t I blocked by kadane on the 16th? Why go through the trouble of inviting me to engage in a conversation on the matter if the only outcome to responding is to be blocked by you. You still haven’t answered any of my concerns. Why didn’t you follow Wikipedia protocol and warn me first that I can’t name specific people or incidents in a defense message to an administrator who deleted a post. Why did you change the blocking with Ron five minutes of each other from temporarily to indefinitely without even receiving another response from me. You are avoiding answering these legitimate questions because you know you do not actually have a good excuse for blocking me. It was done as a bullying tactic from you. You broke Wikipedia protocol and have yet answered why. This was an extremely biased block from you and this is not what the company stands for. You desperately wanted to silence a woman who responded to a man by questioning his actions. This is obscene and vile. I hope other administrators take your unjust actions seriously and take the necessary steps to prevent you from making such unjust, biased and sexist blocks in the future.


 * Much of this has already been answered by Ponyo here. I'll assume you somehow missed that message despite replying to it, so I won't bother answering some of the parts that Ponyo already addressed before you raised the same points again. I'll add:
 * The message Kadane left you is a standard templated message. Arguably it wasn't the most fitting for this situation, but it's clearly not an invitation to engage in further attacks against a living person.
 * There's no requirement to warn people first before they're blocked. This is particularly so when there are severe issues at stake, such as, say, libel. If you think there is such a requirement, please point out the specific policy that says blocks have to be preceded by warnings. If you can't find one, you may want to retract your accusations of "broke Wikipedia protocol".
 * Ponyo immediately blocked you indefinitely but accidentally left a message that said the block was temporary. She corrected the message; the block itself was not changed.
 * Violations of the policy on biographies of living persons and the repeated addition of potentially libelous content are excellent reasons for a block.
 * Accusing others of bias, bullying or sexism without a shred of evidence will be considered personal attacks, which are not permitted.
 * If a crime was committed, wait until the perpetrator has been duly sentenced by a court of law and newspapers or reputable magazines have reported on the conviction. If there are civil disputes where someone is at fault, again, wait until a court has settled the issue and summarize what reliable independent sources say about it. If a high-profile individual is accused of a crime and the accusation is widely reported in reliable sources (say, newspaper articles are written about it), it may be appropriate to add to the article that such allegations have been raised, but then we'd have to report them as allegations or accusations, not as fact. You, basically, omitted such pesky details as presumption of innocence, courts or a right to defense and made yourself judge and jury, with evidence consisting of a Facebook post and a forum message that came with a disclaimer that the forum doesn't take any responsibility for the messages people may post there. Furthermore, you blatantly misrepresented the sources so that what you wrote wasn't backed up by even those utterly unreliable sources. To provide just one (mild) example of such a misrepresentation: A message that says "Please share" pretty much says "This isn't widely known." You wrote that it was widely known ("He is also known for ..."). Maybe you think it should be widely known. Maybe you were trying to make it widely known (something Wikipedia emphatically is not the right venue for), but it clearly wasn't at the time of the writing of your supposed source, so you added a falsehood to Wikipedia.
 * We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to right great wrongs. Huon (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Huon,

Thank you for your response. I’d like to discuss this sentence that you, “the message kadane left you is a standard templates message. Arguably it wasn’t the most fitting for this situation, but it’s clearly not an invitation to engage in further attacks against a living person.”

I’m sorry that you all felt threatenet by a woman explaining her side of the story with Links to I’m also sorry that you all felt threatened that. It’s clear that because I am asking questions and explaining my defense, you are feel threatened and have twisted this into your warped view that it’s “attacking.” I don’t of any educated person who would analyze that into “an attack.” If you actually read what happened to him (which you basically said you didn’t, you just read the subject line of please share this) then you would know You also wrote the following, “if a crime was committed, wait until the perpetrator has been duly sentenced by a court of law and newspapers or reputable magazines have reported on the conviction.” First let’s address the magazine part. What reliable magazines would those be? All magazines have stated false facts and are widely known as not the most reliable source. So, what your saying is unreliable sources such as a magazine are more reliable than ACTUAL victims writing what happened to them and even attaching pictures. It’s 2018 guys, you need to start listening to victims voices and evidenceand not your own ego. You are betraying many Wikipedia fans when you put that out there that victims voices and their evidence are bullshit to you guys. Let’s address his next, “if a crime was committed, wait until the perpetrator has been duly sentenced by a court of law and newspapers or reputable magazines have reported on the conviction.” Funny how you cherry pick what articles “violate” that. On Emma Roberts page the following is stated, “after a heated argument, they had begun hitting each other. When the police arrived, they arrested Roberts. Peters was not arrested because Roberts did not have any immediate visible injuries. Peters declines to press charges...” why didn’t you block indefinitely that person who wrote that. No charges were pressed, therefore it obviously did not go to court. Cherry picking much? On maya angelous page the following is written, “She became a poet and writer after a series of occupations as a young adult, including fry cook, sex worker,...”

Prostitution is illegal. Was she ever convicted of said crime? No. Again, it’s clear that you all cherry pick who you want to ban based on “violating” the rules.

It’s selfish of the administrators to first off not look into links to support ones article. To publicly acknowledge that victims voices are worth zero. And, to also claim one thing but not actually Enforce it to all. I am ashamed of you all here at Wikipedia that it is now proven that you cherry pick who gets banned based on “violations.” It comes across childish and unprofessional. You are also infringing upon ones first amendment right, which is a whole other argument. In my article written about Gabriel, I stated facts. I did not name call or use opinions.

It’s clear that I am being blocked in retaliation. Which your website says blovks should not be used in this manner.

It says blocks should be prevent imminent of continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. I did not continue to post once on Gabriel’s page once kadane messaged me. I asked questions and stated my case as to why I wrote it and attached links. It’s clear I was retaliated against, because I asked questions and stated my case. I am still being retaliated against by you all for asking questions that you seem to either dodge or beat around the Bush with.

On you vandalism page it says the following, “The first warning assumes good faith and takes a relaxed approach to the user. The second warning does not assume any faith and is an actual warning (in some cases this level may also be skipped). The third warning assumes bad faith and is the first to warn the user that continued vandalism may result in a block. The fourth warning is a final warning, stating that any future acts of vandalism will result in a block. After this, other users may place additional warnings, though only administrators can actually carry out the block.” Now it does say editor are generally warned prior to being blocked. So I’m sure you will dream up some explosive reason why it was so imperative to skip all warning steps for me and just go straight to the blocking indefinitely button for asking questions and stating my reason why I posted the facts that I did. Don’t want to hear, we both know it will be some desperate attempt on your end to defend your retailation against me. Will not respond anymore to you all. Your bullying tactics are beyond pathetic. Your cherry picking ways are immoral, especially as administrators. This truly saddens me because I love Wikipedia. But, as you all know Wikipedia is often times condemned for not being reliable since there is so much false information out there. It’s considered, “the trash” for any reliable information. When you all can’t act professional and do your job to investigate if their is truth to an article and then retaliate against a user who asked questions and stated their case with you, you all are taking steps backwards instead of forwards for the company. I hope you all self check yourself on your bullying tactics, cherry picking ways, and stop condemning victims voices and evidence. This only harms Wikipedia and the users when you act this way. Have a blessed day friends.

Hi huon,
Hi Huon,

Thank you for your response. The Facebook link showed the photos. It has been multiple people. The second link was a link to someone else who never received payment from in the past. I thought this was the correct way to go about Wikipedia. To send links as proof that an incident did occur. If links with written proof and pictures from various victims and witnesses are not welcome, I would love to be educated on how you would proceed to add such content so that way I j can know how to go about this in the future. Thank you Sparklerae (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Our policies regarding living persons apply across all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages. You cannot use this encyclopedia to post potentially libelous information regarding criminal activity based on social media posts and your own personal knowledge and point of view. You created this account solely to attack an article subject and have been blocked for violating multiple Wikipedia policies in doing so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo,

I wrote you back, but I didn’t realize it started a new thread on my page, so I do apologize about that.
 * Since the conversations on this page are all over the place, my extended answer is above, below your latest message. Huon (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ponyo
Hi ponyo,

Thank you for the response. Okay, so I Understand that even if numerous victims of said crime come forward to social media and posts pictures as proof that is still not considered valid under Wikipedia. My next concern that I would like to address is that kadane who deleted my initial post wrote me the following, “If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kadane (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)”

So I took him up on the offer and I wrote back to him in a respectful way and sent him The two links and explained why I believed that information needed to stay on Gabriel Hart’s Wikipedia page. Without any warnings of being blocked, I was blocked with what seemed to be out of nowhere from you. This is concerning because another administrator had invited me to ask questions and have a conversation about my article being deleted. You then silenced a woman for taking a man up on his offer in a respectful way. My questions are, why did you silence a woman who was responding to a man in a respectful way? Why was I not given a warning first before being blocked since that is Wikipedia protocol. I also was not repeating the “vandalism.” Why was I at first blocked temporarily and then five minutes later blocked indefinitely when I hadn’t even responded back to the first block? Thank you Sparklerae (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kadane is not an administrator, they are a relatively new editor who was leaving you a templated message using an automated program called WP:TWINKLE. The block was not made because you posted to Kadane's talk page, it was made to prevent you from continuing to post potentially libelous material on Wikipedia, which you continued to post after being blocked and which also had to be removed from the editing logs. You have only been blocked once, see your block log here, I was simply correcting the block notice to reflect the actual block duration. I have no clue where you're going with your "silencing a woman for responding to a man" tactic given that 1) nobody knows your gender, 2) nobody knows Kadane's gender and 3) I'm a woman.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not post after kadane deleted my post. I have no idea what you are talking about when you said that I continued to post. Where did post? When did post? What did I even post about? There seems to be a mistake then. I only “posted” my response back to kadane. If you are saying I was not blocked due to replying back to kadane, then what was I blocked for? I didn’t continue to post on Gabriel’s page, if there was a post it was not from me. There seems to an accidental mistake on blocking me then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklerae (talk • contribs)
 * You posted the same accusations above, in the section titled "Hi Huon", after being blocked. You were blocked for the exact reason noted in the block message, in the block decline message by Huon, and in my reply to your message to Huon. As long as Wikipedia administrators have reason to believe that you will continue to make allegations regarding a biographical subject on Wikipedia the account will remain blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I was blocked after my message to kadane. Why was I blocked then??? That’s my initial question that hasn’t been answered yet. It’s clear I was blocked because I responded to kadanes message. I didn’t continue to post on Gabriel’s page. Please explain why I was blocked by responding to kadanes message. You are right, I did mention why I posted what I posted about Gabriel to huan. I am confused why I am being penalized by asking questions to administration. I responded back to huan because I was explaining where I was coming from. I also posted another linm to support that he has a history of not paying crew or cast. I named G.H because you all are dealing with so many posts a day, I didn’t want you guys to be confused on whose page this was about. It’s very typical for someone to respond back with precise details so there isn’t any confusion on what the matter is about. You wouldn’t file a claim say against a coworker and then not name the coworker or incident. What good does that do? Same deal here. I thought you all would be confused with who I was talking about and what the incident was even about if I didn’t give a quick backstory to what who I posted about and what my post was, that way you would be able to see what my defense was about. This concerns me that I am being penalized for stating my case with specific details with administration. It’s concerning that you didn’t first respond back to my to just tell me that even though I’m messaging an administrator that I am still not allowed to state specific information such as the name of the alleged criminal, the crime, links to support a crime happened, etc. I was given no warning which once again is supposed to be protocol from you as an administrator. That needs to be clearer of what one can and can not message you all to back Up ones defense. This is extremely strange on how Wikipedia is being monitored by you all and it’s also looking like it supports the theory that I am being silenced based on biased opinions not what Wikipedia actually stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklerae (talk • contribs)
 * You were blocked for violations of our policies regarding living persons. The fact that you don't understand this despite heaving it explained repeatedly is exactly why the block continues to be preventative. You cannot create and use a Wikipedia account to attack one of our biography subjects. Period. You can request an unblock using the unblock template, but there is no point going round in circles with you over what led to the block. Unless a reviewing admin pings me here, I won't be responding further.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked due to continued BLP violations
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)