User talk:Sue.denim

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Sally Hampton, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Daniel 11:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many of the sources were deleted, and not directly linkable to. I do have the sources including the following link (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/comments?type=story&id=3580676) and can get MANY more , and can get 3rd party witnesses -- is that acceptable?

File:Nuvola apps kbluebox.png

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for readding defamatory and unsourced content into a biography of living person after being warned not to. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired.If you wish to contest this block, please do so by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your page (providing a constructive and legitimate reason), and somebody will come by shortly to review this action. Daniel 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sue.denim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I told daniel I was getting sitations before he blocked my account. Read my user talk for more info

Decline reason:

The user has indicated an unwillingness to work with Wikipedia policies. User was given a final warning, then 10 minutes later readded the contentious material. I support the original block. — Orderinchaos 11:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was trying to keep it neutral as possible. But Sally publicly uses sallyh499 as her accounts (has her picture and address on some of them, and has admitted it was her in various threads).

Her M.O. is to come to a new board, spam a few ads for the groups she belongs to. And then she accuses anyone who disagrees with her as a paid shill for the insurance companies (or oil companies). Unfortunately, her posts were deleted for violating the rules a few times on 20/20's forums. But here's a few links from other forums.

(1) http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/permalink/151807/151807/ShowThread.aspx#151807 (2) http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/post/132084.aspx (3) http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/52438/?comments=view&cID=668433&pID=667650 (4) http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/comments?type=story&id=3580676 (5) http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/comments?type=story&id=3751219 (6) http://evadefilter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy55b3V0dWJlLmNvbS9jb21tZW50X3NlcnZsZXQ%2FYWxsX2NvbW1lbnRzJnY9RE5ITkNTY1lwWDgmZnJvbXVybD0vd2F0Y2glM0Z2JTNERE5ITkNTY1lwWDg%3D

Unfortunately, the abc forums require a lot of scrolling to find the posts. And the many alternate accounts she used (and admitted to using) were deleted for violation of their terms (you can see references to sally as Sallyh4992, etc.). When asked if she was sally hampton, she agreed.

This is not a case of defamation; I'm trying to document the truth about something that a public figure is doing in their public life on public forums. This is as newsworthy as if Michael Moore was visiting forums under his real name and posting as himself.

This isn't about "newsworthy" - it's about "encyclopaedic" - this is an encyclopaedia. Blogs and forums are not a reliable source, anyone can pretend to be anyone else and post as someone to defame them. I've seen it happen many a time. Also note neutral point of view (which your contribution most definitely was not), no original research and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Orderinchaos 11:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request declined[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sue.denim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Orderinchaos is mistaken in his assumptions. I did a revert changes THEN I noticed the message and immediately posted my explanation to Daniel, and offered clarifications. It was not "10 minutes later"

Decline reason:

The details are not particularly relevant. What is important is that the material you want to add violates WP:BLP and the sources you have produced are not suitable. If a reliable source had made this claim then it might be possible to introduce it to the article, but simply linking to the forums is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.