User talk:Gonzo84d

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jean Sasson. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Gonzo84d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I am not Jean Sasson, nor her secretary. I was asked to review her page by her agent, for whom I work (therefore the accusation should be of meatpuppetry, but I'm not that either. I'm an independent person trying to improve the page in the interests of fairness). I was going to announce this on my page and her talk page, but was blocked before I could.

Being blocked is not my main concern, however. As stated, I find the Sasson page to be a clear case of undue weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

Her page is accurate, I'm not disputing that. But it's only focused on negative and long-ago events in her life. I was trying to fix that, and would appreciate if you would put a request for this on her talk page, since I can't do it anymore.

Furthermore, There a couple of weasel words ("claims to be") used in describing Princess. All this has the effect of biasing a visitor against her. As a court of law has found that she wasn't guilty of plagiarism, why should there be any doubt placed on this? Example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Sasson&diff=prev&oldid=331856745

There are plenty of claims we could make the same thing about. In short, we'd have to put "claims to be" (which carries negative connotations) in front of nearly everything. This is clearly impractical.

How is this promotion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Sasson&diff=prev&oldid=331856072 It's a mere descriptor of her books, which are noteworthy.

I agree with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Sasson&diff=prev&oldid=331855800

I'd appreciate if you or SoleSoul could fix or improve my edits, which are of value to Wikipedia, so they are bet er in line with policy. As opposed to simply and rudely deleting them. An example would be finding a non-partial link to the above.

Thanks

gonzo84d

Decline reason:

I've ignored the content issues here, as they ar not relevant to the unblock request and must be presented in some other way. The block is appropriate; the subject of an article, the subject's secretary, the subject's agent, and someone working on behalf of the subject are not welcome to edit the article; the conflict of interest is too intense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:41, 16 December 2009 (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.

20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) gonzo84d

I have no reason to doubt your explanation, but still, you have a conflict of interest and should not have edited the article directly. Instead, you should have suggested the changes in the talk page, as I already told Jean Sasson. You seem well informed about Wikipedia's policies and your arguments are pretty plausible, although I don't agree with all of them. I endorse your unblocking if you promise not to edit the article again. Meanwhile, I'll address some of the issues you raised in the article's talk page. Thanks. Sole Soul (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it (COI) was a mistake on my part. I apologize. I do promise not to edit again, although it looks like that's not going to affect anything. I can't respond to your comments on Sasson's talk page, so I'll do that here.

1) Notable events: Her other books may not qualify, but I think that judging by the great attention given to Growing Up, it should be included. It is, after all, a unique, first hand account of life with one of the world's most notable figures. If that's not notable, I'm not sure what is. Included it would also help the undue weight problem.

2)"So, although the words "claims to be" may have negative connotations, it is factually accurate." This is correct. But surely there's a way to say without that doesn't have those connotations. Again, you could put "claims to be" in front of anything and it would still be factually correct, but untrue to the spirit of whatever you were saying. For instance, "George claims to be an honest person." He might be the most honest person in the world, and he might claim it if asked (this would be more evidence of his honesty!). But though there isn't anything technically wrong here, anyone reading that would get the sense that George wasn't honest.

I'd love to provide reliable sources, but aren't allowed to edit, which is why I requested that somebody in the community help out.

As for the merits of the story, I haven't read it and so can't speak firsthand to it. In any case, I don't see how that enters in here.

As for rudeness, it wasn't necessarily the individual edits. It was the wholesale erasing of my changes because I was assumed to be a sockpuppet. There was no dialogue. Anyway, it's not a huge deal.

If you could post this to the Sasson talk page I'd appreciate it. Cheers,

Gonzo84d (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Gonzo84d[reply]