User talk:Chuck.gamble

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Kamiak High School, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Pumeleon^T 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kamiak High School. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pumeleon^T 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiak High School

Regardless of the lack of sources (which, by wikipedia policy, is usually the only way to establish notability), you cannot add potentially libelous information about anyone without factual proof. Saying that someone is "best known for their womanizing tendencies" usually precludes inclusion in a wikipedia article, as they don't meet the notability requirements. Pumeleon^T 07:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it cannot just be left be. Notability is not how well-known someone is; it's how worthy of note they are. This is established by an independent secondary source (such as a newspaper or published journal; not a blog) making a note of that person. He has not been the subject of such a source, therefore he is not notable and not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia.Pumeleon^T 07:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other information is potentially libelous. Beyond that, the argument that "x isn't this way, so y shouldn't be either" is an invalid one according to Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists, which has been a guideline for consensus and peacekeeping for quite some time. Pumeleon^T 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that statements that are considered potentially libelous are handled with much greater care and sternness than other statements because of their nature. It doesn't have to be libelous or injurious to be handled in such a manner, merely potentially libelous.

As for the precedents, they're being argued on every debate about articles for deletion, among a few other places, such as wikiproject talk pages dealing with policy. Pumeleon^T 08:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account and either your or your sock IP account are being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 09:07, 5 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I have been blocked because of my vocal disagreement with the volunteer who deleted my additions to the Kamiak High School page. After the second warning, I posted no further changes to any page and simply disagreed with Pumeleon. In the first place, I only put the Billy Bergen entry back because I knew that he was in fact a notable alumnus because so many people on the discussion page agreed that it should be done that way, and all this was before I had been warned. Finally I was only warned twice because I didn't notice the first warning. Either way, after reading and understanding the second warning, I stopped trying to edit the page and resolved that I wouldn't do that until given clearance, which I have not yet been given. I have been treated very unfairly in this matter.

Decline reason:

The blocking administrator has shortened the block to 31 hours providing a detailed explanation below. Taking everything into account a block of 31 hours seems to be reasonable here. — Aitias // discussion 21:42, 6 January 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.

I am of the opinion that an indefinite block was rather harsh here; the user wasn't acting maliciously, he was just being ignorant of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as biographies of living people), and continued pressing the point at User talk:Pumeleon when told that his edit was inappropriate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mike. The block was harsh. A better solution would be to bring in another point of view on the subject to better educate Chuck.gamble to Wikipedia policy; not punish him for not knowing the rules. The block log states that the block was indefinite due to a "Vandalism-only account," and I do not believe this to be the case. Pumeleon^T 15:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block adjustment

I appreciate the views of fellow administrators and editors - thank you also for coming to my talk page. I have also reviewed my block and I note that to date Chuck's account has been an SPA and that he continued an insertion which attacks a student at the school (as shown here). This type of editing is highly inappropriate but that said I have adjusted the block to 31 hours - and ask Chuck to continue in his consideration of appropriate editing during this short break - he can expect escalated blocks and even an indefinite if he continues with his previous work. I will also add a template warning below this message - for the sake of usability as necessary. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edits as detailed in the comment immediately above this template. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]