User talk:Charlton 181

is closed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 02:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request
If you just want to tell the world the horrible things that the Bidens- most of whom are not government officials, do not hold public office, and are not seeking public office- do, you can do that on social media or other forums for that purpose. Here, we summarize independent reliable sources in a manner consistent with our policies. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. May I ask which part of the Biographies of living persons policy I have violated? I was originally blocked under the grounds that the blocking admin felt that I wasn’t here to contribute to the encyclopedia; your reason is different? Thank you in advance. Charlton 181 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated here your edit violated the policy; this is because you made a certain claim about a living person(do not repeat it here) without providing a reliable source. The BLP policy applies to all pages, not just articles. You were blocked as NOTHERE because it seems your only purpose here is to make that claim. There are places you can do that, this is not one of them. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and I appreciate that you’re engaging with me constructively. The only place where I wrote about the subject in question was on the talk page of the actual article and I can see that the other user who originally raised it still has their contribution on there which does state the subject in question and that user hasn’t been blocked? I can understand a temporary chastisement but I appear to have been permanently blocked over that whereas others have not?Charlton 181 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That section (Talk:Ashley Biden) is sourced which is why it has not been removed- though it has been deemed too trivial for inclusion, per WP:BLP. Wikipedia articles are not for documenting every passing mention of something bad a person did, especially when not particularly relevant to the reason the person merits an article(in the case of Ashley, being the President's daughter). That user was advised "you have now twice used a trivial mention of addiction and rehab in an unrelated news story to justify adding clearly undue content to a BLP. You should know that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for adding this twice-disputed content. Please also see WP:BRD for commonly cited advice for how to handle this exact manner of content dispute." You created a new section of the talk page, and had no other edits, which is why you were blocked as not here. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that your best chance at being unblocked is to at least temporarily abandon efforts to edit about the Bidens and possibly American politics more broadly until you have a history of constructive contributions- and tell us what edits you will make instead.  However, you may also attempt to convince another administrator to unblock you without such a condition. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your thoughtful response. Yes I understand that, I’m not attempting to Wiki Lawyer as they say. I noted that my original appeal was dispensed with within ten seconds as I wasn’t concise enough - this underlines the fact that there are comparatively few administrators to editors so it is understandable that you are all very busy and this is why I appreciate the time you have taken to discuss this with me. I’m not at all looking to participate in a culture war and perhaps inadvertently I have led you and the other administrator to believe that is the case: the Ashley Biden article and subject in question is a complicated and perhaps contentious one so I understand that it is perhaps best left to others to engage with that. I don’t want to be blocked forever over a misunderstanding because Wikipedia is ubiquitous to the internet. I would accept your recommendation that I refrain from contributing to US politics until I have proven my good faith and neutral intentions in other areas of the encyclopedia. Can my site wide block be lifted and perhaps a specific block on US politics is put in place until a later date?Charlton 181 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What do you think? 331dot (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I’m sorry to bother you but I’ve left it a week and I was wondering if there was an update to this? Charlton 181 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for a comment from the blocking admin whom I pinged, I will ask them directly. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. I’m very much keen to prove that I was not being disruptive or attempting to be a vandal though I understand why those rules are in place. Charlton 181 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I’m sorry to bother you but as you can see the blocking administrator accepts that the block was a misunderstanding. He said he would unblock me and that I was to feel free to contribute to Wikipedia as I wasn’t being disruptive. I’m not sure if he is available to unblock me so could you do this (as you can see below)? Charlton 181 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I’m sorry to disturb you but will I be unblocked now? Charlton 181 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that ping, I think it might be because you capitalized the W in Wong, which is probably enough to break the ping. Anyway, I've read through the discussion above, and reviewed the edits that led to the block. I'm honestly surprised that Charlton has chosen to engage and ask to be unblocked, that doesn't happen 95% of the time in these kinds of situations. Charlton, here's the deal: you registered an account on WP, and the very first edit you made had to be deleted because you made a controversial allegation about a real, living person (whether or not it was on a talk page doesn't matter, it's still readable by anyone). Then, your second and third edits were to request the unprotection of the talk page. Page protection is typically a function that takes most new editors months to discover. Very few legitimately new editors find WP:RFPP and figure out how to make a request there on their second edit. This implies the possibility that this isn't your first account here.

So, an egregious first edit in violation of WP:BLP, followed quickly by an edit that demonstrates a high likelihood of extensive foreknowledge of Wikipedia, was enough for me to determine that you're most likely not here for particularly noble reasons. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm happy to unblock you and give you a second chance, but I can assure you that this account will not last long if you take a similar approach, and your account will be scrutinized after you're unblocked. Before unblocking though, can you tell us if you've ever had any other accounts on Wikipedia, or if you've edited anonymously for any significant period of time? There are ways for us to find out, but I'd rather hear it from you first.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 03:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your message and for taking the time to respond to me. Yes I have previously edited Wikipedia though on a very small scale, perhaps less than a dozen edits in total and half of those occurred on the talk page. The first, without an account, occurred more than ten years ago perhaps even 15 years ago, was in the talk page of the developer Derek Smart as a contribution to a discussion over the lack of neutrality of an editor, my contribution was modest. The second was perhaps ten years ago without a user account and was a single contribution to a discussion in the talk page of my home town of East Kilbride, Scotland, this time in relation to the attribution of a Gaelic name of the town though it’s name didn’t originate in Gaelic and that was in fact a modernist attribution whereas historically it had and continues to have an Anglican derived name, Gaelic being the formerly spoken language of North of Scotland whereas the southern part was Brythonic Welsh. I also suggested better photographs. My third edit occurred with a user account whose password I now cannot remember and that was perhaps two years ago on a US politicians biography (Abraham Aiyash) my user name was Waqeem. I have not returned to this article until today and it is particularly disappointing that the controversy section has been omitted from his biography even though it was covered in the Detroit Free Press as well as News Australia. You can see my comments on that talk page in which I was engaging respectfully and reasonably as well as promoting neutrality. I believe these are all of my edits to Wikipedia.
 * Not to be argumentative or contrary and I accept what you’re saying but to answer your points from my perspective, I read that news story in question in the Daily Mail (I read that, the The Guardian, The Telegraph and the Independent on a daily basis) though I’ve since learned that the Daily Mail is not a valid source for Wikipedia. I then created an account because of privacy concerns in relation to the public disclosure of my IP address and contributed to an on going discussion of the subject in question in the biographies talk page. My comment was deleted but the other participants where not and they were not blocked. I perhaps should have left it there but I didn’t understand at the time why that was the case and I then requested that the page be unprotected. I later saw that I had been blocked indefinitely from all of Wikipedia. I understand there is a fine line between good faith and the necessity to prevent vandalism but as I have hoped I have shown, that this was a misunderstanding and I don’t want to be prevented from contributing to Wikipedia in say ten years into the future because of a misunderstanding. I apologize for the length of this comment and thank you again for taking the time to revisit this issue. Charlton 181 (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and your transparency, and my apologies for perhaps overly hastily making assumptions about your intentions that might have been incorrect. I'll unblock you momentarily. Please feel free to contribute to Wikipedia in any way you see fit, just keep in mind that biographical articles on living people (BLPs) are treated more sensitively than other articles, since what we write (even on talk pages) can have significant impacts on the real lives of people in the real world. We need to especially ensure that potentially controversial allegations are backed up by sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. There is tons of documentation about what constitutes a reliable source, and lists of sources that are generally considered reliable/unreliable, as well as ongoing discussions about specific sources that you can find and read at places like WP:RS, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:RSP, WP:RSN. It seems like you have an interest in conservative politics in the US and possibly have a point of view that some WP articles don't represent a neutral point of view. There isn't necessarily a problem with that viewpoint, but I would advise that if you want to work towards correcting non-neutral POV or if you want to incorporate potentially controversial material into articles, start by finding reliable sources that back up your claims. If you start an argument with a reliable source, you're much more likely to be taken seriously than if you just post a rant about how WP is a liberal institution or whatever. Anyway, if you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page if you'd like. Cheers.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond to me Scott and thank you also for your well written response. Yes I agree with those points, in retrospect I could have been more collegiate and shown a greater awareness of the specificities when contributing to a biography of an individual, I apologise for that. I also understand the great difficulties which Wikipedia administrators face as there are very few in comparison to the size of Wikipedia and it must be a Sisyphean task in guarding against maliciousness and ill intent; which is why I have engaged with great alacrity to you both. As for neutrality yes, being honest with you my inclinations are towards left wing politics (which you call liberalism in the US though this has a different meaning in the UK) but I believe that an encyclopedia, to be used by all and be reliable to all, should be neutral for all. This seems to me to be a matter of fairness and accuracy. The BBC here for instance has developed a reputation for having an affinity for left wing viewpoints but the problem is that this viewpoint isn’t shared by half of the UK who tend to be centrist or center right and they pay for the BBC as everyone else in the UK has to. This has degraded public confidence in the BBC whose future is now in doubt. This ultimately does not help anyone here both left and right because the BBC is an imperfect means of upholding journalistic standards compared to other Anglosphere media environments. Without it, would there not be a race to the bottom? In my own personal opinion, I see similarities between the BBC and Wikipedia in that regard. As to why I have occasionally involved myself in US political articles; well because of linguistic and cultural factors (the Anglosphere specifically) your news tends to be publicized here quite heavily and Wikipedia being as dominant as it is, is the primary source for civilizational information. It seems we have to share a single encyclopedia for that reason and we all have to live with Wikipedia on the internet. Neutrality though is obviously a complicated issue for a multitude of reasons not least because human beings are complicated. Perhaps I am rambling now but I thought I should give a full account as you may wonder why I had edited those articles in question. Charlton 181 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Scott, sorry to bother you but I was wondering when I would be unblocked? Charlton 181 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Scott - I’m sorry to disturb you but will I be unblocked now? Charlton 181 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to make another unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was under the impression that you were reviewing my unblock request and that you needed the original administrator to consider this as well and he wrote that he accepts that I was unblocked in error and that it would be lifted. Can I ask why you’re unable to unblock my account? Im not sure I understand this? Charlton 181 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already reviewed and declined an unblock request by you, so I can't review another. A heretofore uninvolved administrator should look at this with fresh eyes, out of fairness. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying so quickly. Can I ask what you mean by having another administrator review this out of fairness? You had declined my unblock request, we engaged with each other on the issue so as to resolve it, then the original administrator who blocked me reviewed this page and accepted my account was blocked in error and he would unblock me momentarily. Charlton 181 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the line where SW said they would remove it; in checking, I no longer see a block on this account, and the block log says it was removed. Have you attempted to make an edit? 331dot (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your encouraging reply. This evening when I first accessed this talk page, and had yet to login, it displayed a message saying this IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. I’ve logged out and the message is no longer there so I believe we have resolved the issue. I totally understand were you were coming from. I am neither a vandal or a partisan. I am a very irregular contributor and I don’t plan on making any edits at the moment. I am grateful I have been unblocked and thank you for taking the time to resolve this. Charlton 181 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)