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 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 Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. PumeleonT 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. 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. PumeleonT 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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. PumeleonT 07:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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.PumeleonT 07:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Other_stuff_exists, which has been a guideline for consensus and peacekeeping for quite some time. PumeleonT 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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. PumeleonT 08:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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 below. -- VS talk 09:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. PumeleonT 15:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. 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 below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.