User talk:Chuck Marean

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I will try to get a mentor, and I won’t again ask for a false accuser to be banned. Instead, I will try to explain to the person why I think he’s wrong.--

Decline reason:

You are community banned. As such, no individual admin has the authority to overturn the block. I will initiate a discussion at the admins' noticeboard. Note that I am declining this purely on a procedural basis; I consider myself involved, as I commented at the AN ban proposal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Posted on behalf of the blocked editor as he is unable to edit this page. Nakon 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:'What links here' screen shot 2-28-08 for talk page.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:'What links here' screen shot 2-28-08 for talk page.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for Administrator

{{Adminhelp}} Please move this appeal to ANI for consideration. I understand why I was community banned and I’ll do constructive edits instead. My community ban was because I did some major edits without a consensus and sufficient preparation. For example, I reworded a Current Events blurb to say the victims of the Madoff investment fraud had not received a government bailout (when the references merely stated they had lost a lot of money). I’ve been thinking of ways to find consensus, such as working in my user space and getting my edits reviewed, looking at edit histories to try to find out who wrote what I want to edit, mentioning the edit idea on the article’s talk page, and putting forth more effort when reading sources and writing. I apologize for editing Current Events without knowing for certain I had a consensus. Rather than asking, I supposed everyone would agree with my edit. I believe it is uncivil to call people disruptive or vandals or uncivil or stupid or not neutral or bad editors, and so forth, although I can understand a writer being upset when someone else edits or corrects his writing. So, to improve my editing, I could ask if I have a consensus and I could read the policies I haven’t read and I could find and read a book on how to find sources and so forth. I think my community ban is no longer needed, as I’ve just explained. Chuck Marean 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have copied your appeal to AN/I here. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring request

N Request denied, community ban not lifted (see below section). Swarm^(Talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m seeking a mentor to help me learn to help Wikipedia better.

Pages I started include: 2008–10 California budget crisis, City of Film, Digital Sky Technologies, Want ad, Al-Yamamah Private University, Mini blind, Codex Washingtonianus, Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering, and Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering articles.

Other pages I’ve worked on include: Links and URLs, and Character formatting.

I made some good “In the news” nominations and additions to current events.

Other than that, I’ve made unnecessary edits. The reason for this is my first impression of Wikipedia was that it was a recreational editing site. My understanding was that articles were bought and then placed onweb for people to edit. I did not notice at first that Wikipedia was being used as a serious encyclopedia by various search engines.

I think I can edit much better than I have been. I could consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia rather than an editing site. I could limit my editing to writing well-researched material and minor edits.

I don’t want Wikipedia publishing negative opinions about me, so I would like to be un-banned. My community ban says it is subject to review and mentorship.Therefore, I’ve listed some of the better edits I’ve done, and I’m looking for mentoring. --Chuck Marean 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This might help your case

It might help if you could show us that your understanding of the world has improved, as although you caused some problems with bad code, most of your problems were due to you not having the same viewpoint as a large majority of other editors.

• Can you explain now what Bernie Madoff had done to make the news. How would you write that news item now?

• Can you explain why changing the article title from Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Queen Elizabeth II of England is a bad idea; but it is a good idea that both titles are blue links?

• Finally, select a couple of topics where you'd like to make edits, and tell us what those edits would be.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My viewpoint was based on the top of the main page saying, “that anyone can edit,” Wikipedia:Introduction saying, “go ahead, edit an article,” Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing) saying, “’edit this page’, which lets you edit the page you are looking at. It is Wikipedia's most basic feature,” and the article called “Wikipedia” using the term “Nupedia.” The word Nupedia sounds more like a recreational editing site that the word Wikipedia does. However, since so many people consider Wikipedia to seriously be an encyclopedia, that is my new viewpoint. Also, I’ve read the article, Dunning–Kruger effect.

After re-reading the edit that lead to my ban (in Portal:Current events/2009 June 29), I see why my edit was misunderstood. It said, “gets him 150 years in prison rather than a bailout” when I meant his business didn’t get a bailout because it was before President Bush started bailing out the banks. My reference was something I heard on the radio, so I kept the references that were already there. What upset me was the name-calling I received. When the edit was referred to as “nonsense,” that was uncivil. In answer to your questions, I think he allowed his business to spend money it didn’t have, I would write the headline based on a source I could provide a link to, I would proofread it before clicking “save,” and in hindsight I should not have publish it at all, since there was already a headline on the topic.

On your next question, I really don’t remember requesting it be changed to “Queen Elizabeth II of England.” I was probably trying to start a discussion. I now realize some people disagree with using article talk pages for talk and discussion. For example, someone able to block people got mad about discussing the meaning of the word “ain’t.” So, I suppose the main thing I could use Wikipedia for is something to read. I just read the essay, Wikipedia:Competence is required which someone in the most recent un-ban discussion used to call me incompetent.

I think I’m capable of editing well. I never flunked a grade until college. I now consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia rather than a site for editing. Since the idea appears to be to write and contribute articles rather than to edit, I would need to find something to write about. I don’t have something to write an article about at this time. My current plans are to read Wikipedia’s manual of style, followed by its policy articles, before getting back to learning Wikitext. Chuck Marean 19:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure this has helped your case any, and I believe you are likely to remain blocked. However, you should note that you do not need to be unblocked to read Wikipedia.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Request reason:

I’ll consider this an encyclopedia rather than an editing site, editing in the main space after asking others to read what I wrote. If I think investment fraud is not worth 150 years in jail, or that Congress should coin money to pay California a large franchise tax, I suppose blog sites are better suited for such expression. Redirects are ok, and editing ideas might be regarding Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial still getting us interested in editing rather than doing research and writing articles. Please e-mail me when I am unbanned. Chuck Marean 03:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry if you feel citing this essay is a personal attack on you (as you indicated above) but competence is required and I don't think you understand even now what Wikipedia is and how it is supposed to work. If you wish to appeal this further I recommend you wait for at least six months from the time of the last community discussion on your ban, which was closed 2-21-10 and email the ban appeals subcommittee. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Community ban review

Hey Chuck. In case you haven't followed the discussion regarding your community ban at AN/I, I'm dropping by to let you know that unfortunately, there was a unanimous consensus against lifting your ban. You can see the archived discussion here. In light of this, I'm removing you from the adoption request backlog. Sorry it didn't turn out the way you hoped. --Swarm^(Talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin notice board discussion.

{{Adminhelp|Please end my community ban. I don’t believe I was incompetent. I believe I was
following the directions. They said to edit articles, which is what I was doing. While it may have been
too harsh for me to ask for a mean editor to be banned, banning me instead does not stop such
editors. You should address the problem of mean editors. The discussions calling me incompetent
were surprisingly unfriendly rather than constructive. I’m willing to edit better. Does
anyone have any suggestions on how to edit better? -- Chuck Marean 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Non-admin comment I think the primary problem is that you have not taken responsibility for your actions in any way, shape or form. You made a bad edit to the In the news portal, and then when it was pointed out for what it is, you called vandalism. Even when many, many editors were shown to have problems with your edits, you were completely unapologetic and unwilling to consider you were wrong. Even this request shows some of the problems, as you are still focusing on others, and not addressing your problems. If one or two people have issues with your editing, then it might be a fluke, but there were no less than 11 editors in the Noticeboard thread telling you that you were the problem, and you refused to listen. In a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, that is completely unacceptable. Most of the people questioning your competence most likely have issues with that. Sodam Yat (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Non-admin comment-You were not banned because of a mean editor, you were community banned by the Community because the community at large was no longer willing to contend with your disruption and competency issues per discussion here. Heiro 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No admin can "end" your community ban. If you want to draft a proposal on lifting your ban (since it has been a few months since your last request), I would be more than happy to copy it to WP:ANI for you to establish consensus, but that consensus will be required. No admin will lift this ban without consensus. Feel free to draft an unban proposal for posting up there. I strongly encourage that any proposal you write include verbiage regarding adoption mentoring and how you intend to correct your behavior from previous issues. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Adoption"

Please copy my appeal to WP:ANI.

Appeal by Chuck Marean

Appealing user

Chuck Marean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Chuck Marean 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

llywrch has blocked Chuck Marean indefinitely, subject to review &/or a mentor stepping forward, imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive197#User:Chuck Marean

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Sarah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise.

Statement by Chuck Marean

I would like to be unblocked and unbanned and I’m willing to be mentored. I think I am capable of editing well. When I suggested the editor being mean to me be banned, I think I was over tired, causing my mind to be vandalized. Several of my peaceful news items had already been removed that week and then someone called my edit against the unconstitutional sentence someone received “nonsense.” Those who called my editing incompetent were exaggerating, in my opinion. Since encyclopedia sites are retrieving Wikipedia articles, I suppose considering Wikipedia to be an editing site is outdated, although the directions encourage editing. To improve my editing, I'll only edit articles when this would definitely improve them and when not over tired. To suggest edits on my talk page, I think I need to be un-banned and unblocked first.Chuck Marean 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Chuck Marean

Editors considering mentoring Chuck should weigh this [1] before making a decision. Heiro 02:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For context, the original discussion is here.Heiro 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per this edit [2] it appears you still don't understand why you were banned. Bernie Madoffs sentence was not unconstitutional, he plead guilty in a court of law and was convicted. Anyone who is as detached from reality as to continually assert this is not compatible with this project. Heiro 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant I thought 150 years instead of months was wrong. In fact it sounds like someone hacked into the lawbook publisher. I agree I didn't need to say so. It was obvious. I had just heard it on the radio and I suppose I was overtired, as shown by the quality of my writing in that report. Sorry.Chuck Marean 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Chuck Marean

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.