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"

{{adoptme}}

Please copy my appeal to WP:ANI.

Appeal by Chuck Marean

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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)

Statement by Llywrch

Sorry for the delay in responding. I just discovered that this section exists with my name on it.

I admit that I think Chuck Marean is unfit to edit Wikipedia due to reasons of competence. However, my block was in obedience to the wishes of the community as expressed in the relevant WP:AN/I thread; I have since had negligible interaction to this matter. If the community decides to lift this block, despite my own opinions I am willing to abide by that.

I don't think I need to say anything more. -- llywrch (talk) 05:26, 1 July 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)

Chuck continues to use 'edit' (I thought Wikipedia was for editing etc) as if it were something different to creating content, so I'm still not convinced that he understands what went wrong, mainly because I don't understand what he means by 'edit'. Perhaps if we could clarify this? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I tentatively support a lifting of the ban if a topic ban on editing anything to do with Bernie Madoff, financial investments, and fraud is put in place instead. Fences&Windows 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Struck. Chuck's comment below shows he has no clue what Wikipedia is about, and he seems unable and unwilling to contribute according to our policies. He just wanted a site he could mess about on. Fences&Windows 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One would also have to include Elizabeth II per this [3], [4], [5], the British Empire [6], the Portal:Current events, European Union [7], TANSTAAFL [8] and any formatting. Heiro 23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that lifting the ban would be a very bad idea. I watched Chuck's edits for years, and the failure to understand concepts that led to his block were the proverbial straw on the equally proverbial camel. From his comical attempt to rewrite the New Testament article in 2006 to his ridiculous overtemplating of the finance article, virtually all of his contributions were disastrous. Several editors tried mentoring Chuck over the years, with User:ZimZalaBim putting in a particularly valiant effort. To put it plainly, he refuses to learn or cannot learn how to edit constructively. - Eureka Lott 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, I removed my name from the section above where you labeled me the admin who determined consensus and implemented the ban. From what I can tell, I had nothing whatsoever to do with your ban. My only involvement came when you wrote to the unblock mailing list at the start of the year requesting the opportunity to appeal your ban. I assisted you and reset the block with the ability to edit your talk page restored so you could post your appeal here. According to the block log, Llywrch was the admin who implemented the ban. Sarah 00:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the section above this request, where Chuck claims to have been blocked by "a mean editor", which indicates that he still doesn't grasp basic concepts. --Smashville^talk 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought “edit” meant to improve the wording of something written. The Introduction and Tutorial said you don’t need to be perfect, which implied there was nothing wrong with humor such as pluralizing The Revelation. However, I suppose you’re serious, possibly because the articles are now retrieved by encyclopedia search engines as if authoritative articles. The “overtemplating” was because this was an editing site. I was just trying out the templates. So what? I suppose you’re answer would be “it’s not an editing site. It’s an encyclopedia students can afford.” Also, no one ever tried mentoring me. From the start Zimmer was criticizing me without explanation, as if inspired by the word Marine. If we’re not allowed to edit for recreational purposes, that should be pointed out in the introduction, tutorial, and main page – because there is nothing at all obvious about it. If this is a writing project rather than an editing site, that means doing library research and writing articles, which is not what the word, edit, means. If I were to consider this a writing project, if unblocked I wouldn’t be able to do much here. If I wrote an article, I could then ad it to the site with one or two edits but that’s about all there would be to my editing, unless I started patrolling recent changes, which is a very strange thing for an editing site. Maybe the phrase or clause (I don’t remember which it is) “anybody can edit” confused me. I suppose it’s difficult to overcome a first impression. Chuck Marean 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How are you unable to grasp that this is an encyclopedia? --Smashville^talk 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chuck seems to think this is a site like Encyclopedia Dramatica, where you EDIT for shits and giggles. This is a serious endeavor, Chuck. We do research and write serious articles, as well as articles about humorous subjects, but it is not an edit whatever you feel like however you feel like site. Heiro 23:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if you take this as a personal attack as I do not mean it as such, but at this point I have to again point to WP:COMPETENCE as my main problem here. With this last explanation, you have thoroughly convinced me that you either lack the competence to be here, or are simply trolling. I am assuming good faith here, and going with lacking competence. Note that this does not mean I think you are a bad person, or even incompetent outside of Wikipedia; on the contrary, again I assume good faith and feel like you are as you present yourself. That said, there are many problems with your work, and you are not getting it. By now, if you can't get it, then there is a major problem, and it is simpler to keep you banned than clean up your mistakes. Sodam Yat (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I’ve been getting it too much. Some of my editing wasn’t perfect, and most of it was good enough. If you look for the proof, it’s there. Also, the main page does not say “. . . that anybody can proofread.” It says edit. The Introduction says the edits don’t need to be perfect. The tutorial gets you enthusiastic about editing. Yet people come along and change what I wrote. Still, for the most part I was keeping cool and asking that others do the same. For example, I said “current events” and “in the news” shouldn’t just report things to complain about. They should contain a lot of normal and good news also. As I see it, a way to improve my competence would be for me to write new articles instead of rewording old articles. It seems the procedure for improving old articles is not covered in the tutorial, or even decided. Maybe I should have made more suggestions on talk pages. For example, that article on the queen of England. Instead of editing it, maybe it would have been alright to point out on the talk page that I don’t know what her titles mean and therefore I found the lead boring. On the other hand, some have said the talk page is only for those working on the article and, if that’s true, how is an article be improved without editing it? My Wikipedia competence is improved when I remember encyclopedia sites are retrieving Wikipedia articles. I was not aware of that at first. At first Wikipedia appeared to be an editing site. An evidence of this was the length of the article histories. Instead of under twenty edits, most had thousands of edits. I can be more competent. It only took me 6.5 years to get through 4 years of premed. That is one reason to believe people are more important than the project. We should not be freak out to correct mistakes. Thousands of edits per article proves most people think “anybody can edit” means “go ahead an edit.” Chuck Marean 03:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could try HERE at Conservapedia. They have another encyclopedia project very similar to this one, but their rules are a little different. There seems to be so much baggage for you here, maybe try a fresh start on a new site? Heiro 03:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Some of my editing wasn’t perfect, and most of it was good enough" Other editors beg to differ - if most of your edits were "good enough" you never would have been banned. Fact is most of your edits were very disruptive and wasted a huge amount of good people's valuable time.
• "The Introduction says the edits don’t need to be perfect." Right. And it also makes it clear that this is an encyclopedia, that edits need to conform with site policies, should improve articles, cite reliable sources and if they don't, they can be undone.
• "It seems the procedure for improving old articles is not covered in the tutorial," Yes it is. Most of the tutorial is about editing existing articles, not creating new ones.
• "that article on the queen of England...I don’t know what her titles mean and therefore I found the lead boring." Oh good Lord. So if you don't understand what something means, instead of you doing some reading and educating yourself, our articles should be rewritten so as not to bore you? Chuck, I'm sorry, I know you find this very insulting but you're really just convincing more and more of us how profoundly unsuited you are to edit here. It's not your fault or any ill-will or maliciousness on your part, it's just the way things are.
• "I can be more competent." I don't think so, Chuck. It's taken your four years to even come around to even beginning to grasp the purpose of this site. I just don't see how you can contribute in a way that isn't going to end up in disaster. Sarah 04:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, that is an absolutely staggering statement.I had no intention of participating in this discussion but on reading that statement I feel obliged to oppose your appeal on the basis that even after four years, you are so clueless about this project that I don't see how you could possibly be expected to contribute in a constructive and non-disruptive manner. Every page you go to on this site refers to Wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia". The very first sentence of the first page of the tutorial you refer to says: "Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia to which you can contribute." You also refer to the Introduction yet the very first sentence of the very first page of that says: "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it." And the very first heading on the main page says: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." All these pages make it clear that this is a project to build an encyclopedia, not some kind of "recreational editing site" (whatever that means) that buys articles for people to play around with "recreationally". No page on this site says that this is "Wikiepdia, the recreational open editing site", does it? Seriously, I'm completely staggered by your statements and I know you find it "mean" when editors point to your incompetence but this is a genuine concern with regard to your participation here. There's absolutely no way I can support unbanning someone who has had such difficulty understanding the purpose of this project and that we're not just playing around here for fun. You also comment that no one ever tried to mentor you but this isn't true. Perhaps you weren't part of a formal mentorship program, but a look at your talk page history shows that many people did try to help you and mentor you informally. In order for mentoring to be a viable option, we'd have to believe that you were capable of doing at least some competent editing on your own and I just don't believe that is the case. Plus your past inability to grasp advice and information and your inability to understand Wikipedia's purpose makes me feel that you would not be appropriately responsive to mentoring and I think your issues are so extensive that it just wouldn't be fair on the mentor. I'm sorry but I really think you and Wikipedia need to permanently part ways and you should find another project more suited to you. I don't mean that it a nasty way - Wikipedia isn't a suitable environment for everyone - but I honestly don't see anything positive coming out of you returning here. Sarah 04:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I now consider Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, and that the reason I did not at first was the example of other editors. People were reverting articles to their favorite versions after scholarly updates and so forth. People were rewording things. There were thousands of edits per main article. As far as no mentoring, the people leaving comments on my talk page, except the barn star, were claiming my edits were things they were not. For example, one said a voter guide published by the government of California was not a reliable source, and used a rhetorical stance making it sound as if he were totally serious -- that he was right simply because he could block me. That sort of thing is not mentoring. As far as I can tell, each criticism left on my talk page was false, and no attempt was made to explain why they thought they were right (other than "I could block you.")

Another example is accusations of "point of view pushing" done by point of view pushing. Why did they think I was point of view pushing: they didn't say. They put links to edits, as if they thought a reference would convince people they were right. When I followed those links, they showed they were not correct. If disagreeing with someone who can block me is incompetent, then mentoring is needed rather than blocking. I'm able to learn what is considered a good edit. For example, is an article allowed to be long quotes from the source as long as it admits that's what it's doing? I shouldn't need to use a fake name. My returning would be positive: 1. wouldn't edit just for the sake of editing 2. if I wrote a article I'd be able to contribute it 3. not being banned would be positive for me, making the world and people in it seem more civilized 4. I'd be willing to listen to a mentor before moving an edit from my user pages 5. I would take extra steps to remain civil such as not using Wikipedia when under prepared or over tired. Although I did not major in English or Journalism, I am within the category of anybody, which Wikipedia self-advertises as who can edit. Chuck Marean 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reply really highlights the problems with your participation here. You seem to have a completely different view of reality than everyone else. You say that you got the idea this wasn't an encyclopedia from following other editor's actions. I was editing back in 2006 when you first started editing here and while some things have changed since then, this has always been an encyclopedia. Every single page always described it as "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" and all the help and introduction pages made it clear that it was an encyclopedia, not some kind of "recreational editing site that buys articles for people to play with". We can go back to 2002/2003 in the page histories and show you that this has *always* been an encyclopedia and your idea that it was a site that buys articles for people to play with recreationally is something you've made up on your own. You say people leaving messages on your talk page "were claiming [your] edits were things they were not" and that "each criticism left on [your] talk page was false" - you are the only person who thinks the warnings and feedback you received were false. If you accepted the feedback you received, listened to what people tell you and modified your editing as a result, you would never even have got to the stage of being banned. I have looked through your history and I sincerely believe that ZimZalaBim's efforts with you were a defacto mentorship and that you showed no signs of improving or taking on board feedback. For mentorship to be a viable option, you must be responsive to feedback. Your past and present comments lead me to believe that is not the case and a mentor would effectively become a nanny, following you around, cleaning up after you but unable to make any progress because you dismiss all negative feedback as false and continue on your way. We have to do what's in the best interests of the project and it has become my firm belief that allowing you to return would not be a "net positive" for the project. I would advise you to go and contribute to another WMF project for at least 6 months and then appeal. If you can contribute constructively and productively to another project for a sustained period of time without causing problems, you would have a better chance of convincing people here to give you another chance. At this stage, given your past history and your recent comments which show that the underlying issues which led to the ban are not resolved, I don't think unbanning you would be appropriate or fair on the community. As for point of view pushing, your edits regarding Madoff were blatant point of view pushing. The fact you still don't understand this, despite the amount of time many people have spent trying to explain it to you, is just further reason not to unban you. "I am within the category of anybody, which Wikipedia self-advertises as who can edit." Certainly, we are the encyclopedia anyone is invited to edit, but ultimately this is a privately owned website with a very specific and narrow mission and we reserve the right to revoke the open invitation if a user shows they are unable or unwilling to comply with policies and guidelines or if they otherwise have a degrading 'net-negative' effect on the project. You were included in the "anyone" category and the invitation to edit was extended to you, but you showed yourself incapable of editing in an appropriate way so the community revoked your invitation to edit. Your comments on numerous article talk pages (including Queen Elizabeth, finance, banking, Bernie Madoff etc) show that if you don't understand a subject, rather than reading articles and educating yourself, you prefer articles be changed and made incorrect or inaccurate in order to fit with your warped or ill-informed/uneducated world view, for this reason I think you are a very dangerous person to have editing this project and I would not trust you with any articles. "not being banned would be positive for me, making the world and people in it seem more civilized" - LOL As a moderator of the unblock mailing list, that is by far the most creative unblock rationale I have ever seen! Sarah 02:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally Chuck, in your various appeals, including this one, you keep referring to the "mean editor". Please understand that you were not banned because of this so-called "mean editor". You weren't even banned because you asked for him to be banned. You were banned purely because you exhausted the community's patience with your disruptive and inappropriate editing. If you are to have any hope of returning here you need to accept that you were banned because the community considered you disruptive, that your edits degraded articles and your talk page comments were silly, not based in reality and merely wasted people's time. Until you are able to begin accepting feedback, taking it on board and adjusting your behaviour as a result, rather than waving your hand and dismissing it all as false, I don't think you will ever have much chance of being unbanned. Sarah 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to try.Chuck Marean 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well willingness to try is certainly a good step. I suggest you consider joining one of the other WMF projects and edit there for at least six months so you can show the community here that you can edit competently and constructively and without causing any problems. I wouldn't advise you appeal again any sooner than six months and I think unless you have something very constructive to show us on another project it's highly unlikely you'll succeed in appeals here (especially with the types of statements you've made and the very extensive history of problems and disruption). I would be interested in your response to the people claiming on ANI that you are merely a vandal and that you have been doing all this deliberately. Sarah 09:14, 2 July 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.

As a result of the discussion on AN/I, I find that there is no consensus to lift your block at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My response

I was following the directions. To improve the introductory directions, you could add to Wikipedia:Introduction something like “Please finish your articles before submitting them; patrolling recent changes has become too difficult; this encyclopedia is not a blog or recreational editing site” and if it’s true it would not be rejected by the community. If un-banned, I won’t use Wikipedia as an editing site, because its articles are being retrieved by sites as if it were seriously an encyclopedia. Rather than blaming me for my “liberal” editing, perhaps the introductory directions need to be improved. If you still don’t trust me, I’ll ask again later. I don’t have an article to submit at this time anyhow. Chuck Marean 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And that is the core of the problem, 'as if it were seriously an encyclopedia'. You don't seem to get that this is an encyclopedia. Not 'seen as one' not 'thought to be one', it is one. This is why I cannot support a return, because you either just don't get it, or are trolling. Sodam Yat (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My advice? Don't feed the sub-bridge dweller.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance, you are sincere in wanting to edit Wikipedia, here's a suggestion or two. The instructions you complain aren't clear to you seem to be clear enough to tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of other contributors, most of whom make clearly useful & desirable contributions; based on this, I'd say the problem in comprehension is on your end, not in how the instructions are worded. Also, if you ask again to be unblocked & you haven't secured a mentor to help you be a productive editor, then at the least your request will be speedily denied because nothing has changed. And making repeated requests without any demonstration you understand the problem, and have made good-faith attempts to address them will simply result in your talk page being protected & email to unblock-L being ignored. If you don't like the response, remember that your life is not over just because you can't edit Wikipedia; millions of people live productive & happy lives without ever doing so. Now go away & think about our response. -- llywrch (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know any Wikipedians, as far as I know. Therefore, I’m asking you to be my advisor. If you don’t have the time, maybe you know someone who does. In case my edits really were below average, it stands to reason I should post my Wikipedia editing ideas on my user page for review. That would be more collaborative than thousands of “rv to last edit by author,” and so forth. Also, a higher percentage of good news and good current events would in my opinion make Wikipedia more relaxing to read. Such news might be found in magazines like Smithsonian, digging at the New York Times site if you can handle the stress of the bad news there, and http://www.gnn.com/ by AOL. I really think deficit spending is a better idea than causing a garbage collection strike, since old bonds can be repaid by selling new bonds, i.e. overworked dumpster truck drivers might fall asleep at the wheel and they know it. Chuck Marean 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, I cannot mentor you because (1) I don't have the time to mentor anyone; (2) have neither the patience, (3) nor do I have the skill to teach someone who refuses to accept their limitations or need for improvement like you. And to repeat what I have written elsewhere, I wouldn't wish the chore of being your mentor on anyone at Wikipedia, no matter how much I despised her/him. I have nothing more to say. -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I lived through a garbage collection strike. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, there's no point busy editors wasting their valuable and limited time mentoring/advising someone who is banned from this website. You seem completely clueless about absolutely everything - no, it doesn't stand to reason that you should post your editing ideas on your talk page - you're banned from editing here! This means that your edits are not welcome on this website, either directly to articles or via this page. The reason I allowed you to edit this page again was so you could appeal your ban, not so you could waste people's time and try to bypass the ban by editing via proxy. I will simply turn back off your ability to edit this page if this is a problem for you to understand. If you really want to return here, please go and spend *at least* 6 months contributing appropriately to another WMF project (perhaps Simple Wikipedia?). If you can show us that you are capable of editing appropriately, treating the project as an encyclopedia, not "as though it is thought of as an encyclopedia", and not causing problems, degrading articles, driving people crazy with silliness etc it is much more likely people here will be willing to reconsider and give you a second chance. Otherwise, I really don't see you ever being unbanned here. People have quite simply had enough and you have totally exhausted the community's patience. Sarah 06:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) PS: "a higher percentage of good news and good current events would in my opinion make Wikipedia more relaxing to read." *Groans* Chuck, this is an encyclopedia, not Women's Weekly - we're not trying to write a publication that's relaxing to read! Sarah 06:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok. I can try to write there. To review, I made an edit supporting the bill or rights. Someone removed the edit, calling it nonsense and then called it poor writing. I then half jokingly said the editor should be banned for rudeness. A bureaucrat who didn’t at first know what I was talking about was outraged, and then started claiming all my edits were poor writing, for example, that my edit against saying ain’t was rude and wrong (even though spell checkers agree with me). Then a few people trying to impress the bureaucrat started looking for poor examples of my editing. The discussion became unfairly biased against me, with so many people participating it was as if someone was cracking passwords. Then, someone blocked me, which in my opinion was unfair. The fact is, there is an edit link at the top over every section. The main page says “that anyone can edit.” The Introduction says edits “don’t need to be perfect” and “go ahead and edit.” I’m not sure what “collaboratively written” means, but obviously it doesn’t mean to block other editors, and as I said when I suggested banning someone I didn’t think what I said would be taken that all that seriously. I think the idea was that someone who wants to mentor me would unblock me to do so. I can be emailed if you change your mind. Chuck Marean 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone revoke Chucks talk page privileges for another 6 months please? Enough is enough. Heiro 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've turned your talk page back off Chuck. You don't seem to understand that you are banned from this website. No prospective mentor is going to unblock you because you are banned. This isn't a block that anyone can just decide to undo; it's a community ban, which means you have completely exhausted the community's patience resulting in them banning you. This is why there were "so many people participating it was as if someone was cracking passwords" - people have had enough of you, they find you disruptive, incompetent, a real danger to the quality of articles, and a serial pest and they don't think your "net contribution" is a "net positive" for the the project. This doesn't mean the discussion was unfair or biased against you, it means you've exhausted many people's patience and they've had enough and decided to show you the door. You contacted unblock-en-l asking to be allowed to edit your talk page so you could appeal, since then you seem to have had at least 2 appeals which were not only rejected but rejected unanimously, so I really don't see any point in allowing you to continue editing this page - especially when your edits are continuing to waste our time and demonstrating that you're either completely clueless or you're merely trolling us and either way, I don't think it's helpful to the project to allow it to continue. Please consider what we've told you and ask yourself if the problem might just be you and not the edit button or the "mean users" or even the introduction and tutorials - but you. I honestly don't see you ever being unbanned here without a very significant change in your perception and sense of reality. In the meanwhile, please understand and accept that you are under a community ban, not a block, and you will only be unblocked if there is a community consensus to allow you to return. If you do go and contribute successfully to another WMF project without causing the problems you've caused here, you can email me after 6 months and I will unlock this page again for you so you can request another appeal. Sarah 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:My talk archives

Template:My talk archives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Chuck marean 4-8-08.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chuck marean 4-8-08.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Chuck Marean.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chuck Marean.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:How-to has been nominated for merging

Category:How-to has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)