Charlie wilkes
Welcome!
edit
|
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Charlie wilkes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not a "meat puppet." I'm a person with extensive information about the Meredith Kercher case, acting in good faith. My POV is on the table for all to see, which is why I have never edited the article directly, but rather sought to raise issues in the discussion of the article. People can evaluate what I offer with the full awareness of who I am and what I represent. To block my participation is a way of dodging the hard questions about this article, which is rife with errors of fact and inference. Charlie wilkes (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not really address the reason given for your block, which is participating in a coordinated offsite campaign to influence Wikipedia content. Your contributions are on the whole not very helpful, consisting mostly of WP:FORUM-like commentary on the murder case, rather than on the article. I'm not convinced that unblocking you would help Wikipedia. Sandstein 00:13, 24 March 2011 (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.
- Why have you shown up now, three months after the block was enacted, to protest your innocence? TNXMan 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, my nearly exclusive focus was on one point in the article: the time when the Postal Police arrived relative to Sollecito's call to the emergency number. As for being part of an off-site effort, this is a site run by anonymous log-ins who could have any affiliation. I'm being transparent by using the same name here that I do elsewhere. Should I sign up a different account, with different name and a different IP range, putter around with harmless edits on subjects I know little about, and then go to work on the article that interests me, and about which I know a great deal? I can easily do so, if that is more in line with Wikipedia's standards. Charlie wilkes (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Technically, the policies require this particular username account to be unblocked, as a first step, then this username could be closed, and finally, you could open multiple new accounts. I apologize how the wording of the Wikipedia policies is too vague, and hence, many users often think they are only blocked from using the reputation and history of their special username, but instead, the user is blocked from all editing (not just the particular username). It sounds as if you were to agree, in the future, to a broader participation, such as also improving the general legal-topic articles, then another admin would be more willing to unblock you and allow creating other usernames. That might seem like a contrived reason, but many admins seek to find "key phrases" they need to allow an unblock. The next time you submit an {unblock}, then another admin is likely to review your case, rather than the prior admins. Meanwhile, I am adding the section, below, as "Another request to unblock this user" as written support for your case, which some admins feel is necessary to sway the unblock. <Mean-spirited smears and speculation removed as "off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material" - needless personalisation that is not at all relevant to the discussion. SuperMarioMan 19:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)> -Wikid77 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Another request to unblock this user
edit- Support unblock: I agree with unblocking this user, who was indef-blocked as the first violation, when a 1-month initial block would have seemed more appropriate. Some users fail to understand that blocking is not applied only to a username (to lose the reputation associated with that username) but a block applies to all edit-access, including as IP edits. The blocking admin, User:Black_Kite, resigned from Wikipedia, on 25 January 2011, apparently due to lack of time for personal reasons, so there is no need to bother him further. This User:Charlie wilkes has already explained his main intent is to offer suggestions, rather than edit articles, so he poses little risk of edit-warring. Also, the term "votestacking" is rather misleading in a WP:MfD discussion, where votes are not counted, and hence users cannot be expected to abide by illogical things being implied by such misleading terms. I have tried, for months, to improve Wikipedia's policies, but it is extremely difficult to get consensus in some discussions. Anyway, in this case, I recommend to unblock this user soon. -Wikid77 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I don't want to create other usernames. My point is merely that it's easy to get around the rules. But I don't want to do that. I would like to be able to post on the discussion page for the MK article. Charlie wilkes (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Wikid77 that this user should be unblocked.Turningpointe (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support unblock:This user was accused of meatpuppetry and/or offsite collusion in Dec 2010 and indef blocked. This user and numerous others were blocked on a whim without evidence to substantiate any charges against them by a single rogue admin and, as best as I can discern, blocked for supporting positions contrary to the mainstream (at the time) positions held by a small group of admins and established editors. I have no idea whether the meatpuppetry charges were founded or not (in my case they were not) but as was stated by admin:King of Hearts in lifting my ban, “Three months of indef block is adequate punishment for the crime” (I paraphrase). I disagree with user:sandstein above: This editor seems (seemed?) very knowledgable about the case, the investigation and subsequent trials. I found his/her posts to be valuable material. Tjholme (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I also support the unblocking of Charlie Wilkes. I have been reading the Talk page on the Meredith Kercher article and it seems to me that some very unjust activity has gone on there. I believe Charlie has a lot to offer and is not likely to be a disruptive editor but his knowledge could help everyone in reaching concensus in this difficult article. NigelPScott (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support unblock: I also agree this editor has a vast amount of information to contribute. It is clear that there was something going on when all these blocks were put into place. In order for the article to be balanced it needs editors from both sides. This is what Wiki is about. This editor has never hid who,or what he is.To block on this fashion,is absurd.--Truth Mom (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support unblock: Charlie Wilkes behavior on the Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher page was in the best traditions of Wikipedia. He came to discuss a BLP issue, incorrect information that defamed the defendants. He politely made his case and provided sources to back up his claims. The claim by an admin that he was disruptive is simply not true. It's time to let Charlie Wilkes rejoin the Wikipedia community. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Charlie wilkes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appreciate the support I'm getting here, and once again, I would like to request that I be unblocked. I don't understand why I was blocked in the first place. Someone who goes by the name of "Black Kite" asked me to vote on a question and when I did so, he, she or they blocked me for being a "meat puppet." Apparently that term refers to someone who is part of a clandestine group of infiltrators. In fact, I post as Charlie Wilkes all over the Internet, and my affiliations are out in the open, for all to see. Anyone who follows my comments about the Meredith Kercher case will also know that my real name is Jim Lovering. I'm in the Blaine, WA phone book. Who is "Black Kite"? Charlie wilkes (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sandstein's unblock denial said it best. Your supporters up there are all largely SPAs like yourself apparently. Who you really are and how you can prove this is irrelevant. Perhaps sock- and meatpuppetry were the wrong terms to use, but the fact is we take a very dim view of this sort of team single-purpose editing as evinced by the contribution histories of most of your supporters. Just ask the Church of Scientology. — Daniel Case (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2011 (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.
Curious comparison
editI proposed a "WP:Barnstar" based on your case, but alas, could not persuade my fellow editors to make it official. Nonetheless, I think it applies and I should have awarded it. I just awarded one now to a different editor, User:Will Beback, who was indefinitely banned for ... (drumroll) ... pointing out that a user had a conflict of interest and trying to oppose his role in shaping an article. That user has now been unblocked by ArbCom. I don't claim to understand that one. So without further ado:
|
The Indefinite Barnstar | |
| Honoring those who have been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for productive, reasonable and well intentioned efforts conducted in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For anticipating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal |