Melton Juan
April 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)This is ridiculous. Everything I’ve entered into this page is a fact and it’s verifiable and researchable. This man injured a 14-year-old girl and you don’t want people to know about it. That’s disgusting. Melton Juan (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please have a closer look at the message above, especially at the links about "biographies of living persons" and the link to the BLPCRIME section (see also WP:BLPPRIMARY). See also the links behind the words "edit warring", ONUS and BURDEN. If afterwards, there are open questions, do feel free to ask them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Melton Juan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Everything I’ve added to the page is factual researchable and pertinent to the individual. Your editors are trying to white wash this man’s image when he was arrested and charged and convicted with injury to a child. Melton Juan (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Sorry, I have acted too hastily there. I'll try to explain why: I've misread "March 2021" as a recent date and didn't realize the subject has died on 16 April 2022. This makes the situation less severe and less urgent than I had expected. Please note that WP:BDP allows editors to treat the article as a biography of a living person regarding "contentious or questionable material" during the next months, though, and other editors are likely to reasonably insist in doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The man is DEAD. He pleaded guilty and accepted a plea deal. Melton Juan (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit I didn't really realize this, as I misread "March 2021" as recent and consequently incorrectly assumed the subject to be both alive and under sudden attention from people because of a recent event in their life. April 16 is close enough to still make the article fall under the biographies of living persons policy, per WP:BDP. You have not addressed the second part of the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thanks for admitting that. I’m sorry I don’t see anything in those policies that prevent my edits. The man was convicted because he accepted a plea deal and was sentenced. He is dead I don’t see how proximity to April makes him not dead. Every source and every references in the public domain. He was a public persona because he won a Pulitzer Prize and he was a journalist. I don’t see any reason at all to put a barrier in front of these facts. They are important part of this person’s life and career and history. Melton Juan (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I can accept the band if my edits are restored. I’m not trying to be at war with anybody I just want the facts to be recognized, and people keep deleting the facts so they can whitewash this man’s crimes. They’ve even left vaguely threatening messages on my talk page. Melton Juan (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As my initial reasoning is so clearly based on an incorrect assumption, it makes no sense to uphold a block just because you may have joined an existing edit war. I'll strikethrough the block message, accept the unblock request and am out; I personally do not object to the restoration of the content, and you may like to point to this message here in case someone complains about you reverting my contribution. I just don't restore such material myself, in general, even if I had originally removed it; this is because my real life identity is hardly a secret and I'm legally liable for the content I add to Wikipedia.
- Please do keep in mind that if someone objects, a discussion on the article's talk page is strongly preferred to further reverting and reverting and reverting; I can't provide a free ticket for edit warring, and the unblock shouldn't be interpreted as such.
- I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused by my misunderstanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a second look at it I appreciate it Melton Juan (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at David Leeson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Per discussions on the article's TALK page, this content violates WP:BLP. Until additional sources can be found, this material is inappropriate for this article. PureRED | talk to me | 01:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
See the messages immediately above that will show you that I’ve already had this conversation with an admin and I don’t need to have several more. Everything I have added to this page is legit in anybody’s attempts to remove it is disingenuous at best. Melton Juan (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Believe me, you'll be free to have another conversation with an admin if you keep this up. PureRED | talk to me | 02:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- OH OK, Daddy! Melton Juan (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Important notice
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Stop edit warring at David Leeson
editThe material has been removed per WP:BLP and discussion is ongoing at the talk page. You need to provide valid secondary sources, per WIkipedia policy, court documents are insufficient (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). If you continue to return this information to the article without better sourcing, you may be blocked for BLP violations and edit warring. --Jayron32 15:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Quit removing verifiable and factual information that doesn't violate Wikipedia policy in an attempt to whitewash Leeson's criminal record. Melton Juan (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Melton_Juan reported by User:PureRED (Result: ). Thank you. PureRED | talk to me | 02:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Melton Juan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Several reasons here! I've been accused of edit warring, when I'm simply adding factual information about the deceased's criminal record, guilty plea and crimes, and re-adding the information when it has been removed with no reasons, or for reasons that have already been discounted by an admin. It's been claimed that my edits violate BLP, but I don't believe that policy applies to this page, as the subject is not only deceased but also a public figure (Redacted). As Leeson is a public figure, the public's right to know about his crimes negates the BLP. In addition, no editor has been able to quote the specific area of the BLP that I have violated—as you can see in the edits there have merely been vague references to it. The information i have posted is referenced to court records in the public domain. Note that since the BLP does not apply the records are allowed. While I appreciate the concern for the feelings of Leeson's family, his crimes are public knowledge, he committed the crimes as a public person, (Redacted). All of these points support my decision to add the information to the page. I also want to point out that the pattern of removal of my additions to the page strongly suggest that these removals are being made by Leeson's friends and/or family in an attempt to whitewash his crimes. I have also received vaguely threatening messages on my talk talk page ("We know who you are") that have been deleted, but I still have history and screen shots. I've also received fairly unprofessional comments form admins (PureRED: "Believe me, you'll be free to have another conversation with an admin if you keep this up.") when I have specifically shown support from other admins (ToBeFree) who have conceded my points and reversed a previous ban for the same issue. I'm pretty sure that all of this violates policy. Thanks for taking the time to read my appeal. Melton Juan (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Appeals are not meant to be used to re-litigate disputed content. You state that you were "re-adding the information when it was removed" (that's edit warring) and profess it was "removed with no reasons" which is demonstrably false per your talk page and the article talk page. You're also casting baseless aspersions against trusted editors insinuating nefarious motives for the content removal when they're upholding Wikipedia policy. If you want to make another appeal, I strongly suggest you read WP:GAB prior to doing so. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:06, 29 April 2022 (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.
Upon reading the Melton Juan reason request, I am concerned that his argument itself violates Wiki policy because in his argument he makes non-cited claims of guilt for crimes, and even specifies a non-cited minor as an alleged victim of these non-cited crimes, this is not a matter for discussing openly on Wikipedia for multiple reasons related to harassment. I leave it to Administrators to confirm my concerns and decide how to address them. I simply want to raise them. --JohnBlutarsky (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
All you have to do is look at the court documents that I’ve cited multiple times. Everything is verified. This is utterly repulsive. Melton Juan (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- How does reading a source unsuitable for Wikipedia help us with verifying anything? Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not unsuitable for Wikipedia in general, Nil. My contention is that this page isn't regulated by the BLP, and that's where the rule against citing court documents appears. Melton Juan (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- How many experienced editors are going to have to tell you that all biographies of living and recently-dead people are covered by BLP before you understand that you're wrong? Black Kite (talk)
- It's not unsuitable for Wikipedia in general, Nil. My contention is that this page isn't regulated by the BLP, and that's where the rule against citing court documents appears. Melton Juan (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
edit {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)