Truthful data

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kumiki Gibson, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Kumiki Gibson, you will be blocked from editing. If there's really a reason for deletion of this content, please use the article's talk page to explain a valid reason for doing so. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Kumiki Gibson, you will be blocked from editing. You need to communicate with other editors if you are going to blank or summarily revert content like that. –xenocidic (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kumiki Gibson

I would encourage you to discuss proposed changes to the article on its talk page. Summarily blanking content without explanation is not an acceptable editing technique. –xenocidic (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Kumiki Gibson, you will be blocked from editing. Sorry, that's just not the way wikipedia works. You can't just go forward and continue the edit-war without discussion. Please state your intentions on the article's talk page so a proper discussion can take place. You didn't even answer any of the questions I asked over at template_talk:editprotected, where you left your last comment (which is, by the way, not the right page for this, use the article's talk page instead). --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Kumiki Gibson has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. RedThunder 12:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

This is probably the last warning you'll get for your edits in the Kumiki Gibson article. If you continue to change the article without explication whatsoever and without the slightest will for a discussion, you will be blocked. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Kumiki Gibson. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. –xeno (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

>unblock: as you have been previously advised, the statements made about the lawsuits are knowingly false, yet you are continuing to publish that libelous statement, wihout any regard for the truth. the trusth can be found through publicly-available court records about this fomer commissioner, which will reveal that she was named in only three suits for discrimination (far fewer than most agency heads), and one has already been dismissed with a finding of no merit. the other two are pending, for decision shortly. please remove libleous statements altogether (as i have been trying to do on a period basis) or unblock so i can do so, so to prevent further publication of these libelous statements, which is only subjecting you all to legal action. thank you. Truthful data (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)<!

You did never explain your reasons for the removal, even uppon request. "Google for the reasons yourself" is not an acceptable way of adding or removing contents from a wikipedia article. So if you have a proof of what you write (esp of the outcome of the court cases), I'll update the article accordingly. Please post a weblink to a site that is a relliable source for your statement. Also, the article does not say whether she was/is guilty or not, it only says that it is told that she was sued, which by itself is not libelous. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock/the article is libelous in that it falsely states the reason for separation and the number of lawsuits, the truth of which can be publicly obtained, which means that your continued publication of the libelous statements is actionable. There were only three lawsuits, one of which was alreay dismissed. It was not in a published decision, but I will try to get that decision to you. Until this is cleared up, the libelous statements should be removed. Your continued publication in light of the truth and my dispute is not only unlawful (it in and of itself evidences malice), it is also irresponsible. Again, at the very least, please remove until this dispute is clarified. Thank you.}}

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).

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

---

Request reason:

this is the decision dismissing the case entirely against Gibson. McKenzie v. Gibson, 07 Civ 6174 (WHP), Memo & Order (Aug. 25, 2008) (Pauley, J.). I was not able to find it on any website, but I can e-mail it to you, if you tell me how. Now, will you please remove all references to these suits? Thank you.

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  17:56, 5 March 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.

I've fixed your request.

Please be a bit more precise about what you're talking about actually. The sources we have in the article currently state that she was accused. The article doesn't state the number of lawsuits, where do you read that? If the lawsuits were dismissed, then we can update the article accordingly. Some questions though:

• What information in the article is actually wrong? (Not only outdated)
• In short: What was the outcome of the lawsuits? (that she wasn't actually misstreating somebody? That she left on her own will?

I will update the article if you really explain what needs to be done. Just throwing out information without discussion was the problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from blocking admin: I have no prejudice to unblocking if the user will participate in the BRD process. In fact I will unblock myself if the user agrees to discuss controversial changes rather than simply edit warring without discussion. –xeno (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock/please unblock so i can correct the information currently listed. while the newspapers may have reported that gibson was fired and that seven people filed lawsuits claiming mistreatment, this is not correct. a press release from the governor makes clear that gibson tendered her resignation right after after spitzer resigned, and only three employees filed complaints against gibson, all for discrimination, not "mistreatment," and one of those lawsuits was subsequently dismissed by the judge, with no finding of discrimination or mistreatment. McKenzie v. Gibson, 07 Civ 6174 (WHP), Memo & Order (SDNY, Aug. 25, 2008) (Pauley, J.). if unblocked, i will update/correct the current entry according to what i set forth above and will gladly participate in the BRD process if disputed. thank you.}}

p.s. link to governor paterson's press release regarding the resignation is http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0408082.html