January 2024[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gary Allen (runner). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Removed content sourced from a blog ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I’m unclear why a history of domestic violence is not relevant to the article. The removal of the information by associates of Allen lends a full picture of how self-promotion and local celebrity status allows one to move under the radar and to continue their behavior. MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While some people definitely seem to be closely connected to Allen (and shouldn't edit directly per WP:COI), the user who reverted you wasn't one of them but an admin removing the claim as it was a pretty serious allegation only sourced from a blog. If you find a better source for it, please tell us so it can be re-added. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I've opened at [1]. In the case of criminal accusations against a living person, we'd likely need multiple WP:RELIABLE sources. Also, MaineDomesticViolence, do you have any association with another WP:SPA, Mainewaynews (talk · contribs)? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for opening that discussion Bob (can I call you Bob?), the whole page seems to be a mess honestly... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Chaotic Enby. Yeah, you've got disruptive editing in two directions there. I just wanted to stanch the flow. Feel free to copyedit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://barharborstory.com/2023/10/11/schooner-wrecked-on-bar-island-this-weekend/
this references the arrested straight from the police blotter
the quiet side journal, my original reference, is published by Lincoln milstein who worked for 13 years at Hearst Corporation, five years at the New York Times, 17 years at the Boston Globe and 10 years at the Hartford Courant. Also a member of the Maine press association. I know scale is different but do substack posts by glen greenwald fall under such scrutiny?
finding other notes of arrests are difficult due to the insular island community that will protect people. Short of buying a criminal history from the state that is the best I can do. Thanks for your consideration. MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substack is a user-generated blogging website and isn't considered a reliable source in any case. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for helping maintain Wikipedia. Cheers MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the local paper’s published arrested report https://www.mdislander.com/poor-driving-blamed-on-potholes/article_615bba54-6796-11ee-b331-ef5de624660f.html
“On Oct. 6 at 9:45 a.m. officers arrested Gary Allen on a charge of violating a protection order that occurred the previous day.”
the compilation and reliability of these references lend enough support that it is a publishable fact. The page remaining in its current state is little more than a wiki endorsed PR page which creates a community danger by allowing violence against women to go unmentioned.
I understand this is a sensitive topic but wiki has a duty to provide information relevant to the subject of the article including negative facts MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Acadia National Park carriage paths, bridges and gatehouses. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was sourced from the Acadia nps alert page
https://www.nps.gov/acad/learn/news/20230330.htm
also, I’d consider that common knowledge to local experts MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, MaineDomesticViolence, does not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy, which is summarized here.
Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.
  • To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
    You are prohibited from creating a new account while you are blocked; doing so would be sockpuppetry and block evasion, and such behavior significantly reduces the chance of ever being unblocked.
  • If you prefer To change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page (this page): ((unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

MDIRunning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Username policy MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This would be okay as a new username, but your WP:BLP violations concern me. You wish to give outsized weight to a short entry in a police blotter in a very local newspaper about alleged criminal activity. If this were a news story in the Bangor Daily News or Portland Press Herald, things might be different. I do see that there also seems to be an effort the other way, to paint this individual in a more positive light- which is equally concerning- but not relevant to this specific matter. I'm not comfortable unblocking you without a little better understanding of policy here. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I'd be fine with an upgrade to a hardblock, but we'd need to change the block notice that currently encourages what would be sockpuppetry since your decline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A hard block because i tried to change my user name as requested, and because I was asked to provide a real reference to the arrest and when I did it wasn’t considered real enough?
I also question if 331dot has a conflict of interest or the ability to be neutral being a Maine based user.
It’s hard enough providing accurate information to the community about people even when it’s not being suppressed out of some over zealous oversized weight rules. But you guys have the power and if you want to support a PR page that could result in more vicitms that’s up to you. MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to provide information to the community, you may do so on a street corner, or on social media. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources with significant coverage of a topic. One line buried in a very local newspaper's police log is not such coverage. It's not even clear it's the individual at issue, that is not an uncommon name. Wikipedia has very strict souring requirements and other policies, especially when editing about alleged criminal activity. I'm greatly concerned that you don't understand these requirements. I am not suggesting that the article can never state what you were trying to say, but you'll need much better sourcing.
The idea that I'm not able to opine about topics related to Maine greatly misunderstands conflict of interest.
With no objection from the blocking admin, I am making this a hardblock. If you appeal, the reviewing administrator is free to take action without consulting me. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your neutrality can’t be assumed MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree I wonder it's necessary to remove the prior notices- it might be good to have as part of the record, but I can if you think it's a good idea. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I'll correct the outdated instructions, that should do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  331dot (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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).

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

Request reason:

The neutrality of 331dot is of questionable neutrality re the subject I was blocked for. The person/page in question is being edited to be a complete pr page by multiple people. As Maine is a small state and Allen is somewhat notable it’s not unreasonable to think 331dot is providing backup. Further, the idea that a locally published paper reporting on local arrests is not valid source is a circle argument. The MDIslander blotter plus the journalism done my milstein does not mistake or misrepresent the facts of the incident MaineDomesticViolence (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no grounds for unblock here. 331dot's block is appropriate and there are no neutrality problems; 331dot is non-neutral regarding adherence to Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy -- and you'll need to address that and only that in future unblock requests. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

More