Jonkw100

March 2018

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Christopher Snowden— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Shellwood, however this was not a malicious edit, I have been rolling back malicious edits to this page myself for some time and now the subject of this Biography of a living person Sir Christopher Snowden has asked that the page be deleted and I am acting on his request as it is being used to harass him. ThanksJonkw100 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Jonkw100

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher Snowden. Heliotom (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 23 March 2018 (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).

Jonkw100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not seeking to be disruptive or Edit War with Heliotom, however these recent edits are being made specifically for the purpose of criticising and harassing the living person who is the subject of this page, if you check the links with the credible sources for these comments you will see they are being used out of context and do not support the associated statements fully, for example the claim that the University of Southampton has the highest expense claim is unverifiable as no other University has submitted numbers for a two year period or for the same size group of senior managers, similarly any criticism of expenses of the entire senior management team is an institutional criticism and not a one specific to the subject of this page, which i have pointed out in editing notes. There has been no salary increase of £70,000 and this is a libellous statement and i believe in breach of the guidance for content of pages which are bigraphies of living persons, which again i pointed out in some of my editing notes

Decline reason:

Not presently blocked SQL^{Query me!} 02:06, 26 March 2018 (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.

The 70k pay increase is clearly mentioned in the Telegraph piece, and elsewhere [1]. There are multiple sources supporting the other claims as well, including the Guardian [2]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I that is not correct, the salary "increase of £70,000" was not a raise but the first year of his full year salary which I addressed in an edit months ago where I tried to maintain neutral point of View by stating the salary for his first ten months and then the increased figure for his first full 12 months of employment for example this is explained in fuller detail here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42196462 . on expense claims you have not engaged my my points that a) that is a claim for 17 people and NOT the person who is the subject of this page and b) the phrase "top of the pile" in the article does not support the statement on the page claiming it to be the highest as there is no comparison of other Universities based on a two year period or of other universities submitting joint expenses for 17 members of senior management. This is a failure to maintain a neutral point of view and instead these comments are overtly critical and linked to here in order to draw attention to criticism, non of this is balanced

(1) Only use one unblock template at a time. (2) I see that you're discussing the issue on the talk page, which is good. (3) Your edits breeched WP:3RR; reverting more than 3 times is fine for clear vandalism, but not for content disputes like this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

but if no-one responds on the talk page am i supposed to just let the incorrect information sit on the page? It is clearly one sided and not a criticism of this one person but of the institution and a group of 17 people, and I had maintained neutral point of view when clarifying the salary increase cited however that has been undone? and yet I have been blocked and nothing has been done to Heliotom so the page is now firmly one sided and negative which is in breach of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPCOI&redirect=no

After your block expires, you have several options for soliciting more input. I'd start here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I don't see this current state of the article as BLP, but you're welcome to get additional opinions on that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)