User talk:Correctingly

October 2013
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Geoffrey Nice. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The articles I linked to are in the public domain and do not constitute personal analysis. They are comments made by newspaper columnists and UK court judges Correctingly (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Geoffrey Nice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GiantSnowman 11:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive187. GiantSnowman 11:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I request Dispute Resolution as I believe the entries made are in accordance with Wikipedia rules, being that they are in the public domain. Furthermore, the person who reverted my original edits has a username which includes the word "Gresham" which I believe compromises the neutrality of this editor as it the name of the same college as the subject of the Wiki entry.

BLP/N discussion
Please see this discussion: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:BLP policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:.

However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GiantSnowman 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not why you were blocked. GiantSnowman 15:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't need any further comments from you until my review is complete by another administrator and my Dispute Resolution for this article is in place Correctingly (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No decent administrator will unblock you when you have failed to read and acknowledge exactly why you were blocked. GiantSnowman 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Again I state, I am not interested in your comments until another administrator reviews ALL facts in this case. As you are the person who made the block, I make no further comments on your actions Correctingly (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But another administrator (namely ) has reviewed your block, and they have declined to unblock. Their advice is very similar to mine. GiantSnowman 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. I told you at 15:59 to stop making comments on my talk page until after another administrator reviewed, which was done at 16:00. Your subsequent comments are after this. Do you consider your argumentative and pedantic behaviour to be representative of the model Wikipedia aspires to?Correctingly (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked me not to comment until another admin had reviewed. Therefore I commented after another admin had reviewed. So what's the problem? GiantSnowman 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you failed to answer my previous question. Namely, Do you consider your argumentative and pedantic behaviour to be representative of the model Wikipedia aspires to?. Also your reply came at 16:02. Which if you had seen, you could have brought to my attention. Why didn't you Correctingly (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not view my behaviour to be "argumentative and pedantic" so I am unable to answer your question. I also do not see why (or how) I should pring posts made on your very talk page to your attention. That's as much attention as is possible! GiantSnowman 16:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So if you were waiting for another administrator to comment on my unblock request and had seen it why not bring it into your sentence :No decent administrator will unblock you when you have failed to read and acknowledge exactly why'' you were blocked. GiantSnowman 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)'', unless you had failed to see it. I have answered your question, "so what's the problem?" I view your behaviour as argumentative and pedantic. It is irrelevant if you cannot answer it Correctingly (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yep, keep digging. GiantSnowman 16:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "yep keep digging" mean GiantSnowman? What relevance does this have to the details in hand. Do you consider this to be appropriate behaviour for an administrator? Correctingly (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It means "keep digging your hole" i.e. with every response you make, which do not actually deal with the reasons for your block, you are making it worse for yourself. GiantSnowman 17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Does "digging your hole" and "making it worse for myself" constitute official Wikipedia rules GiantSnowman? Can you provide links? Are you fulfilling your role to educate as per the Free Encyclopedia. Please specify how exactly I can make it "worse for myself" by highlighting your repetitive, argumentative and pedantic behaviour? Correctingly (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I guess I am ignoring the rules there with my advice. You are making it worse for yourself because a) you remain blocked and b) you are not showing yourself to be a constructive editor. GiantSnowman 17:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not require "guesses" I require facts. And because you have failed to provide links to Wikipedia rules on digging your own holes and making it worse for yourself, I will take this as another example of your argumentative and pedantic behaviour. 1) I remain blocked but this is under review. 2) Do you have evidence for this? I am a new user and have so far contributed 1 revision to an article which was sourced and referenced correctly. Do you have any other evidence for your belief that I am not a constructive editor, or is this part of your pedantic and argumentative behaviour? Correctingly (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact you have violated both WP:BLP and WP:3RR can be understood for a 'new' editor; however your behaviour so far, combined with the fact that you are extremely argumentative and seem to enjoy throwing around unfounded accusations, tells me that you are an unconstructive editor. I've been here a helluva lot longer than you, I see all the signs, I know where this is heading. GiantSnowman 17:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What "behaviour" are you referring to. What "unfounded accusations" are you referring to? How do you know "how long I have been here". What does "helluva" mean and how long is this? What signs have you seen? Where is this heading? What does any of your non sequiturs have to do with Geoffrey Nice or the blocking of my account? Correctingly (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Provide evidence that I have made tendentious arguments. You claim I have failed to address reason for block. Here is the extract from my response. '''I was blocked for the following reasing, violation of Biography of Living person as follows

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

The point 1 is accepted as being a critical article, albeit well-founded and well sourced. However, I can reword this paritcular subject after I revise the text (something I cannot do while blocked). 2. Yes all the point I made were verifiable, being that they were published in UK court documents and in a print newspaper's online section 3. There wasn't any NOR involved. ''' . This shows I responded. Explain why you have wilfully ignored this text? Correctingly (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You were adding negative information to a living person, violating WP:BLP. The information was sourced to court transcripts, violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. It is not my duty to "open Dispute Resolution" - that is something that you should have done. You were previously warned about your BLP violations by another editor, and you were invited to the discussion at WP:BLPN - but you did not participate until after your BLP violation continued. PS the 3RR warning was valid, you have made far more than that number of reverts, and just today you have done 4 reverts in a 4 hour period - 1, 2, 3, 4. GiantSnowman 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So you admit that you saw the Dispute Resolution request, prior to the block. However as "it's not your duty" instead of bringing this to the attention of a new Wikipedia user, you decided to block. Do you consider this to be the appropriate way to behave for an administrator? Secondly regarding the 3RR rule, this was only brought to my attention today. I do not consider valid any revisions made prior to this to be in good spirit if you decided to block. Finally, if 3RR rule is in place, why did you not protect the article first to prevent any user being blocked. Why did you also not block the user who undid the edits for also violating this rule? Why have you only just at 16:38 counted the number of reverts as a way of validating your block? Correctingly (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP not for edit warring. While you are blocked, please read that policy and WP:BRD - following that cycle, repeated addition of the contentious material is not appropriate. You should have begun a discussion on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article talk page you refer to? Correctingly (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Geoffrey Nice. GiantSnowman 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You cannot make requests for "Dispute Resolution" after you have already violated WP:BLP and WP:3RR. That needs to come long before then, and at the behest of those involved in the dispute, not an uninvolved admin. Ignorance of 3RR is no defence, but it is understandable - however you were notified of 3RR with my earlier warning which came before your block (which, I will repeat, was for BLP violations). The fact you chose to ignore the 3RR warning and continue to revert is your own fault. The other user has not been blocked for 3RR per WP:3RRNO. GiantSnowman 16:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Who says I cannot make requests for Dispute Resolution after violations? Who says ignorance of 3RR is no defence? Are these official Wikipedia rules or your own pedantic and argumentative rules which you are trying to shore up a mistake with? Correctingly (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please familiarise yourself with WP:DR and WP:3RR, and then throw in a whole heap of WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I will wait for a review and my complaints against you to be resolved. I will not be taking instructions from you on following or reading links at this time while the process is under way as you are an argumentative, pedantic administrator and I therefore do not view any of your posts as neutral or constructive. References to "digging my own hole" and "making is worse for myself" support this as evidence. Correctingly (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * k. Two final things before I leave this page - please learn to properly indent your posts and please learn how to sign your talk page posts. GiantSnowman 17:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't take any instructions from you due to reasons already given regarding your argumentative and pedantic behaviour. Bye
 * OK, take instructions from someone who has no involvement other than to notice you requested unblock and notice that your unblock request did not address the reason you were blocked. Not a single thing you've said has dealt with the core of the issue: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Five seconds of reading that policy would have you at Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. A simple "oh! I see; I won't use trial transcripts or other court records or other public documents as support for assertions about a living person again" would have sufficed. Dispute resolution isn't even necessary here, since WP:BLP is an ironclad policy; long-experienced editors don't get to violate it, and neither do you. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the following points to make 1) The original threat of blocking was for 3RR rule which I was made aware of today, and this was highlighted in BOLD text by GiantSnowman. I presumed my block was for this. When you declined my appeal I checked the block and saw this was for BLP rule. I have therefore put in a 2nd appeal which outlines the basis for this so I do believe I have dealt with the "core of the issue" 2) I acknowledge that court transcripts are not allowed. However, one section I edited was an article from a newspaper. If this is allowed then I can re-edit without reference to court transcripts. 3) However re-edits can only take place once my block is removed. I can re-edit under supervision of another editor or administrator under Wikipedia guidelines and put my changes into the talkpage for Geoffrey Nice if they need to be reviewed prior to acceptance. 4) I do not agree with the way this case has been handled and wish to make a complaint about GiantSnowman. Correctingly (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re your point 4, suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG.--ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I note your comment above, in your declined unblock request. I will not take further action now, but be warned that your continual argumentative approach is bringing you very close to the point at which your access to this page will be revoked. I suggest that you re-read all previous discussion - from both sides - on this page before posting any further submissions.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)