User talk:FourPaws

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of August 2022 due to public disapproval of behaivor.

Welcome!

Hello, FourPaws, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ℯxplicit 05:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

St. Wikipe

I'd advise putting it off the Wikipedia essays template until it's finished. If you have anything to say about this, please do so, I'm not going to undo it yet. ARandomPage (talk • contribs) 00:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Undo it. FourPaws (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

RfA Comments

The idea that we don't need more admins doesn't have a consensus of editors, but is not a position unheard of among editors. But I'm a little more confused about "Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem." Could I understand some context for this comment? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out instead of calling me silly, dumb, or a troll. As I have listed on my profile "Wikpedia is biased for the Left". Go to and watch timestamp 3:03 to 3:45 in the video and it will explain why I think admins are the problem. Said admin in the discussion is part of WikiProject Anarchism which is something I don't believe should be an administrator. FourPaws (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I promise I'm not being a jerk. But I am genuinely curious if you think administrators are a problem what kind of system would you have in place instead? I'm always interested to hear about different ways to structure the way we do things on wikipedia. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not the system I am critical of. Ideally, the system in place would be just fine. It's the administrators that run the system are the problem. Having radical people with anarchist or communist having administrators powers over others is a great way to shatter a functioning democracy. I think the Overton window is clearly slanted to the left if the community is fine with communists and anarchists making decisions but not fascist and Neo-Nazis. If people are truly fine with unelected communists having administrative powers over community and thus the culture then they should read up on the Soviet Union and move to the contemporary PRC. And these Admin Accountability committees don't have my confidence if communists and anarchists or leftist that enable them have control over who is a "bad" admin or good. This is a cultural problem and it's bigger than me or anyone to single handily change. I've seen the horrors of what happens when self-proclaimed communists are in power which is why I left the PRC and I'm seeing the West and their internet walk the same steps of Mao's cultural revolution. I don't expect people to treat me like Thomas Jefferson therefore no one should expect me to draft a whole new system of governance. But for anyone who has read Kafka, Wikipedia is fitting the definition of tyranny without a tyrant. FourPaws (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

People join WikiProjects for any number of reasons. Joining WikiProject Japan doesn't mean an editor is Japanese. Joining WikiProject Crime doesn't mean an editor is a criminal.

Asking questions at RfA when those questions aren't going to make a difference in how you !vote (since you're opposing all RfAs on the principle we don't need more admins because admins are the problem) is a bit pointy, and yes, is going to strike some folks as trolling. You might want to read WP:Should you ask a question at RfA? Valereee (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points. Wikipedia is biased the left by its very nature, because those are the sorts of people who will voluntarily give up their time to do work for no money. John Weiss can say that Wikipedia would be less biased if we got more centre-leaning editors signed up, but I don't think that's a realistic proposal. You're going to get a "left leaning bias" just by the project's own nature. I don't recognise a number of those so-named "socialist" media outlets, but they don't look like particularly high-quality sources to me either; the best sources to use are respected books and journals that are widely considered to be authoritative, but they don't get written until the event is well and truly in the past (in at all), so trying to plug the gap with contemporary news sources is problematic. I guess John Stossel's edit was reverted because he didn't cite a source (if he did, he would have mentioned it)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe someone already said this, but admins don't run the project. The Community does. Admins are servants to and of the Community. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And Weiss's edit was an insertion of controversial content in the middle of a sentence in a contentious article where the exact wording of that first sentence has likely been discussed. And no, John Stossel, admins do not have "the power to overrule other editors and make final decisions". Valereee (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"overrul[ing] other editors and mak[ing] final decisions" is a great way to stop being an admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

great in the sense of highly effective, not the sense of highly recommended. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte - in both cases, the administrators failed to make themselves accountable to the community, and had their admin privileges removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole treatment of the sources was disingenuous. Perennial sources says Mother Jones and Jacobin are generally reliable but biased, which that vid conveniently leaves out. Fox News is rated generally reliable on everything except politics and science, and on those topics use caution. There's a huge difference between reliability and bias when considering sources and how to use them. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Great! I'll make WikiProject Supporters of Fascism, WikiProject Racists Edititors, and WikiProject pro-Genocide. I'm not expecting a high membership count but I'm at least not a racist fascist that believes in genocide. If I'm in these clearly unacceptable projects that says nothing about me. This is the part where leftist conveniently ignore the fact that still having editors who are communist and anarchist in positions of power is bad as well as the shift in the Overton widow on the cultural landscape.FourPaws (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what WikiProjects do. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate, otherwise misundstanding is inevitable and that seems very counterintuitive to your purpose in talking to me. FourPaws (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProjects are to improve coverage of particular subject areas, not to promote or advocate for ideas. WikiProject Crime works to improve our coverage of crime, not to promote crime. Ditto WikiProject Anarchism: it works to improve coverage of anarchism, not to advocate for it. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For instance, at WikiProject Israel:

Goals:

To create and maintain fair and unbiased information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography.

To create guidelines and maintain standards for pages involving Israel.

To work to bring Israel articles to the highest quality possible.

As you can see, there is nothing there about promoting Israel. In fact I suspect there are many members of that project who are pro-Palestinian. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, just because Diannaa has done extensive work on Wikipedia's coverage of Nazi Germany, including being a principal contributor to Zyklon B and Auschwitz concentration camp, it DOESN'T mean she's a Nazi. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we will examine in a impartial manner the points Fascists used to justified genocide along racist dogma. We will examine both the destruction of human capital that mankind has lost that we will never truly understand but also the economic benefit of a reduced load on the the social welfare state. We will also discuss how the Nazi style welfare state gave birth to social democracy in Europe. After all I'm not in these groups because I'm a racist fascist that believes in genocide. We're just examining the benefits of fascism Germans and other people enjoyed. FourPaws (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? Valereee (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

W. Tell understood me. FourPaws (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Me and valereee have been telling you the same thing for several messages now. Five hours before me, valereee told you the same thing: "Joining WikiProject Japan doesn't mean an editor is Japanese. Joining WikiProject Crime doesn't mean an editor is a criminal." W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 17:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, arguing about a side detail I gave rhetorically has certainly helped the root topic I have been talking about below me. I'm honestly shock how you all think I'm serious when I'm social commentary, satire, and sarcasm. FourPaws (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

And I most certainly did not understand the purpose of your exposition about fascists above. I understood the text alright, and it leaves me thinking there's something more concerning here than a simple misunderstanding about Wikiprojects and what they do. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, W. Tell. Let's call it a day now. All the other folks has left beating this dead horse. FourPaws (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In the same vein, there is Wikiproject Death, which, rather than trying to kill editors, attempts to improve encyclopedic coverage on death and related topics such as funerals, wills, and the afterlife. Wikiproject Terrorism does not support al-Qaeda, it concerns itself with ensuring reliable coverage of its crimes.

You've fundamentally misunderstood what Wikiprojects are, but you've run with it and used it to vote a certain way in multiple RfAs with a Youtube-inspired rationale. This doesn't sit very well with the regulars at RfA, who are relatively (and perhaps understandably) short-tempered with people who they perceive to be voting with outside motives rather than with genuinely well-informed ones. I've often noted that it is much more accepted around here to loudly express a negative view of Wikipedia's processes that is informed by one's own experiences, rather than (even quietly!) complain about it with talking points from some talking head who understands little about this curious little project. Cheers and kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 17:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I did forget the part where of course we do the routine cleanup, assessment, and creation process. These are just side motives no one will say about their projects. Btw Death and Terrorisms are not the one political spectrum like anarchism and fascism. FourPaws (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"...the routine cleanup, assessment, and creation process. These are just side motives no one will say about their projects." No. Creation, cleanup and assessment are the sole purpose of Wikiprojects. Wikiprojects that attempt to push (even non-political) POVs routinely run into trouble. You still do not understand what a Wikiproject is. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 17:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, arguing about a side detail I gave rhetorically has certainly helped the root topic I have been talking about below me. I'm honestly shock how you all think I'm serious when I'm social commentary, satire, and sarcasm. FourPaws (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FourPaws thanks for the explanation. I'll suggest that the community has in the past lost patience with editors who don't evaluate the merits of individual candidates at RfA and so there are likely going to be better ways to express your concern with admins. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• FourPaws; You are of course welcome to your opinion. However, using an RfA as a platform for that opinion when your !vote has nothing to do with evaluating the candidate is disruptive. If you actually believe that admins are the problem, then go about trying to solve that problem through starting useful discussions at WP:VP, WT:RFA, or some other place. An RfA regarding a particular candidate is not the place to be having a discussion about the greater ills of the admins we have on the project and will not yield any progress in solving the issue you perceive. Since it won't do anything towards that goal, using an RfA as such a platform is disruptive. The fact that you're even highlighting the "bad publicity" bit rather highlights this. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. There is a limit. This has been attempted before, and did not turn out well. I strongly encourage you to reconsider doing this again in any future RfA, and instead focus your efforts on doing something to solve the problem, rather than just trying to get publicity for yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I like how everyone is coming to me but not a single notice on Trains' talk page. I guess calling peoples demeaning adjectives is less trollish just saying one sentence on your opinion. Let's look the other way at how the other person clearly was ready to flame. If this has already happened then the culture on Wikipedia is demonstrating the very problem I am saying. But let's ignore your point as simply trolling because it's out of place. And every editor who has been editing for 2 months should know all the ins and outs. It's not like I called this guy a poopyhead, or all of your mothers are virgins. Seems like everyone is ready to assume bad faith when an opinion is out of place but hey follow community guidelines just because, but you really don't have to if you don't feel like it. Again, I'll just call any opinion I don't like as trolling and just throw out all community guidelines when proceeding. Certainly a good culture right there that we should all over look. FourPaws (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am not saying, and I don't think Hammersoft is either, that you shouldn't express this opinion. We are saying posting it at individual RfAs is not the right place to post it. Hammersoft gave you other places you could post your thoughts on this topic, to which I will add your user page is another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about if I can expressing opinions that is a given. I'm more about "how everyone is coming to me but not a single notice on Trains' talk page." and how everyone is so ready to call me a troll. I guess 3 edits on the past admins request outweigh my other 1000+ plus edits. I'm just a troll now and I should be branded by the community for my past 3 edits see CactiStaccingCrane reply on DatGuy's discussion. People clearly need to distinguish trolling and outlandish ideas. Talk about stifling innovative thought. Nobody else has addressed how if the community here literally branded my opinion as a troll's opinion what is the point of posting to the Village discussion whatever it is board? FourPaws (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  To be precise, I don't believe anyone said you were trolling, they said that your comment was functionally equivalent to it, in as much it would generate a large amount of discussion from multiple users. The difference is, we assume good faith that you did not intend to generate all this discussion (as can by seen by your exasperation), but to those of us who have been around the block a few times at RfA, it was pretty predictable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've only started edited Wikipedia seriously for past 2 months but my last 3 edits seems like trolling so people stopped assuming good-faith even though I'm still pretty new and have over 1000 over votes to demonstrate I'm not a troll. I'm more angry at how I can be called dumb for this. As if we use people's opinions as measurements to their cognitive abilities. Might as well call me a retard! Very predictable indeed. For anyone reading this far I have submitted a proposal to the Village pump soapbox guidelines section so we can certainly combat these trolls. FourPaws (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  FP, you've got multiple editors here with a combined total of 200K+ edits trying to help you understand some important things. Try not to be defensive. No one is attacking you. They are trying to help a new editor understand what was behind the reactions you're getting at RfA. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm more angry at how I can be called dumb for this and that is ok.

  "I call a spade a spade, and a pointless comment bordering on trolling a pointless comment bordering on trolling. See also Ritchie's reply. You doth protest too much. Nobody is censoring you, we're just telling you that you made a dumb comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]"

  If you are going to respond, address the entirely of my respond and stop selectively excluding facts. FourPaws (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  FP, okay, addressing the entirety:

  1. You weren't called dumb. Your comment was called dumb. Which still isn't particularly nice, but RfA is not a good place to ask irrelevant questions or make irrelevant opposes. It's a highly-scrutinized page, it's an extremely stressful period for candidates, and people tend to be a bit impatient.
  2. I don't actually see anything else in this most recent response that needs to be addressed? Valereee (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and the Village Pump post was ill-considered. It looks like you're trying to make a point rather than sincerely suggesting a change. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's a point and a statement. If there is serious concern about trolling we should just make the requirements more stringent.

  Calling people's opinions is more than not nice it leaves a complex of invalidation. FourPaws (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Right now you are at an experience level in your editing where many editors think they understand this place. I'm going on seventeen years and over 55K edits, and I'm still learning. There are certain places it is best you first just read, don't comment. Off the top of my head these include ANI, RfA, DRV, and areas under discretionary sanctions. Valereee (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not about experience. No experience will mean anything if everyone you know and see invalids you. Experience will not repair internalize worthlessness. I have yet to experience any disciplinary action against me so it is hard to see what I did wrong other than cancel culture happening because of a "dumb" misplaced opinion. FourPaws (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  You better hope it's about experience, because that's the kinder interpretation of how you're interacting here with multiple experienced editors who've come in to spend their precious volunteer time to try to help you. Valereee (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  You forgot the part where sounding like condescending like Mommy isn't helpful in disputes you're literally demonstrating how pmy point on complexes of invalidation. Somehow you're of age after 2 months of editing but your still learning after 17 years. You literally are tripping over doublethink. I'm not responsible for people choosing to volunteer their own time here. We don't owe people if they volunteer, charity, or give a gift out of their own accord.

  I repeat: I have yet to experience any disciplinary action against me so it is hard to see what I did wrong other than cancel culture happening because of a "dumb" misplaced opinion. FourPaws (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done here. Valereee (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your time, good day. FourPaws (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Attempting to deflect attention from this by highlighting the behavior of another person will not gain traction. The issue is your comment about Wikipedia having enough admins is out of place on an RfA. The opinion is not the problem. The placement of that opinion is. It is no different than if I attempted to use, say, this AfD to articulate an argument that the Wikimedia Foundation is out of line for [insert reason]. It's the wrong place for it. It contributes nothing to the discussion in any respect, and in fact detracts from the discussion. An individual RfA is not the place to be discussing what ails the project. You've been directed where you can take your concerns. If you actually have an interest in seeing those concerns addressed in a manner which might lead to progress, you should avail yourself of those. If instead you choose to continue to use individual RfAs to promote your ideas about Wikipedia having enough admins and admins being the problem, I dare say it will be viewed as disruptive editing and even potentially pointy. Please don't in any sense construe any of this as a threat. I am pointing out that your actions are likely to have consequences. If you choose the action of persisting in using RfA to voice your opinion that Wikipedia has enough admins, it will likely have negative consequences and not have any impact on progressing the project. If you choose the action of raising this issue at an appropriate place, such as the ones I have highlighted for you above, it is considerably less likely to result in negative consequences, and might actually lead to progress in the project. I am confident that you want to see the project progress. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ok great! It would have been so much better if someone just said that wasn't the right place instead of dismissing me as a troll and calling my comment dumb. I'm not attempting to deflect attention when people are literally ignoring the fact that a person called my comment dumb which began all of this since it implies my comment was no valid. That is what alienated me and made me become defensive along with the mass dismissal of being called a troll. People should be all shock if we invalidate other opinion with an easy "troll" stamp that it wouldn't cause some problems. There is two problems my opinion and the placement.

  "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" - African proverb. FourPaws (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

---

Blocking administrator: GeneralNotability (talk)

Reviewing administrator: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Request reason:

1. Admit to it. I do admit to all of my well documented edits.

2. Give people a reason to trust you again. I will follow the proper avenues when petition issues and heed the advice and warnings of others. I will not be willfully ignorant. I will no involve myself in sensitive proceedings such as admin crat voting. And agree to remain strictly silent with a personal block on voting if needed.

3. Don't do it again. I will hope that my 1000+ edits plus my few created article would give some evidence that I was never here to hurt the project with what other's perceived as "trolling". If possible I would like to genuinely prove to the community that these are beliefs I hold earnestly with no trolling intent though I am clearly not ready. I do realize I was stubborn, immature, and my rhetoric could be interpreted as trolling. I will voluntarily remain silent. I would hope I have some freedom to say what I want deem it "trolling" or not in my own talk page or at least profile but if not then I will voluntarily delete all my "trolling" edits and apologize to all parties with an olive branch and cuppa tea. I apologize to the community.

4. Tell us why you are here. I've been reading Wikipedia as my go to overview and the linking system made it very easy to learn new things. When I made this account back in 2017 I did not have the intention to troll, which I hope those old edits reflect. I was only "trolling" because of my rhetorical nature of sarcasm and social commentary. I understand that the community clearly disapproved of my behavior with this ban. I would hope that in some years time the community will allow me to return with a second chance at proving I have grown up and become more mature. But I understand if the project doesn't wish to forgive me and is better off without someone like me. I will nonetheless accept if my appeal will be rejected and leave Wikipedia. Thank you/farewell depending on the outcome. FourPaws (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1= 1. Admit to it. I do admit to all of my well documented edits.

2. Give people a reason to trust you again. I will follow the proper avenues when petition issues and heed the advice and warnings of others. I will not be willfully ignorant. I will no involve myself in sensitive proceedings such as admin crat voting. And agree to remain strictly silent with a personal block on voting if needed.

3. Don't do it again. I will hope that my 1000+ edits plus my few created article would give some evidence that I was never here to hurt the project with what other's perceived as "trolling". If possible I would like to genuinely prove to the community that these are beliefs I hold earnestly with no trolling intent though I am clearly not ready. I do realize I was stubborn, immature, and my rhetoric could be interpreted as trolling. I will voluntarily remain silent. I would hope I have some freedom to say what I want deem it "trolling" or not in my own talk page or at least profile but if not then I will voluntarily delete all my "trolling" edits and apologize to all parties with an olive branch and cuppa tea. I apologize to the community.

4. Tell us why you are here. I've been reading Wikipedia as my go to overview and the linking system made it very easy to learn new things. When I made this account back in 2017 I did not have the intention to troll, which I hope those old edits reflect. I was only "trolling" because of my rhetorical nature of sarcasm and social commentary. I understand that the community clearly disapproved of my behavior with this ban. I would hope that in some years time the community will allow me to return with a second chance at proving I have grown up and become more mature. But I understand if the project doesn't wish to forgive me and is better off without someone like me. I will nonetheless accept if my appeal will be rejected and leave Wikipedia. Thank you/farewell depending on the outcome. FourPaws (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1= 1. Admit to it. I do admit to all of my well documented edits.

2. Give people a reason to trust you again. I will follow the proper avenues when petition issues and heed the advice and warnings of others. I will not be willfully ignorant. I will no involve myself in sensitive proceedings such as admin crat voting. And agree to remain strictly silent with a personal block on voting if needed.

3. Don't do it again. I will hope that my 1000+ edits plus my few created article would give some evidence that I was never here to hurt the project with what other's perceived as "trolling". If possible I would like to genuinely prove to the community that these are beliefs I hold earnestly with no trolling intent though I am clearly not ready. I do realize I was stubborn, immature, and my rhetoric could be interpreted as trolling. I will voluntarily remain silent. I would hope I have some freedom to say what I want deem it "trolling" or not in my own talk page or at least profile but if not then I will voluntarily delete all my "trolling" edits and apologize to all parties with an olive branch and cuppa tea. I apologize to the community.

4. Tell us why you are here. I've been reading Wikipedia as my go to overview and the linking system made it very easy to learn new things. When I made this account back in 2017 I did not have the intention to troll, which I hope those old edits reflect. I was only "trolling" because of my rhetorical nature of sarcasm and social commentary. I understand that the community clearly disapproved of my behavior with this ban. I would hope that in some years time the community will allow me to return with a second chance at proving I have grown up and become more mature. But I understand if the project doesn't wish to forgive me and is better off without someone like me. I will nonetheless accept if my appeal will be rejected and leave Wikipedia. Thank you/farewell depending on the outcome. FourPaws (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

FourPaws (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Having come here through a rather long trail of diffs and edits, I genuinely cannot tell if you are being serious or not in your unblock request. Half of it reads as sincere, and half of it mocking sarcasm. If you really do want to be unblocked, I highly suggest you self-revert this unblock request (you're welcome to remove this edit along with it), have a good long think about the last 48 hours, and re-write your unblock request. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is my sincere apology/appeal. I don't blame you for not taking me serious since I have made myself a fool. If my appeal is still not the best then I accept rejection and will use this ban to move on with my life and let go of Wikipedia. Again, I fully understand and anticipate the community not forgiving me. FourPaws (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• If you continue to make positive contributions, I'd be happy to see you unblocked, but there's something I think you need to hear, in response to the following statement: "I would hope I have some freedom to say what I want deem it "trolling" or not in my own talk page". This is not the land of freedom. All edits should be related to improving the encyclopedia, or at least civil. So statements that are trolling (even on your talk page, like this) can be reasonably removed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  What about my profile? If not then perhaps it is best this ban doesn't get lifted and I move on with my life. Pursue my hobbies, meet people, and work towards a better place. FourPaws (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your user page will be given considerably more leeway. You're allowed to make jokes, express viewpoints, etc. See WP:USERPAGE. We're not "communist" either, we just have rules that need to be followed. Those rules include not trolling. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking an indefinite ban on me seems "to protect the encyclopedia" when most blocks are only 24 to 31 hrs. Mr. Admin how will indefinite banning me from editing justified? It seems you could dedicate many years to wikipedia and be banish the moment you make a fussy.FourPaws (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You're looking for the blocking policy (with a section about "Indefinite blocks"), not an unauthoritative information page. You're also not looking for the banning policy nor the term "ban". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, would you, at this current point, be okay with me setting a fixed block duration and/or restricting the block to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces? Is there a specific topic that a ban from could be a helpful unblock condition? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I'm not a big fan of unblocking them at this time given their behavior over the past couple days (and generally agree with Primefac's read above), but I am willing to trust your judgment. You're welcome to modify the block however you see fit. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I would have accepted that appeal from most people myself in this circumstance. However, I decided it was social commentary, satire, and sarcasm[1] and declined to do so. I also didn't outright decline it so that a new admin with fresh eyes could give a look, so if you accept fair enough. But I do encourage you to read the appeal with that comment in mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how I can redeem myself if I will never be given the chance to. FourPaws (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally I was hoping you were going to take Primefac's suggestion to revert the appeal, think about things, and submit a new appeal. I was hopiing this both to see an appeal that was hard to read as social commentary, satire, and sarcasm and to show that if someone were to offer you respectful wise advice in the future you'd take it. Now there's no unringing that bell (obviously) so for me, the path forward would probably be a little time away and a new appeal that includes some specifics about what you did that was stubborn, immature, and... could be interpreted as trolling. But ToBeFree seems inclined to accept your current appeal so the answer might be you've already done enough. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I think a partial block from WP:RFA and WP:RFB would help to stop the concerns about trolling, since most of their trolling is on these pages. A project space block could also work. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3DAC:9F79:FDC4:B1C1 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If permitted, here is my voluntary departure.

This is my farewell address. I will show myself out and have changed my talk page templates to reflect this. I leave in shame now. Maybe ToBeFree will pity me. Maybe in 10 years another admin will see my final pleas and lift my ban. I am deeply mentally ill and have been receiving treatment and medication. Maybe this is why I’m seen as a trolling clown. I'm not saying this to help my appeal, it's the confession I owe to observers and the people involved and I hope this can bring clarity to my behavior. Sadly, mental illness is often treated like it’s your own fault. I can't ask for anything if the community will never deem me worthy of forgiveness or be given a chance. I will accept my place and leave for better things. I do hope that someone will see the earnest problems I have made light on beyond all the heated discussion. And like I said multiple times these are my earnest beliefs even though incredulous ears hear me as just a troll. To all the people I have helped here, I'm sorry that you have to see this as my end. To the few and hidden editors who may understand my beliefs dismissed as trolling nonsense I leave you with what I said earlier “But for anyone who has read Kafka, Wikipedia is fitting the definition of tyranny without a tyrant.”

Further readings and essays:

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great specifically Behavioral/cultural problems

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

Criticism of Wikipedia

Dying as a martyr, FourPaws (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)