User talk:The owner of all/Archives/2022/March

+

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).

The owner of all/Archives/2022 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked. I have been a productive contributor to Wikipedia during the time that I was allowed to edit, and I believe I can continue to make such productive contributions if I am unblocked. I was unblocked about half a year ago over what I believe is a minor incident that does not justify a permanent block. Even at the time of the block some users have said that they support the unblock if I comply with policy. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You are not "permanently blocked", the block simply has no end date. The block will end when you can convince an administrator that the reasons for the block will not recur. This is not limited to the specific posts you made that resulted in the block, as you seem to think it should be, but your behavior in general. Since you don't think you need to address your actions in general, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2022 (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 can't speak for the blocking admin, previous reviewing admins, or indeed any other admin besides myself, but this may be useful info, just in case I'm typical. I do sympathize with this slightly Kafkaesque situation where you request an unblock that addresses the block rationale, it is ignored, and eventually procedurally closed.

Your block notice says the block was for personal attacks (the linked ANI thread explains these were the attacks on your user page that you refused to remove). I don't think you're going to repost the junk on your user page again. I doubt anyone thinks that. But I am personally hesitant to ever unblock you myself, because of your history of disruption, feuding, and unpleasantness that preceded that. It's not just the fact that you posted that snark, but that it was such a wormy thing to do, and then you lied about it for quite a long time before coming clean. And this was not out of character.

So my suggestion is to re-write this unblock request as if you were appealing a block for "personal attacks after a history of long term disruption and unpleasantness", not just addressing the personal attacks that were kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. If you'd like some examples of what I'm talking about, you should go thru the history of this user talk page, and look at the many complaints and warnings that you dismissed. Consider the possibility that many of them (most? all?) were valid.

I'd be willing to unblock based on a self-aware unblock request that says (convincingly) "I'll stop being a jerk". I'm not willing to unblock based on "I won't repost the slimey things I said, which weren't really a big deal anyway." Feel free to accept of reject this advice; I'm not going to get into a whole discussion about it, it's just free advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When a user is blocked for a specified reason A, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that user to formulate an unblock request that addresses an unspecified "reason B" that is different from what they were blocked for. I also disagree that I have a history of "disruption" or any of those other things.

Is it wrong to bring issues to AN/I? I don't think so. Do editors who create content have priority over editors who don't create content for WP but make other valid edits that help WP? I would say no.

I am having a hard time finding the discussion, but I remember a Wikipedian making a point about "disruption", why is it that when someone makes an edit that is compliant with policy, they get accused of "disruption", rather than the involved editors having the necessary discussion to determine what is compliant with policy and what is not. There's a reason why I oppose sanctions that are based on essays and/or one or a few users' opinion. On Wikipedia, policies are what we have agreed on while essays are what one or some users believe but does not have widespread agreement.

Thus, I cannot formulate an unblock request for "personal attacks after a history of long term disruption and unpleasantness" / "I'll stop being a jerk" or whatever. One, it's not the stated block reason, two, it's only the opinion of some and I don't believe I should have to placate such in order to be allowed to edit Wikipedia.

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)