Paullong22
Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Paullong22/sandbox (October 23) edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paullong22/sandbox.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Paullong22/sandbox edit
Hello Paullong22. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Paullong22/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
October 2022 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)- @Acroterion why are genuine edits classed as vandalism? I edited 3 articles by removing or correcting adjectives that were clearly politically biased and were not factual nor proven. I am the victim of far left activists who are reporting me unfairly because I have corrected their false claims. Paullong22 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The parable of The Mote and the Beam may be applicable here. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion that doesn't make much sense apart from the fact that the bias in the articles such as "false accusations" rather than more factually "alegations" could be seen as judging others. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, not passing judgement. Why should I be blocked for contributing to making factual unbiased corrections? Paullong22 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Judge not other editors lest ye be judged. And don't edit-war, and don't make assertions concerning the motivations of other editors based on your perception that they must be "far-left" to revert disruptive edits. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion my edits weren't disruptive, they were removing bias. If an edit war is undoing someone's edits then I hope you have blocked the person who undid my edits too. My perception of them being far left is that the bias was far left and the fact they didn't want that bias removing would suggest they are also of the same political opinion. I only made that comment to you as admin as far as I'm aware. You have judged me unfairly of vandalism which is not what I was doing. I have never heard the term edit war until now. I didn't realise Wikipedia was so toxic. I made minor edits to 3 linked articles and I'm accused of vandalism with no warning. That's over the top and comes across (you can't blame me for the perception) that you have done this out of political motivation to retain the far left bias in the article. If you look in the user talk for one of the articles then you'll see that another user has pointed out the same bias that I was trying to correct. Paullong22 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you were to give me a reason to think that you were open to examining your own possible biases, to understanding Wikipedia's neutrality polices, to understand the importance of long-established and referenced consensus, to discussing changes before editing, and to respect well-sourced content, not to mention refraining from repeated reversion after your removals were challenged, and avoiding name-calling or leaping to conclusions concerning the views of anyone who dares to disagree with you, I would be open to changing the block term. You're going to need to do all of those things. Neutrality is accurate reporting of the consensus of reliable sources, not the removal of things that that individual editors disagree with. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion of course I have my own biases and if I wrote those biases in public I would expect them to be challenged, so I don't understand why another bias would be allowed. Well-sourced content means the sources shouldn't be biased either. Some of the titles of the articles used were biased themselves and so the citations were based on left wing articles. The Guardian was referenced several times and that is well-known in the UK to be a far left leaning newspaper. Many of the sources were also titled "opinion" which means they were opinion pieces written in a newspaper and therefore not factual. Leaping to conclusions is something we all do in the moment and when somebody had annoyed us, so would you ban yourself for leaping to this conclusion "I remember this one. In general, for repeat blocks we block for about as long as the disruption has been taking place. This is about what I would set. It's probably a poorly-socialized adolescent, and they'll probably find other things to be horrible about. If not, they'll be blocked for longer. Acroterion (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)". I reverted once, not repeatedly. I reverted because I was annoyed somebody had undone all my hard work and it's fair to assume they were politically motivated when I am not a prolific Wikipedia user and came across this article and was shocked by its blatant bias. I don't leap to conclusions about anyone who disagrees with me, but you have lept to a conclusion that I am vandalising based upon minor edits to 3 articles and I am not a vandal. I'm happy to accept a disagreement and I don't mind if somebody disagrees with me politically, but when someone disagrees with me and resorts to banning me because they disagree with me and then threatens that I have to conform to accepting their opinion before they will lift the ban, then that is manipulation. As far as calling the person who removed my edit an idiot goes, I apologise for the heat of the moment comment, but please understand my frustration at the time when somebody undoes all my hard work and the only option apart from trying to redo it is to undo their undo. If that isn't allowed, then why is the feature there? I gave reasons for my edits and my undoing but the person who removed my edits didn't give any reasons except on one where they also made an assumption which you said isn't allowed. They stated that they assumed that my edits were not based on sources because I had edited the title of a source. I didn't realise I had edited the title of a source until afterwards because it was part of a sentence used and so looked like it flowed within the text. The interface on this app isn't particularly user friendly, especially for new users. Paullong22 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's editing interface is terrible. That we can agree on. Otherwise, to be unblocked, you will need to show the reviewing administrator, or me, that you are willing to edit according to Wikipedia policies concerning consultation, consensus, respect for sources generally considered reliable, and respect for other editors. I'm not seeing that yet in the wall of text above. Arguing that you're right, and that everybody else is wrong, based solely on your assertion that something is biased, is not a path to restoration of your editing privileges in this project. You can start your reading of policy with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, then concentrate on WP:FALSEBALANCE. and WP:BIASED. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion I've been reading a few of these articles and came across this discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents?wprov=sfla1 - it would be worth you having a look at this because it explains well at a much bigger level the frustration and prejudice I perceive to have experienced and blocking me for 3 minor edits is not justified as it is not widespread vandalism of Wikipedia and we have entered into a discussion about those 3 articles. You are asking me to agree wholeheartedly with your point of view, which I cannot do as I believe you have acted disproportionately. You can't possibly expect anybody to accept an 'opinion piece' in a far left newspaper as a reliable can you? I'm happy to respect unbiased reliable.sources as you suggest, but not opinion pieces, otherwise known as newspaper columns. I didn't realise there was a policy about consultation. There was an edit button and so it's reasonable to understand why a new user like myself would use it. I now know to consult in the future although I suspect based on the link I've shown above that any consultation about political bias in an article would itself end up being biases. As far as consensus goes, you can only define consensus by a vast majority opinion that can be proven. For example, there is no consensus in the UK or US for left or right wing. There is no consensus that says Donald Trump was wrong because over 50% voted for him in the 2016 election, if polls are to believed then only just under 50% didn't vote for him in the 2020 election and opinion polls are showing that the 2024 election could he a close call too. There is no consensus regarding gun laws in the US either in favour or not and no consensus for abortion or gender dysphoria although a lot of trans activists are very vocal about it and many people are scared to voice their real opinion because of the instant unfounded accusations of being transphobic. So I do respect consensus, but not makebelieve and there is no consensus regarding Donald Trump. I do respect other editors and I have apologised for calling one an idiot, but that does not mean I have to agree with them and one minor infraction of saying "idiot" once should be dealt with (as stated in Widipedia's own policy) by either ignoring it or having a chat with the user in private but not blocking them. I believe I've addressed all the things that you want me to and I will edit according to Wikipedia policies, but I am narked by the way I've been treated and accused of being a vandal for some minor edits where I was trying to make an article objective rather than subjective, although I now know it has to go through a long process of getting approval and hoping that all the other editors aren't also biased. Just because we disagree on opinion isn't a reason to maintain the block. I have never said that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I've said the article was biased and that I believe you were over zealous in blocking me. I also said I'm happy for people to disagree with me so I am in no way saying everyone else is wrong. I've suggested that in my opinion part of your actions were wrong but notice I've had the humility to accept I was wrong to use the word idiot and to accept that due to my inexperience I should have consulted before editing. It comes across more that you think you're right on everything and I'm wrong on everything, but just because you are an admin doesn't mean you are always right and doesn't mean you don't make mistakes like jumping to conclusions about somebody being adolescent etc. Surely you can accept my mistakes whilst also agreeing to disagree on our own personal opinions. I'm not an unreasonable person, but I'm not a push over either. Paullong22 (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's editing interface is terrible. That we can agree on. Otherwise, to be unblocked, you will need to show the reviewing administrator, or me, that you are willing to edit according to Wikipedia policies concerning consultation, consensus, respect for sources generally considered reliable, and respect for other editors. I'm not seeing that yet in the wall of text above. Arguing that you're right, and that everybody else is wrong, based solely on your assertion that something is biased, is not a path to restoration of your editing privileges in this project. You can start your reading of policy with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, then concentrate on WP:FALSEBALANCE. and WP:BIASED. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion of course I have my own biases and if I wrote those biases in public I would expect them to be challenged, so I don't understand why another bias would be allowed. Well-sourced content means the sources shouldn't be biased either. Some of the titles of the articles used were biased themselves and so the citations were based on left wing articles. The Guardian was referenced several times and that is well-known in the UK to be a far left leaning newspaper. Many of the sources were also titled "opinion" which means they were opinion pieces written in a newspaper and therefore not factual. Leaping to conclusions is something we all do in the moment and when somebody had annoyed us, so would you ban yourself for leaping to this conclusion "I remember this one. In general, for repeat blocks we block for about as long as the disruption has been taking place. This is about what I would set. It's probably a poorly-socialized adolescent, and they'll probably find other things to be horrible about. If not, they'll be blocked for longer. Acroterion (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)". I reverted once, not repeatedly. I reverted because I was annoyed somebody had undone all my hard work and it's fair to assume they were politically motivated when I am not a prolific Wikipedia user and came across this article and was shocked by its blatant bias. I don't leap to conclusions about anyone who disagrees with me, but you have lept to a conclusion that I am vandalising based upon minor edits to 3 articles and I am not a vandal. I'm happy to accept a disagreement and I don't mind if somebody disagrees with me politically, but when someone disagrees with me and resorts to banning me because they disagree with me and then threatens that I have to conform to accepting their opinion before they will lift the ban, then that is manipulation. As far as calling the person who removed my edit an idiot goes, I apologise for the heat of the moment comment, but please understand my frustration at the time when somebody undoes all my hard work and the only option apart from trying to redo it is to undo their undo. If that isn't allowed, then why is the feature there? I gave reasons for my edits and my undoing but the person who removed my edits didn't give any reasons except on one where they also made an assumption which you said isn't allowed. They stated that they assumed that my edits were not based on sources because I had edited the title of a source. I didn't realise I had edited the title of a source until afterwards because it was part of a sentence used and so looked like it flowed within the text. The interface on this app isn't particularly user friendly, especially for new users. Paullong22 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you were to give me a reason to think that you were open to examining your own possible biases, to understanding Wikipedia's neutrality polices, to understand the importance of long-established and referenced consensus, to discussing changes before editing, and to respect well-sourced content, not to mention refraining from repeated reversion after your removals were challenged, and avoiding name-calling or leaping to conclusions concerning the views of anyone who dares to disagree with you, I would be open to changing the block term. You're going to need to do all of those things. Neutrality is accurate reporting of the consensus of reliable sources, not the removal of things that that individual editors disagree with. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion my edits weren't disruptive, they were removing bias. If an edit war is undoing someone's edits then I hope you have blocked the person who undid my edits too. My perception of them being far left is that the bias was far left and the fact they didn't want that bias removing would suggest they are also of the same political opinion. I only made that comment to you as admin as far as I'm aware. You have judged me unfairly of vandalism which is not what I was doing. I have never heard the term edit war until now. I didn't realise Wikipedia was so toxic. I made minor edits to 3 linked articles and I'm accused of vandalism with no warning. That's over the top and comes across (you can't blame me for the perception) that you have done this out of political motivation to retain the far left bias in the article. If you look in the user talk for one of the articles then you'll see that another user has pointed out the same bias that I was trying to correct. Paullong22 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Judge not other editors lest ye be judged. And don't edit-war, and don't make assertions concerning the motivations of other editors based on your perception that they must be "far-left" to revert disruptive edits. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion that doesn't make much sense apart from the fact that the bias in the articles such as "false accusations" rather than more factually "alegations" could be seen as judging others. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, not passing judgement. Why should I be blocked for contributing to making factual unbiased corrections? Paullong22 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The parable of The Mote and the Beam may be applicable here. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
unblock request edit
Paullong22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Insert your reason to be unblocked here I edited 3 articles by removing or correcting adjectives that were clearly politically biased and were not factual nor proven. I was trying to contribute to the community by making the articles factual rather than biased. I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to be objective and not subjective. I honestly wasn't vandalising any pages, just correcting them, but the author has clearly taken exception to this, probably because of their political beliefs. Paullong22 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you don't understand why your edits were disruptive, there's no reason to unblock you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:47, 8 October 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.
- Reviewing administrator - see also edit-warring via IP prior to logging in [1]. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realise I wasn't logged in which is why I then logged in because I wanted to star those articles to follow them and realised this wasn't available to me which meant I wasn't logged in. The other user was undoing my edits without good reason so I thought it was only fair to undo their undo. How does a user have such privilege that they can unilaterally undo someone's reasonable edits? Paullong22 (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Acroterion you haven't just blocked me from the page - you've blocked me from the whole site. Paullong22 (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
email notification from @andrevan edit
@andrevan I have an email telling me you have left a message on my talk page but I cannot find a message written by you. Could you advise please? Sorry to post on my page and not yours but someone has accused me of being a vandal for minor edits to 3 pages and so I am indefinitely blocked and can't contact you any other way. Paullong22 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
unblock review edit
@ohnoitsjamie I have acknowledged to the other admin that I understand now that edits have to be consulted upon, even where there is blatant bias. It wasn't intentional vandalism though and the indefinite block was over zealous for minor edits on 3 pages. I understand the process now, even if I disagree with it and I am offended that I should be accused of vandalism. A better resolution would have been for the admin to contact me and explain why I couldn't make the edits and why I can't undo and undo. I thought the undo was being done for biased reasons, I didn't realise it was an admin as I'm new to the platform. After 3 hours of reading through various complex pages, I now understand better the complex set of rules. Paullong22 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ohnoitsjamie I had intended to tag you in the above, but didn't realise it required all sorts of formatting around it. I hope this tag works so you can see my explanation. I hope you can give me a chance to show that I'll do things differently from now on and will make one change at a time to see if it gets consensus or I'll enter into discussion if required.
- Paullong22 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ohnoitsjamie: Paullong22 attempted to ping you but used malformed syntax. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help dudhhr. I was struggling to see why they page wasn't linking too and I think I'd missed out a capital O as well as not using "user". Paullong22 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ohnoitsjamie: Paullong22 attempted to ping you but used malformed syntax. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Unblock request edit
Paullong22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have acknowledged to the blocking admin that I understand now that edits have to be consulted upon, even where there is blatant bias in my opinion. It wasn't intentional vandalism though and the indefinite block was over zealous for minor edits on 3 pages in my opinion. I understand the process now, even if I disagree with it but I am offended that I should be accused of vandalism because that is not my nature at all. A better resolution, in my opinion, would have been for the admin to contact me and explain why I couldn't make the edits and explain why I can't undo an undo. It would also have been more appropriate to block me from editing those 3 articles rather than a whole site block in my opinion. I thought the undo was being done by the editor for biased reasons and I didn't realise it was an admin as I'm new to the platform, although I'm surprised that this was undone so quickly. After 4 hours of reading through various complex pages in the early hours of the morning, I now understand better the complex set of rules. I hope this addresses the points you need and that you believe I will follow the editing guidelines in the future. Although I disagree with some of the guidelines, I will follow them as that's how it is - hopefully you'll give me a chance to show I can do that. Here is part of what I wrote to the other admin: "I've been reading a few of these articles and came across this discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents?wprov=sfla1 - it would be worth you having a look at this because it explains well at a much bigger level the frustration and prejudice I perceive to have experienced and blocking me for 3 minor edits is not justified [in my opinion] as it is not widespread vandalism of Wikipedia. "You can't possibly expect anybody to accept an 'opinion piece' in a far left newspaper as a reliable can you? I'm happy to respect unbiased reliable.sources as you suggest, but not opinion pieces, otherwise known as newspaper columns. I didn't realise there was a policy about consultation. There was an edit button and so it's reasonable to understand why a new user like myself would use it. I now know to consult in the future although "I do respect other editors and I have apologised for calling one an idiot, but that does not mean I have to agree with them and one minor infraction of saying "idiot" once should be dealt with (as stated in Widipedia's own policy) by either ignoring it or having a chat with the user in private but not blocking them, but I recognise this was out of order and have apologised. I believe I've addressed all the things that you want me to and I will edit according to Wikipedia policies, but I am narked by the way I've been treated and accused of being a vandal for some minor edits where I was trying to make an article objective rather than subjective, although I now know it has to go through a long process of getting approval and hoping that all the other editors aren't also biased, I will do that in future. Just because we disagree on opinion isn't a reason to maintain the block. I have never said that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I've said the article was biased [in my opinion] and that I believe you were over zealous in blocking me [in my opinion]. I also said I'm happy for people to disagree with me so I am in no way saying everyone else is wrong. I've suggested that in my opinion part of your actions were wrong [in my opinion] but notice I've had the humility to accept I was wrong to use the word idiot and to accept that due to my inexperience I should have consulted before editing" In relation to "vandalism", the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing clearly states "If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit" I can see why I may have accidentally and unintentionally been disruptive, but even according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, it is not vandalism. The article also states that editors should "Assume good faith. Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms. Stay very civil. Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Consult Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor." If this had happened, I would have known what not to do and it would have been unnecessary to block me. Further it says "If editor restores, or unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage." I think what I did was to unrevert (undo and undo) but was never given an option for compromise at the talk page, it was escalated straight to a block. It's only after this point that administrator assistance should be sought, but it appears the administrator was the editor and jumped straight to a block rather than giving me an opportunity to correct the 'disruptive behaviour' as you put it. It also says "Assuming it's one editor against many at this point, continue reverting the tendentious editor. If they exceed three reverts in a 24-hour period, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring " - I think I reverted at most twice. It also says "Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours." but I have been blocked indefinitely with the incorrect assumption that my account is used primarily for disruption - if you look at my account history, I have hardly ever participated in Wikipedia, so how I can be accused of using it primarily for disruption based on 3 edits on similar articles, all at the same time, is unfathomable. I apologise if I upset the admin, but I honestly did not intend to cause any vandalism and I have explained that I now understand the long but necessary processes for edits and how explanations should be given in edit summaries for why an edit has been made in order to reach consensus, which probably means only making one edit at a time rather than trying to fix a whole article. Paullong22 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 18:58, 8 October 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.
- Hey there, just wanted to let you know that I fixed the error that you mentioned in your edit summary so that your unblock request will display properly. I also wanted to just quickly mention that while I am the editor that you reverted, you mentioned that you didn't know it was an admin, but I did want to point out that I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh I hope you receive this. I can't reply to you comment so I'm attempting to tag you in an edit underneath. Thank you for fixing my unblock request, I really appreciate it. For the administrator / editor part, I'm getting very confused as to who did what. I think what I was trying to say was that I didn't realise it was an admin who undid my undo of a revert if that makes any sense at all. Forgive me if not because I'm new to this and even after several hours of reading about all the complex rules, I'm still finding it all very confusing, so if I do get unblocked then I'll be taking baby steps from now on. Paullong22 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2022 (BST)
- I did get your ping which showed up as a notification for me, so I wanted to confirm for you that it did work. If you look at the page history of Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election it breaks down each edit and shows you who did what, and if you click on "prev" on the left side of an edit it'll show you the exact content of the edit and what was changed. I understand getting overwhelmed by the editing side of Wikipedia, there is admittedly a lot to take in. There's nothing wrong with feeling overwhelmed, and if you do get unblocked and you have any questions you are more than welcome to ask me on my talk page or visit the Teahouse, which is a place on Wikipedia specifically for asking questions. Good luck. - Aoidh (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh I hope you receive this. I can't reply to you comment so I'm attempting to tag you in an edit underneath. Thank you for fixing my unblock request, I really appreciate it. For the administrator / editor part, I'm getting very confused as to who did what. I think what I was trying to say was that I didn't realise it was an admin who undid my undo of a revert if that makes any sense at all. Forgive me if not because I'm new to this and even after several hours of reading about all the complex rules, I'm still finding it all very confusing, so if I do get unblocked then I'll be taking baby steps from now on. Paullong22 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2022 (BST)
- I believe you've established that it was not your intention to vandalize or to appear to do so. However, it was disruptive, comprising the entirety of your editing history apart from the long-deleted drafts, and your conduct since then has not done anything to diminish the impression that you will be no less disruptive if unblocked, based on the enormous unreadable walls of text, and your emphasis on self-justification. WP:TIMESINK is appearing to be the most appropriate description of where we are now., and why you're still blocked Acroterion (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- So are you saying that I'll never ever get a second chance because I'm not allowed to justify what I had done? In other words, I have to accept your judgement even if I think your judgement is harsh? I know what you say about the edit history, but it's only from a one hour period and only 3 articles, so yes, apart from the deleted drafts, it could be classed as my entire editing history, but that's a misleading description because it doesn't reflect the fact that the history only relates to one hour of one day and 3 articles. I agreed that in terms of your definition it was disruptive and I've apologised for upsetting you based on that. What's unreasonable about my text? The guide to appealing blocks says to make clear references which I have done. I'm appealing your punishment which was harsh - a lifetime block for a newbie. Yes, block me for a week or something and then at least give me a second chance. You're basically saying that I can never contribute to this project under this username again. And as well as trying to justify my actions, I also backed all of that up with apologies and explanations of how I will do things differently. Please don't get me wrong when I say this, but my "perception" from this process is that only one opinion is allowed and that as an admin you come across as very self-righteous - that might not be your intention, but it certainly comes across that way. The point is that you should be nurturing new users, not driving them away. Paullong22 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)