{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 09:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ohooh7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22028 was submitted on Jul 11, 2018 10:14:13. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Ohooh7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not sure if necessary, but I'll post my unblock request here too. Such an obtuse system you guys use lol. My extremely vague block reason was absurd and has no basis in reality. "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia". Really? This is the sort of reasoning you allow your administrators to give? I don't just decide to edit articles. I read articles and come across really obvious biases. And even according to the NPOV page, regarding neutral point of view "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." The hall monitor who reported me quoted me out of context as saying "Consensus doesn't matter" when I was referring to a situation in which a non-neutral point of view was being used to describe the subject of an article by a pejorative. Ironically, this sort of stuff is exactly the bias I seek to correct. The edits I made were all replacing biased language with completely neutral language. Nothing I said was skewed toward any particular viewpoint and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I know you will not take up this challenge, as I know you cannot accomplish it. I think the administrator JamesBWatson read my User page and blocked me on an emotional whim, which is really indicative of the entire problem I've expressed on my User page and in other interactions on the website. These sort of weird power trips are probably another reason there are so few female Wikipedians. Let me make it very, very clear to you "JamesBWatson" - I ABSOLUTELY wish to contribute to your encyclopedia. Yes, I have no interest in reading piles of articles about esoteric editing minutia that will ultimately have no impact on my usage of the website, but as my User page states I simply wished to correct biases where I see them. Unfortunately, it appears you people have zero interest in compiling factual information with regard to contemporary politics and take no issue with editors propagating explicitly biased perspectives on political articles. I don't honestly expect you people to unblock me, but I think a lot of you dismiss people like me as "trolls", as if because we don't adhere to your arbitrary bureaucratic nonsense we aren't critical thinkers or something. I figured I'd give you an in-good-faith, honest interpretation of how I see this situation and why I consider you people both morally and intellectually invalid. I'm hoping that, in any way, this might stir up some self-reflection in at least one of you, although I doubt it. If you actually made it to the end, hell, you might actually have a bit of integrity. Thanks, pal. P.S. I checked the User page for "JamesBWatson" and he has a gigantic banner at the top making sure everyone knows the page is locked due to "trolling." Just found that funny, seems like this problem might be endemic to him. Ohooh7 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are clearly here to push an agenda and not work in a collaborative manner to improve this project. Your attacks on JamesBWatson only make that clearer. I am declining this request. If you choose to make another, it should focus on your behavior and not that of others. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 11 July 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.
- Well I can say now that I definitely over-estimated the administrators of wikipedia lol. I give a well-reasoned, written out, and in-good-faith argument for why my objectively unjust block was unjust, and you respond with essentially "Hmmmmmm nope". I figured that even if your editing standards are not very high your administrative ones would be at least. What agenda am I trying to push? Can you provide me examples as to how I am pushing this agenda? My contribution is removing partial language and replacing it with impartial language, which is unarguably an improvement to this failed project. I did not attack JamesBWatson, I stated factually that he seems to have run-ins like this, though now I'm getting the sense this is just an everyday thing for you guys. What a life!