User talk:HistoryManUSA

Hi HistoryManUSA! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

@I dream of horses: Thanks for the note, Emily. I've been editing without an account for many years, but I appreciate your "welcome" to the registered world. Would you mind clarifying what you mean when you say, "Please notify me after replying off my talk page"? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want people to use {{

notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@I dream of horses: Got it. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: In the edit at this link, you wrote the following to one of my relatives whom I'd asked to appeal a range block that included her: "Continue like this and you'll see the block extended and you'll see talk page access revoked." She didn't know what you meant by the phrase "[c]ontinue like this", and I don't either. Would you mind clarifying? HistoryManUSA (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account based on

WP:MEAT. This is part of the 208.53.231.240, 208.53.224.161 group. --Yamla (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, and more specifically, 208.53.231.158 which was blocked for 2 weeks for "Clear history of wasting time over pointless questioning, revoking TPA on current IP but not range block for now. See /21 range block". --Yamla (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryManUSA, you are welcome to request an unblock.

WP:GAB explains how to do so. You'll need to explain why you are proxying for someone blocked for inappropriate edits. --Yamla (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yamla: The block log indicates that you're accusing me of block evasion. Do you understand that the two-week block of 208.53.231.158 expired ten days ago? Is that the block you're accusing me of evading? HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed, and I did do the math incorrectly (as an idiot, I figured the block expired on the 26th, not on the 16th). I will lift your block immediately. Note if you are the person behind those IP addresses, your edits have proven substantially problematic and you need to take a different approach going forward. The previously linked policies and guidelines should help you understand. --Yamla (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks for your response and for lifting the block, but I'm still hoping for several clarifications about your administrative actions. Would you mind clarifying what you meant by the phrase "[c]ontinue like this" in the edit at this link? HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making multiple, almost identical, unblock requests, especially across a number of IP addresses, is disruptive. When an unblock request is declined, you (third person) are expected to read why the prior unblock request was declined and make a request that addresses those concerns. Making exactly the same request, the same request that has already been declined, just wastes your (third person) and our time. Users who do this tend to have their talk page access revoked for the duration of the block. Let me know if any part of that was unclear, happy to answer follow-up questions. Compare these statements with your argument, above, that I had done the math incorrectly when blocking this account. That was a new and compelling argument (and, objectively correct). New and compelling arguments are exactly the sort of thing we do want to see in unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks for your response. Her initial request for an unblock was via UTRS. As can be seen at this link, the handling administrator asked her to post the request to her talk page. Almost immediately after she did so, for reasons unknown to us, our service provider removed her IP address from circulation. Because of the original range block, that left her with no way to remove the unblock request from the talk page at 208.53.224.161. She posted the request to her new talk page at 208.53.231.240 roughly five hours before you'd declined it on either page. Would you have advised her to handle the situation differently? HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have advised her to reference the prior request. Although she was not trying to be abusive in this case (I fully accept this), this exact behaviour is generally used by abusive editors who are the target of a range block. Again, I'm not trying to lump her in there, just trying to provide some context. We frequently see people make identical or almost identical unblock requests for literally years, in some cases. In this particular case, the user was blocked for inappropriate behaviour, so IP-hopping to post identical unblock requests appeared to be more of the same. Again, this is for context, to explain why I warned the user not to continue making substantially identical unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks for your response. Is a user who's made a declined unblock request generally allowed to respond inside the template box? HistoryManUSA (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should respond in a comment, like you are doing here. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I think I'm almost done interrogating you, but would you say in hindsight that the edit at this link was an appropriate use of rollback? HistoryManUSA (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The timing is important there. They made an unblock request over on

WP:ANI and on talk pages. --Yamla (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:MEAT, I didn't recruit her to influence a decision or support my side of a debate. I just asked her to appeal the original range block. I would have appealed it myself, but when I tried, Wikipedia's UTRS software falsely accused me of attempting to spam the site. Do you have anything more you'd like to add to this discussion? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have nothing to add at this time. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks for your response. HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of talk page range block

@Ohnoitsjamie: Hi. One of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7. Her unblock request can be viewed at this link. I don't see a handling administrator among the listed "appeal details". Are you the handling administrator? HistoryManUSA (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea which user you are talking about; that link doesn't bring up an active appeal. Furthermore, you appear to have created this account for the sole purpose of wasting our time, and I will not be responding further. My gut says you are a blocked sock, and feel like there's a good chance another admin will know who you are. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Thanks for responding. Several other administrators know who I am, but I'm not a blocked sock, and I haven't created this account for the purpose of wasting anyone's time. When you say you have no idea which user I'm talking about, do you mean you don't know who the handling administrator is for the unblock request at this link? HistoryManUSA (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ADMINACCT, and especially the communication principle, but feel free to let me know if that isn't the case. HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@JJMC89: Hi. One of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was ensnared in a range block dated August 2. Her unblock request can be viewed at this link. Are administrators able to post comments on such a UTRS request that only other administrators can see? HistoryManUSA (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The row would have a green background, and the comment would not be visible to the appealing user. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Thanks for your response. Just to help me understand the process, can you tell me how many green comments there are at this link, and how many different administrators posted those comments? HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Thanks for your response. As far as I know, you're not directly involved in either of these other UTRS requests, but would you mind telling me how many green comments there are at this link, and this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: It looked from your contributions page like you may have had quite a bit of work to do yesterday when I posted my previous comment, and I'm wondering whether you missed the notification. HistoryManUSA (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to edit Wikipedia or are you here to complain about blocks? --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Right now I'm here mainly to try to understand why I've been subjected to multiple blocks. It isn't worth editing here if what's happened to me can just as easily happen again. HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE does not apply. --Yamla (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yamla: I'd been making improvements to Wikipedia articles for many years before last month's unexplained blocks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

What part is misleading? The block is expired, and your questions have been answered. Repeated unblock requests are generally closed without comment, and the block appeal was addressed at [1]. And in my point of view, you are very blatantly wasting administrator's time - note

π, ν) 19:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Power~enwiki: Many of my questions haven't been answered. HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Have they not been answered, or do you not like the answers?

π, ν) 04:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Power~enwiki: Many of my questions haven't been answered at all. HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

π, ν) 04:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Power~enwiki: It depends on the surface it's clapping against. I'm wondering how that question is relevant and whether it's an act of WP:VANDALISM. HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@JoelleJay: The ANI discussion in which you posted the comment at this link was unfortunately closed before I'd fully addressed it, but I'm not the editor behind this discussion, and to the best of my knowledge I've never edited under 213.225.13.163. You're welcome to post a response here, but I'm not asking for one. HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Hi, and thanks for the ping. Seems to me from your first ANI thread that you asked about a block affecting a relative, and how they hadn't got (in your view) a meaningful reply on why their unblock request was declined. You also several times ask for details of "private administrator communications" that you felt might be associated with an appeal. You also seemed to specifically suggest that an admin who posted on this talkpage declining to engage further is violating ADMINACCT for doing so. It looks fairly plain to me, but do accept my apologies if I got any (or all) of it wrong.

On the basis that you do feel it is wrong, would you mind clarifying what you are actually asking for, that is different to the above? Also what, in a perfect world, would be the outcome you're seeking by raising this issue.

In passing this page is a better place for it than ANI as the only actionable "incident" from an ANI standpoint seems to be the ADMINACCT allegation, which doesn't have much validity. The response to it is best summed up in this comment from another admin at that thread: Ohnoitsjamie declined the August 8th UTRS request because it was functionally identical to at least three other unblock requests spread across UTRS and multiple IP address talk pages, all of which had already been declined two days earlier. It looks like Yamla has already explained this to you on your talk page at considerable length; Ohnoitsjamie is not beholden to you to make the exact same explanation. If it makes you feel better, anywhere you want to see a response from Ohnoitsjamie, just mentally insert a "per Yamla". -- Euryalus (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ADMINACCT. Right now, though, I'm only asking for a clarification. Is what Writ Keeper calls the "standard practice" of declining a repeat unblock request "out of hand" written into Wikipedia policy? In a perfect world, the outcome I'd be seeking by raising this issue would be a truthful yes-or-no answer. HistoryManUSA (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The first point seems sufficiently covered in the ANI thread. You'd already received a response to the query, there is no obligation on others to come by and give you exactly the same response. On the second point, if an unblock request is made and declined then remaking the same unblock request straight away will very likely also be declined. This is because none of the evidence that led to the first decline has changed. That doesn't mean the second request isn't read, or its content not considered. It simply means that the consideration is unlikely to be an especially challenging process seeing as the request is just a duplicate of a previous one, made straight after the previous one was declined and without any intervening change in circumstances. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Thanks for responding. HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Mildly, I do wonder if these discussions are an especially good use of time - the quantity of contributions in this obscure debate could easily equate to writing an entirely new article on some more worthwhile topic. But up to you. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Regarding the ANI discussion closure at this diff, I'm wondering whether you could provide a link to the Wikipedia policy you'd say most clearly supports your closure of the discussion. HistoryManUSA (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be

WP:CIR --JBL (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@JayBeeEll: My previous comment in this section is addressed to John from Idegon, and yours seems inaccurate and unhelpful. HistoryManUSA (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the good book says, "If the boot fits". And while I agree it's not helpful, I'm not sure which part you find inaccurate.

π, ν) 02:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Reminds me of an old joke about carrying umbrellas in the rainforest,

WP:STICK. It's not policy, but that's not really relevant. When you understand why policy isn't relevant to my reason for closing, you'll understand the reason I closed it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@John from Idegon: My opening comment in this section indicated that I was wondering about Wikipedia policy, so it actually is relevant that the essay at the link you provide isn't policy, but thanks for responding. HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the section was closed yet? That's the point here. You are being disruptive. Perhaps if you attempt to see the reasoning of those telling you that, you'd do better. It was closed properly, and EVERYONE has told you that. No one is supporting whatever it is you're trying to do. If you don't understand that means you need to stop doing it, and stop doing it NOW, you'll not be here long. Sorry you're not getting it, but if you want to continue here, drop the stick now. This organization is not managed top down. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that. The rules are what the consensus says they are, not what's written. When you're ready to open your mind to ways that are possibly different than you are used to, you'll understand. Until then, you won't. This place doesn't work like IBM or MaBell. There's no boss. John from Idegon (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Your claim that no one is supporting what I'm trying to do is untrue, and your claim that "EVERYONE" has told me the ANI discussion was closed properly is absurd. In response to your question, no, I can't explain why you closed it yet. HistoryManUSA (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we just cut to the chase and you tell us what your end plan is? What are you actually trying to get accomplished here? Your questions are clearly not just for information's sake, since you seem to have ~opinions~ about the answers. The block has already expired so it's apparently not about getting that overturned. Wikipedia

@Writ Keeper: No, so far I'm not trying to build a case for Ohnoitsjamie or any other administrator to be reprimanded or desysopped. Right now I'm only trying to get a question answered. In your ANI comment at this link, you seem to say it's standard practice to decline a repeat unblock request "out of hand" regardless of whether any administrator has addressed the stated basis for the request. Is that "standard practice" written into Wikipedia policy? HistoryManUSA (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter whether it's written down or not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: You're the administrator. Maybe it's your turn to answer a few. Why does written policy matter so much that you're going to these lengths to evade a straightforward yes-or-no question about it? HistoryManUSA (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been answering your questions this entire time. You just don't like the answers. The entire point is that, as I said at the start of this section,

written policy doesn't matter

(all that much), and that's why I'm trying to figure out why you're fixating on it.

The direct answer to your question is that I don't know whether the specific case of denying repeated unblock requests without further comment is explicitly written into policy somewhere or not; that is not an interesting question, because it doesn't need to be literally written into policy for it to be standard practice. I can point to several places where the spirit of the idea is discussed, such as in Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process, where it says A minority of editors who are blocked use these [talk page] privileges poorly... Inevitably the response to such actions is simple – editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, or Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Examples_of_bad_unblock_requests, where it says that Requests such as these are likely to be denied. If made repeatedly, they may lead to your block being extended or removal of talk page access by either a change of block settings or your talk page being protected from editing. Those quotes don't directly discuss this specific situation, but they support the general idea that repeated bad unblock requests will be met with removal of the ability to appeal the block without discussion, and common sense dictates that an unblock request that is an exact duplicate of one that has already been declined is, practically by definition, a bad unblock request. So no, it's not outside the norms of Wikipedia for an admin to decline a duplicate block request without further comment, and this is reasonable because you already got an explanation of what was wrong with the block request when it was declined the first time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: A duplicate request isn't "practically by definition" a bad one, and neither I nor the relative who made the request got an explanation when it was declined the first time, but thanks for your response. HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did get an explanation. From [2]: I'm not sure I would call that complaint a sufficient cause; if it hadn't been preceded by the disruption in the article on on the article talk page, I might not have made it a lengthy rangeblock. It certainly was a kind of straw breaking the camel's back. Both the complaint at ANI (with its personal attack) and the article/talk page behavior are varieties of disruption.

π, ν) 03:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Power~enwiki: The comment you cite was directed to me and dated August 3. The unblock request Writ Keeper and I have been discussing here was made by one of my range-blocked relatives and declined on August 6. HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

If it was the same unblock request, the same unblock rationale applies.

π, ν) 03:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Power~enwiki: That obviously isn't true for a situation in which the rationale doesn't apply to the initial request. HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The unblock request you're referring to is presumably

whether the "relative" actually exists, but it doesn't really matter, so assume good faith and all that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Writ Keeper: Her edit at this link asked for a clarification. The administrator's edit at this link used rollback to remove her question. The new talk page range block was then imposed. She made a single unblock request for the unexplained talk page block, and Ohnoitsjamie declined it with no discussion or explanation. If you're going to cite "this very talk page" for support, you should probably scroll up and read it. HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very cromulent summary of what happened, but if you're more interested in being prissy than in answering my question about what you're actually trying to accomplish here, then I don't feel compelled to correct it, or to engage with you further. I'll just drop some food for thought about sea lions as I go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: I'd been trying to get an administrator to respond to a question about Wikipedia policy, and you've now responded to it. Thanks again for that response, as well as for the previous help you'd given me. Now I'm trying to use your response to determine whether improving Wikipedia is still worth my time. HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John from Idegon

You really need to read

@John from Idegon: I'm wondering how you claim to know I've made "attempts at Wikilawyering". HistoryManUSA (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (help! - typo?) 22:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd been making improvements to Wikipedia articles for many years before last month's unexplained blocks, and even now I'm here to build the encyclopedia. HistoryManUSA (talk) 7:48 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I see 4 edits to articles from this account and dozens to user pages, user talk pages, and Wikipedia name space. That's not the editing pattern of someone who's clearly here to help. This is highlighted by your persistent posts to ANI that seem to have no true aim. only (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

@

WP:ADMINACCT and try to find out whether it's standard practice for Wikipedia administrators to make excuses for such violations. I was clearly here to help. HistoryManUSA (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@JzG:@Only: On this first anniversary of being blocked indefinitely, I'm asking for clarifications of what indicates to each of you that I wasn't here to build the encyclopedia. As explained in my unblock request above, I'd been making improvements to Wikipedia articles for many years until August of 2020, when various administrators began subjecting me to multiple blocks, including range blocks that applied to my relatives and much of central South Dakota, then rejecting our requests for clarifications, our unblock requests, and our appeals, always without any clear explanation. It remains unclear to me whether you're accusing me of lying about these events. Are you accusing me of lying about these events? I opened this account to facilitate communication as I sought explanations for the blocks in question, and so far the only reason I've edited articles from this account at all is because I'd forgotten to log out. HistoryManUSA (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered already. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal,

WP:MEAT accusation, and block by Yamla

@Yamla: Neither she nor I was blocked from editing this talk page, and neither of us has edited any other Wikipedia page since I was blocked indefinitely over a year ago. Do I understand correctly that you've accused her of "block evasion"? HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You violated

WP:MEAT. That is my contention. You are free to make a new unblock request, I won't be responding further. --Yamla (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Unavailability of the blocking administrator (JzG)

On September 13, 2020, after making improvements to Wikipedia articles for many years, I was accused of being "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" and blocked indefinitely by administrator JzG. Eight days later, on September 21, 2020, JzG referred to Wikipedia editors who support traditional Christian teachings on marriage as "bigots" and said he "absolutely" agreed with trying to "drive off" those of us who define ourselves "sufficiently strongly" by such Christian teachings. In November of 2020, JzG relinquished his administrative privileges under a cloud of controversy, and in May of 2021, again embroiled in controversy, he appears to have abandoned his account altogether. As such, he's unavailable to provide clarifications of what supposedly indicated to him that I wasn't here to build the encyclopedia, and I'm planning to prepare an unblock request on that basis. HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether Ad Orientem is available to give me advice. HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HMUSA. I am no longer an admin and have been substantially retired for about a year now. While I do pop in now and then, I edit only rarely. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Thanks for responding. I was aware of your substantial retirement last year and found it inspiring. Would you be willing to recommend two or three administrators who'd be likely to look past the accusations other administrators have leveled against me and answer a few questions? HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I am both retired and unfamiliar with the circumstances surrounding your situation, I must regretfully decline to involve myself directly in this case. My only advice is that you may appeal your block via the usual

standard offer. You could offer to accept some editing restrictions on a temporary basis to demonstrate good will and your desire to improve the encyclopedia. Be sure to include a detailed statement about what you plan to work on. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If you were unblocked, would you actually improve encyclopedia articles? Or would you just continue to make (baseless) procedural complaints? If you do intend to improve the encyclopedia, can you briefly describe how? If not, I suspect that any admin should remove talk page access; after a year you appear to have decided to start your time wasting campaign anew. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: I'm not planning to permanently ignore you, but I'm not sure I'll have time to address all of that right now. HistoryManUSA (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]