User talk:Stalin is my username

July 2019
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:. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Any other Admins out there with an open mind willing to give this request a fresh look?
Hello

I've tried to obtain a speedy resolution to my block using Wikipedia services e.g. Administer's notice board, but I'm blocked from posting on any of them! So they're not much help I'm afraid.

I'm hoping there is another admin out there willing to take a fresh look now that I understand what happened and posted as such, but there has been no action since, so I'm in limbo.

If I can be instructed on how to move forward or at least told "you can't move forward RIP" that would be great.

Thanks for your time.Stalin is my username (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional Information/Instructions
Hi all,

I read this posted by another Admin in response to another user's unblock request:

"To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead."

I will address these in turn.

1. Understand what you have been blocked for. I understand the categories for which I have been blocked "not here to build an encyclopedia", "lack the competence to successfully contribute to Wikipedia", but I am far less certain which elements of those categories I have violated, as they are rather broad. I'll do my best to consider the most likely.

2 Damage/Disruption To be honest, they all seem to refer to an unacceptable *patterns* of behaviour - mostly (but not exclusively) in terms of relations to other editors. Since it was my first post that triggered a ban, it is difficult to identify any that apply directly to me. However, I did notice that Cullen328 who initiated the block appears to adhere to "[]" WP unofficial "[]" which contains this element: 6. Any logged-in user whose first edit is vandalism of a user page, or a nasty personal attack on a talk page, should be immediately and permanently blocked, without comment.

Since, as described in an earlier section, I posted to the wrong talk page, I can understand a very busy admin consider it gibberish and therefore vandalism. My riposte is that "He who has never edited the wrong document, or emailed the wrong person, may cast the first stone." ;)

This may plausibly tie into the second reason given for maintaining the block i.e. incompetence: The admin Huron clearly regarded my post as gibberish and therefore regarded me as incompetent. As before, I addressed this in an earlier section; in the context of posting on the correct talk page it would no longer appear as gibberish.

As an aside, The guidlines for "[]", the following points deserve mention: "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person." The comment by Huron, "If you read that as a statement about demographics, then you lack the competence to successfully contribute to Wikipedia." skirts dangerously close to violating this guideline. For example, was it implied that I suffered from an intellectual, mental or other disorder rendering me incompetent? To illustrate. In the context he or she used it, one may also ask why Huron, as an administrator, failed to consider the possibility that the post was made on the wrong talk page.

As for making more useful contributions, here is why I signed into Wikipedia in the first place: reading articles that make bold claims, then finding that the references cited either 1) had no content supporting the argument or 2) were behind a paywall or in a book or journal that needed to be paid for in order to be verified. These are my pet hates, and they are common. It was the ones in the section described earlier that "broke the camels back" and compelled me to sign up. That would be my primary task at Wikipedia and I think it manifestly constructive.

Thank you for your time :) Stalin is my username (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (forgot to add my username earlier, apologies)

Thanks
Thanks very much. There's a fair bit of reading in all those policies so please give me a little time to absorb them before I fully respond. I can at least say in the meantime that if my browsing history on Wikipedia is viewable by you, you will see that I'm pretty much a random browser - I'm not fixated on a given topic/soapboxing. Whatever the outcome, thanks for giving me some direction and homework, much appreciated Stalin is my username (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)