Untitled

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body>
<snip>
<b>Welcome to the Unblock Ticket Request System.</b>
<div>
<p>If you are presently blocked from editing on Wikipedia (which you may verify by
clicking <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&amp;action=edit" target="_blank">here</a>), you may fill out
the form below to have an administrator review your block. Please complete all fields labelled in
<span>red text</span>, as these are required in order for us to complete a full review of your block.</p>
<snip>
<label>Why do you believe you should be unblocked?</label>
<br><br>
<textarea maxlength="4060" name="appeal_appealText" rows="5">
Disclaimers: Realizing a dynamic IP will hinder arbitration on this matter I&#39;ve opted to open a ticket. I do not intend this ticket as a means to re-appeal so much as a means to ask the related administrators to explain the basis for their judgment. While I realize the nature of IP-editing on wikipedia prevented this, I believe all should note I never got any notice of any related incident report. Thusly, my original unblock request responded solely to the summary text given.

In the course of prompting discussions on [[Suicide]] I considered each a separate issue. 1) Neutrality with the right to die pov with greater literary, philosophical, as well as historical coverage 2) against classifying the article as medical requiring exclusively medical sources 3) objectifying language in the article.

I do not consider my pointing out what I did as [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I did not accuse &quot;them&quot; of causing me to cause a disruption, but I could accuse &quot;them&quot; of editing disruptively by repeatedly reverting my removal of the banner without responding to any of my stated reasons for doing so, instead pointing to an irrelevant RfC which in my opinion closed without consensus, since most editors who stated their opinions on the article&#39;s neutrality either ceased responding or shifted focus when confronted with more specific evidence than in the original prompt.

Again, I refer to [[WP:OUTRAGE]] as for what I consider the likely actual reason for my block, as well as for why my prompts received minimal participation as well as why most editors want to delude themselves into believing all my concerns about the article somehow extend from that RfC rather than actually read the concerns stated.

The article has previously received much [[WP:Civil POV-pushing]] evidenced by the medical bias among editors with what articles they choose to edit according the their various contributions pages as well as the increasing attempts to remove or replace content unrelated specifically to &quot;suicide prevention&quot;. I repeat [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]], so I contest that even if the majority of pro-active editors want bang on the walls at someone else&#39;s desire to edit the article a certain way, that should not possess any meaning so long as they don&#39;t want to engage in discussions abiding the wikipedia ethics of neutral balance, rigorous sources, as well as consensus.

If editors do not wish to participate in discussions the the encyclopedia would and should evolve without them.

In this case, editors who happened to have administrative authority did not want to participate in discussions(due to moral [[WP:OUTRAGE]] nor allow the encyclopedia to evolve without them, so they decided since only one editor has the nerve to speak up about the blatant moral agenda-tainted issues with the article, they could merely block that editor and silence any further discussions. </textarea><span></span><br><br><label>If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?</label><br><br><textarea maxlength="1024" name="appeal_intendedEdits" rows="5">I intend to engage in dispute resolution regarding the [[Suicide]] article&#39;s state. I have no specific intentions to edit any articles on wikipedia at the moment, yet I would like the freedom to casually copy-edit as I normally do. Also, I do not wish to taint my actual account with discussions related to this gruesome topic, so I rather avoid logging in before all this has gotten resolved. </textarea><span></span><br><br><label>Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it&#39;s in error, tell us how.</label><br><br><textarea maxlength="1024" name="appeal_blockReason" rows="5">Mostly already stated in answer to the first field, but, in summary, because editors with administrative authority do not wish to participate in discussions they consider moral [[WP:OUTRAGE]] nor allow the article to evolve as a result of discussions they refuse to participate in, so they&#39;d rather block the chief organizer of such discussions they don&#39;t like. </textarea>
<span></span>
<br><br>
<label>Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?</label>
<br><br>
<textarea maxlength="2048" name="appeal_otherInfo" rows="3">
Prior to any unblock I exchanged the following emails via the arbitration committee mailing-list.

https://pastebin.com/G3GyS7ah</textarea><span></span><br><br>
<div>
<p>The Unblock Ticket Request System is a project hosted on the Wikimedia Labs intended to assist
users with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block" target="_blank">unblock process</a> on the English Wikipedia. <br>
This project is licensed under the
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html" target="_blank">GNU General Public License Version 3 or Later</a>.<br>
For questions or assistance with the Unblock Ticket Request System, please email our administration team at
<a href="mailto:utrs-admins@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">utrs-admins@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Version  @<a href="https://github.com/UTRS/utrs/commit/" target="_blank"></a>.</p>
</div>
</div>

<snip>
</html>