If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

((Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= Note: Thanks to bradv's comment below, I see this request was flawed and unconvincing and have revised my unblock request. I have reread the rules and outlined my plan to comply with these policies under all eventualities. I'll replace this text and if you need to see my initial inadequate response, you can view the history. ------------------- :Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances. :I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided. :I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again. :I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this. :You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here. :I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work. :I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs. :If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case. :Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ [[User:DrL|DrL]] ([[User talk:DrL#top|talk]]) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~))

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting ((subst:Decline reason here)) with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

((unblock reviewed |1= Note: Thanks to bradv's comment below, I see this request was flawed and unconvincing and have revised my unblock request. I have reread the rules and outlined my plan to comply with these policies under all eventualities. I'll replace this text and if you need to see my initial inadequate response, you can view the history. ------------------- :Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances. :I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided. :I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again. :I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this. :You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here. :I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work. :I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs. :If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case. :Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ [[User:DrL|DrL]] ([[User talk:DrL#top|talk]]) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  |decline = ((subst:Decline reason here)) ~~~~))

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

((unblock reviewed |1= Note: Thanks to bradv's comment below, I see this request was flawed and unconvincing and have revised my unblock request. I have reread the rules and outlined my plan to comply with these policies under all eventualities. I'll replace this text and if you need to see my initial inadequate response, you can view the history. ------------------- :Thanks for taking the time to review this. I now fully understand the mistakes I made and have a plan in place to insure that I comply even under the most extreme of circumstances. :I did link to outside harassment but since it was of me, I thought that was okay. I see now that was a mistake. I see how accusing a person of harassment (or really most anything else) can be considered as harassment - no matter how ironic. Got it. Won't happen again. And of course anything that hints at the identity of a user off-wiki is to be avoided, no matter how vague. In fact even hinting that you know a user IRL is to be avoided. :I see that hinting about possible future, let's just say, "official action" was clearly a no-no. You got me there. I thought my phrasing was vague enough but after reviewing the rules on outing and harassment I see that the policies have really tightened it up to include even using words such as defamation, let alone to hint at taking "official actions." That was a big mistake and will not happen again. :I'm going to stop "speculating" about the motives of other users and assume good faith. I understand how important it is to maintain a positive tone on a site as massive as this. :You can imagine how disgusted I was to see this user claim a mutual respectful friendship with me as a reason that he should be unblocked. I'll just stay off this user's talk page. That's easy for me; I do it all the time. I'll employ that strategy here. :I'm never going to talk about this user again in the open wiki. In fact, I plan to take a break and catch up on some important work that I mentioned elsewhere. As the protection on my husband's bio ends on the 6th (can it possibly be extended or be put on pending changes?), I would like to be able to weigh in on the talk page of his bio from time to time. If I can do this, he won't have to, and one of the most important things for me is to be able to save time (and aggravation) for him so that he can concentrate on his important work. :I have been able to do that so far (admittedly badly or I wouldn't have received so many blocks). I've reread the rules and fully understand them and my policy will be to err on the side of caution. To make this easier I will take a more objective stance to editing, focusing solely on content and not discussing the motives of users per GF or anything happening off-wiki. I'm sure you guys have seen this all before and understand what's going on - I will definitely back off and let you do your jobs. :If I should ever feel the need to make a complaint in the future, I will get with another more experienced and neutral editor privately (hopefully an admin if I can figure out how to private message) to ask him to review before I post anywhere and to get advice on the correct place to post it (e.g., BLPN or AN or someplace else). Since I plan to stay off this user's talk page and trust you guys to do your job in these extreme cases, I don't see there being any problems in the future anyhow, but that's my plan just in case. :Thanks again for your time. I know how annoying high-maintenance users are and frequently mute them in our fora. Sorry for being a PIA. ~ [[User:DrL|DrL]] ([[User talk:DrL#top|talk]]) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~))