I have been blocked by users with apparent bias. The only things I did were as follows: 1. Added reliable references to a page. 2. Undid a number of vandalisms of my references, including one by the user who got me blockedBeauty School Dropout. 3. Responded without insult to a rude message by the same user, who, after vandalising my edit, sent a message beginning "Are you effing serious?", which is clearly inappropriate, and called me a clown. I did nothing rude in response to this. I know that Wikipedia has a reputation for being unreliable, but I didn't think biased edits, vandalism, rude messages, and insults could be used by the user who perpetrated them, in this caseBeauty School Dropout, to get someone banned, just because the other user has been here longer.(HighlyReferenced (talk)09:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia,or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read theguide to appealing blocks for more information. --Dlohcierekim (talk)10:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave very specific reasons previously, but in response to the reasons for the declining of my unblock request, the block is not necessary to prevent damage to Wikipedia. I carried out no damage, I simply added a very small note with appropriate, reliable references, to help remove some of the bias on an article. I did not know that undoing vandalism counted as edit warring, considering the history I have seen on pages where registered users have undone edits (citing 'vandalism', sometimes inappropriately) multiple times within a short period. Is it one rule for long-term members (or members from the USA, and therefore racism) and another rule for those who just signed up (or are not American, as most of the admins and editors seem to be)?HighlyReferenced (talk)04:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same rule applies to everyone, no matter where they are from, and trying to claim that somehow you're being oppressed, when nobody here has any way of knowing who you are or where you are from, doesn't help your case. Your "very small note with appropraite, reliable references" was either deliberately disruptive or indicative that you arenot able to distinguish what is disruptive and what is not. It was reverted. Youproceeded to pitch your toys out of the pram accusing the editors reverting your disruptive edits of vandalism and threatening to have them blocked. The fact you insist you are right does not make you right, and the fact you insist those reverting you are vandals doesnot make them vandals. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]