" | decline = I see that you have concerns that well-sourced critical content about a school is given too much weight in an article about that school. I see no reason to doubt that your concerns about that are sincere. I equally have no doubt that the dissent from that view on the part of other editors is sincere. As the administrator assessing your unblock request, it is no part of my job to assess the validity of either of those evidently sincere opinions. It is, however, my task to assess how you have handled the disagreement. You have refused to consider that there may be genuine, good-faith disagreement, but have instead repeatedly thrown accusations of malice against those who have expressed opinions contrary to yours. You have wikilawyered and twisted and twisted to try to show that you are RIGHT. You have treated Wikipedia as a battleground, where the way to deal with anyone you disagree with is to relentlessly attack them, not as a collaborative environment where the way to deal with disagreements is to discuss with a view to trying to reach agreement. You have persistently refused to accept that Wikipedia works by consensus, not by the person who shouts most  loudly ""RIGHT IS ON MY SIDE"" gets his or her way. You have attempted to intimidate other editors by suggesting that they might be subject to legal redress. (I have no interest in engaging with semantic quarrels about whether what you said constituted ""attacks"" or not.) You have repeatedly and persistently failed to hear what others have said to you when it has not suited your preferred view. You have repeatedly accused other editors of doing exactly the kind of things that I see you doing all the time. I get the impression that you sincerely do not see that you have been doing those things, but that is how it looks to me, viewing the matter as an uninvolved outsider, who had never before heard of this dispute, nor even of the school in question. As you have done with other issues, you wikilawyer over whether what you have done fits your reading of a definition of ""disruptive"" that you dredge up: I have no interest in responding to that, I simply ask myself ""do this editor's actions disrupt the working of the Wikipedia community?"" to which the answer is clearly and obviously ""yes, very much so"". The only thing about this block which might be reconsidered is that it is for a mere three days. Considering that your disruptive editing has been continuing over a period of more than three months, I would have blocked you for significantly longer. I suggest that you may find it helpful to stand back, look at your editing, try to imagine how it must look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved third party, and think how, when this very short block expires, you may be able to edit in ways that look more constructive to such a third party. The editor who uses the pseudonym """"  "