I’d also add that wall-of-text unblock requests pretty much never succeeed. If you need 11 paragraphs to explain why you should be unblocked, you probably shouldn’t be unblocked. There may be exceptions but generally these type of requests are wikilawerying at its worst.
Paragraph 1 - setting the scene. Explain who/what/where/when. You need to do this because most Administrators are lazy fucks, and will automatically decline any request that does not include this basic background information.
Paragraph 2 - explain the policy violations. You need to do this, because obviously nobody gets unblocked without explaining what policy was violated in blocking you.
Paragraphs 3 to 5 - counter-narrative. Explain how and why your main critic's central arguments that you deserve to be blocked are incorrect. You will need to do this, with detailed reasoning, because the only time anyone even has a chance of appealing a block long enough to be worthy of appealing, is if there was some back and forth dispute. If the Administrator answering the appeal doesn't see this, he doesn't unblock. And if he doesn't ask for it, he isn't doing his job.
Paragraph 6 - contrition. Say the necessary words that account for whatever it is you did wrong to earn your block, because it is unlikely you would need to even appeal an obviously incorrect block where you did nothing wrong at all, either because it was a mistake or an abusive block.
Paragraph 7 - learning opportunity. Explain how you have learned from these mistakes and will not repeat them. Give concrete examples as to why you can be trusted to have learnt your much needed lessons. You will not be unblocked, if this content is missing.
Paragraph 8 - recommitment. Restate your commitment to Wikipedia, if, as is your sincere hope, the benign and merciful Administrator deems you worthy a second chance. Nobody gets unblocked if they do not say the magic words. Every unblock is considered by the cult to be a second chance, unless it was literally a mistake or an abusive block.
Paragraph 9 - negotiation. Lay out some possible terms under which you might be unblocked. You need to do this since the mere fact you were blocked will be used by the reviewing Administrator as evidence you cannot be trusted, and even though you had to include Paragraph 7, they will need to see you playing a good faith part in ensuring your rehabilitation. Also because they're lazy fucks, and taking the lead in any negotiation is not what they signed up for, even though they literally did by answering the request.
Paragraph 10 - apologies in advance. Apologise for any mistakes you will have made in how you have framed your unblock request. You need to do this, because in the Wikipedia cult, it is of course assumed that if you are dumb enough to get blocked, it isn't possible you could write a perfect unlock request. If they can't find a fault, they will invent one.
Paragraph 11 - farewells. Say goodbye to anyone you need to, express your gratitude at what a great time you had on Wikipedia, this unfortunate incident aside. You need to do this to show you are not a bad person, if only to leave the door open for a successful STANDARDOFFER. And you need to do it as part of your request because you may not get the chance afterward, since talk page protection is usually what swiftly follows a declined appeal.
There, Beeblebrox. That's why Wikipedia block appeals can quite easily be 11 paragraphs long. Anything shorter, if it doesn't lead to a decline, simply means the remaining paragraphs get written outside of the little blue box, but they are
required for the victim of a genuinely appealable block, to have any hope of success.
The only conceivable way it is ever shorter and is a success, is if corruption is involved, specifically friends unblocking friends, or back-channel negotiations were involved, or a power play (i.e. the poor user is being used by Administrators in a bigger game of which faction has control offer whatever issue of current dispute).
So in conclusion, fuck you.
And fuck you Jake for providing a safe space for people like this to continue to victimize the victims and patronize the knowledgeable.
Wikipedia is not rocket science, not the theory or the practice, it just takes time to see the wood for the trees. That is why they set such store in keeping those who know how it works but don't want to play the game, out.