User talk:CompromisingSuggestion

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You wrote on my talk page Man we can be mortal enemies but if I sue you in court you gotta serve me, that's all I'm saying. I will not be intimidated. You know my real name and where I live. Have your attorney reach out to me, and I will put that person in touch with my attorney, and the attorneys will take it from there. You will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia until your legal action has been resolved. Good luck with that. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if you unambiguously withdraw your legal threat, you can request an unblock for review by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating my request under "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand#Communication" Paragraph 7 for explanation. Its general policy and not just for arbitration purposes Cullen328

You thought that my previous explanations of when we should speak to each other were not well defined "vague, undefined circumstances."User talk:Cullen328

I then clarified that by giving you an example of that even if we were mortal enemies (which by any stretch of imagination we aren't even now) and if I were to sue you, you'd have to serve me (I meant I'd have to serve you but that's irrelevant).

How could you reasonably construe this as a threat when it's in a direct response to a statement that clearly from your perspective demands clarification and the analogy is perfectly fitting? Even worse, it's exactly what we are doing right now. You sued and judged me (as you're both accuser and judge) and then communicated that by serving this notice to me and now I am requesting communication on the basis of policy not because I want to talk to you. Exactly as per my analogy. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say if you sue me in court you gotta serve me, even the sentence is a bit messed up, are you kidding me? I was making a parallel to the fact that you told me you were going to talk about me "in other places on Wikipedia" because I wouldnt disclose my IP to you. And I then asked you something like "Hey man at least tell me if its something serious" (paraphrasing here) you told me "you cant tell me not to talk to you and then to talk to you" and I just gave you an example of where even "mortal enemies" have to talk to each other, at least by proxy in real life. I dont even know who you are, I dont even live in your country, what sueing do I Have to do, are you kidding me? What is WRONG with yo, why are you stalking me, why are you threatening to talk to people about me? Why are you demanading I reveal my IP to you? Why are you suspicious of me? Why do you come to my talk page when I asked you not to talk to me earlier. WHY DID YOU INIATE ANY OF THIS?CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If you change your mind and treat newbies with respect, assuming good faith and staying objective please let me know and we can chat.

I assume good faith of every single editor who responds honestly and frankly to reasonable questions. You are not a newbie. You are a returning editor and you are actively concealing the details of your past editing. Fresh start accounts are permitted, but such accounts need to avoid anything related to their past editing. You are going around the encyclopedia complaining about how you were treated in the past, but you refuse to identify those past controversies and your involvement. That is deceptive and uncollaborative, and contrary to behavioral norms. I have a need to know whether or not you are subject to any previous blocks or editing restrictions. As for "staying objective", it is my responsibility as an administrator to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I will continue to do so as I have done continuously for the past five years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie, I've just had a long debate on a talk-page once about something that I never even edited, completely unrelated to US politics, mostly because people were being disingenuous. You're not assuming good faith, you're making a whole lot of assumptions about me. You're misrepresenting what I say, you're lying about what is happenign on Wikipedia pages, etc.

Anyway the experience embittered me and I never wanted to return to Wikipedia but I saw this article and the unfairness its being treated with and so Im giving this an other attempt. Please stop posting on my talk page now and stop interacting with me. I do not wish to have contact with you, I feel your harassing me and taking a creepy interest in me when I've been extremely polite and just inquisitive the whole time and just begging you to please look at the things I've said and address them cohesively and in context. You still havent done so. As I told you before, when I got your curt reply to my questions in Teahouse I thought you didnt have time, but here you are continuing talking to me instead of helping me out.

I do not have a dispute with you and I do not know who you are and I do not wish to speak to you. Please leave me alone. Thank you CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the username of your previous account? If you were editing as an IP, what is the title of the article you got into a conflict with, and what was the timeframe that you were editing? Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking to you as you misrepresent what I say, put words in my mouth, falsely describe an article as having any sort of consensus when it doesnt and do not assist me (well okay, some stuff has been helpful, thanks for that), despite never having had a dispute with me. Why I do not know. Probably because Im new and taking up a lot of space. Or something. I dont care to learn why to be honest. Have a nice day. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you previously, Wikipedia is based on transparency and openness. In the 14 years that I have been editing, I have responded to every single inquiry on my talk page with transparency, openness, honesty and frankness. Since you have chosen to reject openness and transparency, and conceal your past contributions while complaining about your hidden past experiences on Wikipedia, I intend, as an administrator, to take an ongoing look at your editing. This is to ensure that you comply with Wikipedia's

Policies and guidelines. If you change your mind and decide to edit in a transparent and open fashion, please let me know and answer my reasonable questions. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool. If you change your mind and treat newbies with respect, assuming good faith and staying objective please let me know and we can chat. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the block notice above for instructions on how to appeal the block. If you choose to appeal, another administrator will review your appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're powertripping around my account man, I'm currently in several conversations with people and this block just makes everyone distrust me and not want to talk to me and I can't even reply to my villagepump and teahouse questions. You know very well in what context that was made. YOU KNOW that it was just an example to illustrate when we should talk to each other. What you are doing is deeply immoral, you are abusing your power even worse now. I really dont think that you should be an admin. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listen man I dont want to talk to you, you seem to want to talk to me, but youre the only person I can talk to now so Is my template correct, will other people see my reply now and come to my talk page or how does this work? I have no one else to ask man... If I messed it up can you please edit it somehow, thanks. edit: I went to the discord and someone helped me there so its fixed now I think CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompromisingSuggestion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hey guys.

Post is a bit long because there's a lot of history. I'm sure Cullen has his own views on me, I don't mean to discuss his actions prior to this but they are needed for context in understanding why a reasonable person could never assume this was a legal threat.

I had an impression of this admin has been stalking me from the Teahouse to my talkpage, assuming the worst about me at every turn. When I realised he might not be objective (for what ever reason) in answer my questions in the teahouse I asked him there not to reply to me and i moved on to discuss things more in depth on peoples talkpages and on the villagepump where I've goten much more interesting answers. In the mean time Cullen game to my talkpage asking me to compromise my personal integrity by spilling out my IP to him in public (the article but my IP would be obviously there, it was the only IP in the talkpages). I said I wouldnt do it as i dont like him and dont trust him due to his misrepresentations of both my words and a Wikipedia page I'm interested in editing. Doesn't really matter who is right or wrong on this but those were my impressions. He took an even more hostile and threatening tone, I told him to do what he likes but not on my talk page. So we moved to his talk page, where he said that he would talk "about me" to other people at other places. I just asked the guy to man up and at least somehow tag me when he does that. He didn't quite understand how he can tag me without talking to me and I told him not to talk to me. So I gave him an example of "if I sue you , you gotta serve me" (I actually messed up that sentence a bit, I was gonna write either "if I sue you, I gotta serve you or "if you sue me you gotta serve me" but my English is not the best and I may be a little bit dyslectic.

I dont want to take anything back cause I think in the EXTENSIVE context it is apparent to him that it was just an example and that it's he who is threatening and now actually taking action against me, I just wanted to be informed of when it happens...christ I guess I got what I "wanted". Interesting also, he did know how to come to my talk page and "talk to me" when he took this action, while he pretended this would be an obvious conflict earlier. Cullen is clearly a smart cookie and there's no way a reasonable person (

WP:THREATEN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

) after all this context could assume what he did, thus I claim it's on purposes disingenuous on his part. He has an agenda against me that's built on pre-conceived notions he has about me and my history and that has been further re-enforced by my refusal to interact with him on his terms. Its like if some little guy says no to the king, even a good king gets indignant.

My English isn't the best, I've mentioned this in my edits on RFK Jr, on my Edit on the Iran Detaines, on my edits in Teahouse, etc. But no threat was ever made, just an appropriate real world example of that "even mortal enemies have to communicate to each other"

Links to relevant pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#What_can_you_do_when_you_feel_bullied_by_other_editors?

Decline reason:

You could have made a brief request where you said "I didn't mean to make a legal threat, I was making an analogy, I withdraw any and all threats I may have appeared to make". Instead, you made the above lengthy statement to dump on another user. This does not give me confidence that you won't act in this manner with others, so I decline to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You do know that if you withdraw the legal threat, you will probably be unblocked quite quickly if Admins are on the watch. However, judging by all your

There was no legal threat given the context of our long coversation spanning several wikipedia pages that both obviously were privy to. There's nothing to withdraw. I feel alone and this isn't funny to me but I think Ill stand by what is right for what little internet freedom (both actionable and actual) we have left instead of letting someone arbitrarily take it away from me on a technicality because he doesn't like me and suspects me to be someone Im not. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompromisingSuggestion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi to anyone reading this. Trying this a second time. Less verbose. I never made a legal threat nor can it be construed as such by a reasonable person who is privy to all context. I made an analogy to explain to Cullen when he should contact me in reference to his statement "CompromisingSuggestion, you cannot insist that I not talk to you and then come back and ask me to talk with you in certain vague, undefined circumstances."User talk:Cullen328 I asked this person several times to refrain from contacting me and then asked him to contact me when he threatened to discuss me with others in "other places" which I know sounded confusing. In that context I thought it was appropriate to say that even if we were mortal enemies if I sued him I'd have to serve him. I then clarified this further with "I guess if it actually gets to be anything serious someone will notify me" meaning that I was expecting Cullen to take action against me, not the other way around. I'm very much interested in collaborating with other people on Wikipedia. In the future I'll refrain from making analogies to real life suits (or legal action, lawyers, etc) when trying to give real world examples to avoid giving any pretexts to anyone or if genuine making them feel like someone is actually threatening them, which I never would do. In reference to my previous denied unblock and the admin worrying about my willingness to cooperate with others: Every single edit I've made so far has been on talk pages or on the teahouse page or on the villagepump. In every single edit I am asking for other peoples opinions before I edit something or do something. Even when I suspect there will be an edit war from if I make an edit I go ahead and make a question in the teahouse on how I can preclude that editwar by starting some kind of dispute resolution. I think Im so afraid of making a mistake and stepping on someones toes that I'm going *too far* in asking for opinions from anyone and everyone who will listen. A lot of this could have been avoided had I just been WP:Bold. Im willing to listen to advice on how to make my future edits better.

Decline reason:

You were given advice above on how to word an acceptable appeal - you have not listened. Accept responsibility for what you have done. Don't blame others for your mistakes. Be brief. It may be that you are not compatible with Wikipedia - not everyone is. But sometimes people can learn and adapt. You can make another appeal, but if you mess up again and make further personal insults ("nor can it be construed as such by a reasonable person", implying the blocking admin and those who have declined your appeal are not reasonable people), then it may be best to remove talkpage access. SilkTork (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You cannot say I didn't try to help you! Just withdraw the threat, but stop igniting your bridges behind you. You're on a knife edge now. Good luck. - Roxy the dog 10:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a history of speaking your mind and getting into trouble as I review your account since well, I've got nothing else to do while waiting to resolve this issue. I don't know why you don't stand with me when an admin uses a technicality to block me because of pre-conceived notions of who I am instead of investigating those as he promised or threatened he would do? Where's your old spirit Roxy?

To anyone else reading this including SilkTork I am not saying that Cullen isn't a reasonable person. I 've instead demonstrated that he felt I was suspicious from his early interactions with me and looked for a way to investigate me. I interpret that as get rid of me. I'm saying he tried to remove me because he thought I'd be (or had been?) a bad editor and that he in that last message found a technicality on which to do so. He as a reasonable person hasn't demonstrated how he could have thought of it as a threat (I've pinged him now to ask him to do that). What ever the motivation he probably thought that this was in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. The reason why I am not willing to accept responsibility for this and move on is that I don't want my account tainted by something like this and I'm willing to argue for it as should be my right under policy. Have you reviewed the context in which the alleged threat was uttered and the fact that clarification was required just before the analogy was made? If not please do so and tell me your thoughts on it.CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: Could you link to the legal threat? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. Now I remember -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dats the one. - Roxy the dog 17:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is it a legal threat given that he needed clarification under what circumstances we should communicate to each other?

Given that I then gave him a hypothetical analogy in which we are mortal enemies and only "if" I sue him?

Given that the analogy is literally playing out right now? CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your previous post, I'm not standing with you cos you're being a dick, a fellow belligerent so and so like myself, only I've been at it for more than ten years longer than you, and I still get sent to the naughty step, on a regular basis. I never stepped out of line for a couple of years though, learning the ropes kinda thing. Served me well, I've only got one topic ban at the moment, in an area where the science says I'm axiomatically correct. Sigh. - Roxy the dog 18:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being a dick? All my posts to cullen were full of pleadings and politeness. He immediately assumed bad faith about me after first misrepresenting what I was asking in the teahouse, saying I'm someone I'm not for no reason other than me being transparent about having had a single conflict on Wikipedia prior. I requested a cessation of communication but asked him to at least "Man up" and tell me or tag me if he's mentioning me "to other people in other places". That Roxy is a threat from him. Although maybe not one against policy.

He then tells me I'm being vague on when he can and can't communicate with me. I give him an analogy to the best of my abilities, he blocks me forever from editing Wikipedia on a technicality despite getting exactly the kind of clarification he requested.

How am I being a dick? Also even if you think I'm a dick, that's not the reason I'm blocked forever and people should stand on principle or not stand at all, at least when it's this serious. If it was 24 hour block over being a dick I wouldn't bat an eye on you making fun of me or what ever. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very late here, and I have much to say, but I'm rather exhausted and dont think I can make so much sense till I've had a good untroubled night's sleep. Please dont drive off the cliff in the meantime! Best. - Roxy the dog 22:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes you are being a dick. Consider the following while bearing in mind the legal threat you made, as highlighted by Deepfriedokra (an experienced Admin) above.

Jim Cullen, who you legally threatened, is an incredibly experienced Admin. on this page he says "On the other hand, if you unambiguously withdraw your legal threat, you can request an unblock for review by another administrator."

331dot, another long term respected (by me and I'm certain others) Admin denied your appeal because you didn't withdraw your legal threat.

Silktork, (who blocked me for a month relatively recently), Is a three time elected member of our Arbitration Committee, elected by the community. ARBCOM is the ultimate arbitration venue for the most difficult issues here. They denied your appeal for the same reasons. (Sadly, while doing background to try to help you, I have become embroiled in a rather contrived issue myself.)

All of them, plus myself, a rather mischievous dog with lots of wiki experience, giving you the same advice, vis - withdraw the legal threat. If you make another one of your verbose TLDR "but I didnt do anything" appeals you'll be permabanned. Your next move seems obvious to me. - Roxy the dog 13:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, @Roxy the dog: amen. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you call yourself a dog is creeping me out. That's kinda beyond the point, I know your name is "Roxy the Dog", your dog was named Roxy or something, right? But it's just weird dude. Don't denigrate yourself like that. Stand tall.

Anyway, if you had some proverbial balls like you say you have you'd address the issue itself, which you and everyone else on this talkpage have refused to do. I.e. simply musing over how it's a legal threat in the context of the analogy explained the previous statement.

Why is this important? This whole ting? Because Wikipedia is a scary place for newbies, because people get trapped in technicalities, because only 20% of people have more than 10 successful edits, because there's more terminology to learn here than to become a paralegal.

So someone with so much more experience and an advantage should be able to twist the arm of someone else just based on that. It's messed up asking anyone to come crawling to the cross to withdraw something they feel they never made. In most legal parlance if I tell you there's no threat it's the same as withdrawing it for all intents and purposes but here they want you to somehow admit your guilty to move on. It's not normal, even if I'm wrong I should be given an appropriate punishment and things should move on.

I'm being punished not for being a dick, but you keep re-iterating that I am one. Even though like, every message before that "legal threat" was a polite one without any insults or accusations or anything. It's not fair, but you do you. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS, FYI, Roxy was

arguing technicalities rather than editing. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm trying to do the right thing here. Not for me anymore. I don't even know if my edit is going to succeed, I tried asking people for support in helping me edit it and formulate it. The few people who got interested are probably not interested now that they've seen me blocked and the people in the article just mischaracterized the whole suggestion because they are tired of dealing with anti-vaccine people so nobody really wants to do the rigth thing. Whether its here on my talkpage or on that article I tried to improve.

There's been quite a lot of activity around my account here and on other talkpages. People discussing various points but nobody except one person in one chat discussed the actual appeal and whether or not I actually made a legal threat and why. He ended up agreeing with me after a lengthy discussion.

I wonder why that is. It's sad that Roxy got blocked, apparently again. At least she wasn't blocked permanently for her first offense.

IN this time i've been blocked I've been researching and I see other people have mentioned the same things I have. That there is a hierarchy on Wikipedia that holds a bunch of influence. That the rules and bureacracy are too intricate and that they are used by experienced accounts to clamp down on new users.

(https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-elite-diversity-foundation

https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/10/22/175674/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies)

She tells me I'm a dick, but doesn't tell me why.

Cullen tells me I made a threat to him, but refused to clarify how it's a threat despite having to do so according to policy.

I appeal and I'm told to seek clemency instead.

Nobody wants to fight for me, or even give me a fair hearing because I'm a nobody and Wikipedia is a place full of hierarchies, friendships and long collaborations where 1% of users make 70%+ of the content and people would rather keep that going than do the right thing. That's okay, but it means that more people who do even less research than me will suffer and never be able to contribute to Wikipedia because they can't be bothered to play some kind of second-life roleplaying game with a whole parallel legal system instead of just editing a few articles now and then.

And that's a threat to what Wikipedia is all about.

Also I recently learned about this admin Edgar181 that blocked 50 000 people and had 12+ sock accounts and was only ever acted against when he used all 12 sock accounts to manipulate an Arb election. I'm sure there had been complaints about him earlier, by little accounts like mine. But nobody took aciton until the fire was under their own feet. And even then, dozens upon dozens of people sent their regards and thanks to his talk page...yeah man, no corruption. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CompromisingSuggestion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like for this to be a community appeal. My appeal is based on Wikipedia:Appealing a block Type 1 form of appeal. Please don't ask me to ask for clemency but address the points I'm making and judge according to the best of your abilities. Thank you.

Reasons for appeal:

1. A Threat according to Wikipedia is defined as having intent and been done knowingly. The threat Cullen alleges to have happened was never intended to be a threat, let alone knowingly.

2. The reason why there was no intent was that it was an obvious analogy intended to clarify a previous statement which Cullen did not understand . Please if you're going to give this a serious hearing, at least read the context of that short exchange between us. Though I encourage you to dig further if you have the time and energy. Also please note that the statement was, as is expected from an analogy, hypothetical using the phrasing "IF" I were to sue you. Further clarifying that it's a hypothetical was the preface "even mortal enemies" which by any stretch of the imagination me and Cullen weren't and still aren't.

3. Cullen was asked to himself clarify how he could have perceived it as a threat in my talkpage. He has had 10+ days to do so but has not. This despite according to policy him being expected to do so. Thus either he does not takes his own accusation seriously himself or he has no good answer. Note that he has been active since then, making edits every day totaling well over 100 edits since I made the request for clarification.

Thanks for your attention. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as you seem to be leaving. You may make a new request if I am in error. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was told in wikipedia IRC that I merely have to mention Community Appeal to have it moved there. That there is no template or such. If this is wrong, please edit my request and/or do me the courtesy of moving it there as I am blocked from contributing anywhere else on the Wiki, thanks. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your request is an unwise move, but as a courtesy I have transferred your message to

Now that sounds a like a threat.

Not that it matters. I'm sure you intended it in the best possible way and have my best interests at heart, wanting to see me contribute to this vast repository of human knowledge rather than being denied that right for the rest of my life over something like this. Thank you for your kind concern, but I think moving the Wikipedia a little bit towards leniency, openness, common sense and fairness for new users is as good of a worthy thing spending my time on as would be making a few edits. If I have some positive influence there then I'll think of it as wisely spent time. And if not, well, then this wasn't my place anyway.

Thanks for moving it there.

edit: I take note that not a single of the administrators discussing my case are even entertaining let alone dismantling any of the arguments I've put forth. It is taken as a legal threat verbatim and my words are ignored as before. I wouldnt mind failing with people having reasonable arguments, but this way, I just know that Wikipedia is the one that failed me. Good bye. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant was that it was unwise in that it would only waste your time as wouldn't advance your goal of being unblocked. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

You have been told exactly what you could have done to be unblocked, but you've declined and preferred to wikilawyer your way out of it, and it's not working. That's no one's responsibility but yours. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]