On the "talk" page of user SummerPhDv2.0, I provided legitimate and polite criticism of her actions and statements, which she chose to deliberately and purposely interpret as "personal attacks", for the purpose of silencing criticism. Her talk page shows a pattern of this sort of abuse. She then posted on my talk page that I was (falsely) engaging in "personal attacks" against her, and that I did not know what "personal attacks" were. Again: a criticism such as the ones I posted are not "personal attacks."

Then, when I deleted that false accusation on my talk page, itself a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility, and responded to her on her talk page...which is what the talk page is FOR...she falsely accused me of vandalism, and then deleted my concerns again. When I replied again, she issued a threat to notify my ISP, so I warned her again that she was in direct violation of Wikipedia policy...which resulted in my comments once again being deleted...from a talk page, which is the entire purpose of a talk page...and then another admin blocked me for "trolling" and "disruption"...for TALKING on a TALK page.

This frivolous abuse of authority is why Wikipedia has not just become useless, but in fact dangerously biased as an online "encyclopedia." Talk pages are designed to talk. If administrators are incapable of dealing with polite criticism, they have no business having the authority to silence others, in total violation of both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy.

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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Newslinger talk 05:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the decision by talk above, the reason given for declining the unblock is insufficient, as it does not address my reason for requesting the unblock, which is that the justification for blocking me was, itself, not valid. There was no "trolling" occurring, nor was there any "disruption", therefore the block itself was illegitimate. In light of that, since there was no damage or disruption to Wikipedia, there is no need to "convince" the reviewing administrator that that which did not exist in the first place is occurring. It is a presumption of guilt, for which I must then "prove" my "innocence", rather than a presumption of innocence. I understand why I was blocked: I offered polite criticism to someone who falsely interpreted said criticism as a "personal attack", and then used her extensive experience with the mechanism of Wikipedia to silence said criticism, while engaging in personal attacks herself, which she was successful in achieving. Since I did not "cause damage or disruption", I cannot therefore state I will not "continue" that which I didn't do. I am happy to make useful contributions; in fact, I already did. But if the word "useful" is up to the interpretation (read: whim) of others, then Wikipedia becomes merely an echo chamber for a small group of like-minded people. Talk pages are for talking. Blocking people because they use the talk page for what it is intended is a violation of the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy.

Almost all of your edits are to harass another user, with no substantive contributions to this project itself. As such, I concur with the rationale for the block, and since you don't think you did anything wrong at all, there are no grounds to remove the block. I would urge you to both change your attitude and find something else to edit about, or you may find yourself blocked longer in the future. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]