I stated to editors who are stating that United States colleges and universities, a local newspaper article, and other verifiable references are not third-party sources in the case of the article Draft:In the (D3FB) Huddle that improper application rules can lead to legal action. This is an accurate and true statement, and states my rights and the rights of any of the sources cited since the statements made by those editors are libelous. In addition, I have been told to lie in the article by stating I have a personal relationship to the article (I do not) or that I'm paid for editing (I am not). I stated this multiple times, and the insistence that I lie for this purpose is improper. The sources that were cited in the article, especially after the final edit of it, are all proper and exceed many articles approved on Wikipedia. When I asked the editor their country of residence (since that might explain some of the confusion), they took exception to the question when in reality, it might explain a lot of why they weren't understanding the verifiability and veracity of the sources. I am an attorney, and a statement of legal rights is not a threat to sue, but a reminder to everyone that rules must be applied fairly and equally in the United States for an entity to exist in the United States. Bias is now being shown and I requested to speak with an administrator before being blocked. This is improper, and I request both unblocking and final approval of the article in its current state. I would also ask that the last two reviewers be scrutinized for their approach related to this article, as it was grossly improper. Thank you.

It is not possible for me to grant "final approval of the article in its current state"; this is not something within the power of an administrator. Your repeated submission of that article was indeed disruptive; you are meant to meaningfully address the feedback prior to resubmitting, which you failed to do. Furthermore, your actions were clearly meant to have a chilling effect, in contradiction to WP:NLT. As you have not yet withdrawn your legal threat, there's nothing more to be done here. Yamla (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read through WP:NLT, and it states specifically, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org." Before I had an opportunity to do so, I was banned from the live chat and stated that fact above. As such, NO LEGAL THREAT HAS BEEN MADE. This was an overreaction by reviewers and I stated as such here. In addition, the same reviewers that blocked me when I explained my references were UNITED STATES COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, A LOCAL NEWSPAPER, ESPN, AND D3FOOTBALL.COM -- a fully independent Division 3 football source nationally -- were still reviewing the article when it was clear they had some sort of improper bias. I asked to be put in touch with an admin, and they refused as they blocked me in live chat. This isn't appropriate. Again, I request unblocking and scrutiny for their actions, as their actions are a detriment to the Wikipedia community. BSpaTruthSquad (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You made a clear legal threat. Legal threats are not just statements of intent to seek legal action, but discussing legal action in a way meant to have a chilling effect on other editors. That's what you did, and until you withdraw the threat, there is nothing more to be done here. We cannot stop you from exercising any legal rights you have in your country, but you cannot edit Wikipedia with a threat outstanding, nor can you if you have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both. I am declining your request, further appeals will have to be made as described below. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]