User talk:Unauthoress

September 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: I did not vandalize anything. Mastriano is indeed a knight for putting up with you liberal maniacs. Stop undoing my edits on your talk page.

@Ser!: No response? Because you had plenty to say back to the people defending Doug Mastriano in the Mastriano talk page.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Gusfriend (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for the explanation regarding my indefinite block. I feel it should be removed as there was no "persistent disruptive editing," but rather an isolated edit of mine that was immediately reverted. I did not revert the revert nor engage in an edit war or make the edit a second time once my edit was deleted. I was given a warning and the situation was resolved here.Then Bbb23 comes in after this was completely resolved in an amicable fashion, and Bbb23 indefinitely blocks me. Furthermore, I feel it is appropriate to address other edits I have made that have been cited. Regarding the Chauvin edit of adding the word "back of" before neck, that is not "pushing my agenda," that is using the verbatim words of the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of Floyd. Falsely writing that Chauvin has his knee on Floyd's "neck" and caused him to suffocate is the only claim pushing an agenda, as is claiming the Republican candidate in a razor thin PA governor race is "far-right" in the lead sentence of his article and linking to an article about Hitler and the KKK. What would an undecided PA voter think of that when they look up Mastriano? That is pushing a political agenda, as AOC's page does not, and certainly not in the lead sentence does not, contain the word "far-left." Nevertheless, blocks cannot be punitive, and so referencing edits from months ago is improper. This situation had already been resolved. Finally, I am allowed to express my viewpoint on articles in the talk page of that article, that is the purpose of talk pages. Referencing statements I made in a talk page that you disagree fails to provide grounds for a legitimate block. This is a censorship block. You don't like what I am saying, so you have issued me an infinitely long block. I would ask that the block, at the very least, be given a reasonable expiry date. I have edited Wikipedia constructively, and would like to continue to do that. Unauthoress 00:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2022 (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're going to have address the socking issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, aside from the WP:SOCKing. I recuse from the unblock request as I endorsed a NOTHERE block t ANI.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: If you are recused then why are you giving you commentary regarding this block (that is also not accurate)? I AM here to build an encyclopedia and have for the last five months I have been on here with my edits. I understand you disagree with my viewpoints I properly set forth in a talk page, but that does not legitimately allow you to censor me, which is clearly what this block is. Unauthoress 00:26, 5 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am happy to address the sock issue. RazorThick is indeed my other account, and it is not an imporper sock. Alt accoutns are allowed so long as they are not used to gain unfair advantages or for illigetimate purposes. Other than that, alts are allowed. See this page. Now please lift the block on both accounts or set a reasonable expiry date on it. They are not forbidden socks, but permitted alts (see this page.).Unauthoress 00:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blatant violation of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. This account is not a valid alt account, given that it was set up to evade sanctions. Yamla (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2022 (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.

@Yamla: Not true...that account had not been under a block or "sanctions" until yesterday when it was banned due to it being a "sock." It is a completely permissible alt, and you cannot identify what "sanctions" had been on that account that I was supposedly evading. It is a perfectly permissible alt, but you want me off Wikipedia because you disagree with my politics, so you don't mind ignoring the actual policies and allowing this block to remain. Go ban User:Eagles247 because he has an alt.