User talk:Christ the Unredeemer

@Hemiauchenia:

If or when a child is abused because of your inability to get your head around the fact those tabloid reports are true, would you like to be credited with your part in the tragedy as, "Hemiauchenia, enthusiastic Wikipedia editor", or "Hemiauchenia, sceptical Wikipedia editor." I want the news reports to accurately convey your reason for being a Wikipediocracy member. I.e., is it because you actually think Wikipedia has done anything wrong here and want the root cause debated, up to and including Guy Macon's clear wish to misrepresent basic facts to further the cause (and the fact nobody here stops him, because it is convenient for his lies to go unchallenged). Or is your participation there only to retaliate against someone you perceive as an enemy of Wikipedia, for doing nothing more grave than exposing the fact Wikipedia editors as a collective don't want to acknowledge they would rather put kids at risk than examine the accuracy of tabloid reports on an individual basis. I will understand if you don't wish to reply to my message. I would want to stay silent too, if I were in your position. But since I have morals and a conscience, I am not. Yours, Christ the Unredeemer (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Brian K Horton per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. – bradv🍁 19:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]