User talk:Crusader316

Welcome!

Hi, Crusader316. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, or ask a question on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

That discussion can be found here. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have openly admitted to being previously blocked and/or banned. You have the burden of proof to establish that your block/ban has either expired or been lifted. If you are able to do so you may ping me here. Until such time you may not edit the encyclopedia either under this or any other username. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only applicable suspension was a highly dubious one for supposedly violating a "3 revert" rule that I did not even know. Now, if you know so much about these things, what is the customary suspension for same? This happened, I would estimate, about a year ago, and I do not even remember what my user name was then. If I had wanted to sneak on here, why would I have admitted to being at the center of controversy in the past? No, the only things I'm "guilty" of is (A) Being too honest, apparently and (B) Not being politically progressive enough. The only edit I made in an actual article was one for which I was immediately "thanked" by another user who, by the way, clearly did not share my political views. S/he thanked me because I added something informative to an article, which someone then deleted simply because I had written it.

But I've been through this before. I was not suspended for any wrongdoing. Rather, I was singled out for highly selective rules lawyering because that "Bugs" person hates the Catholic Church, of which I mentioned I am a member. The only reason I joined was to object to an obscene photo in the DYK section on the main page. I felt it was my responsibility to do so as minors would undoubtedly see it. While I was here, I thought I would ask permission to make such edits as would balance out the prevailing secular progressive bias and at the same time give information that I might know and others might, for whatever reason, not. When I was suspended, I was in the talk page on Theresa May asking if there could be a reference to the Hezbollah controversy. Notice that I did not edit the page right away, but went to the talk page to assess whether or not such an edit would be acceptable.

I went to extraordinary lengths to follow protocol and to be forthright, but the latter was used very disingenuously against me. So, ban away. I won't be back, and you may congratulate yourself and your up-to-date, sycophantic and ever so politically correct cronies on having made Wikipedia a bit more of an irrelevant echo chamber- a place in which people with San Francisco, CA values go to delude themselves and tell one another how much more enlightened they are than everyone else. Pompous, intolerant and even bigoted (against Jews, Asians, Catholics, etc...), the modern Left continues to astonish me by hitting rock bottom and digging. Every time I think that it cannot be anymore absurd or hypocritical, it proves me wrong. And no, you are not a conservative of any kind. I'm quite familiar with conservatism, American and British, and you are the definition of a globalist, progressive PC policeman, whose interest is more in feeling informed than being informed. That Bugs has not been disciplined for his execrable behavior is proof enough of the sort of people you and the other admins seek out: You'll get the people you deserve.

You admitted on the admin talk page that my user name, which apparently drives progressives up the wall, was a factor in your decision. That, morally speaking, established mens rea as pertains to why you got rid of me.

Adieu,

A smart, honest and learned man you just lost Crusader316 (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your trolling was pretty obvious. Some of us were just applying WP:ROPE. Toddst1 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does "the only applicable suspension was a highly dubious one for supposedly violating a "3 revert" rule that I did not even know...... This happened, I would estimate, about a year ago" tally with "I may have been banned some time in the 2000's, more than a decade ago. I don't even remember clearly whether it was a ban or a suspension"? Also in the case of 3RR, admins are generally very careful to make sure you received a warning before blocking, so if you didn't know, it seems likely it's your own fault. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I had a look, including in the revision history for edits that were reverted, and I'm not convinced anyone has asked anything about Hezbollah on the Theresa May talk page in the last ~2 years. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]