Luciusfoxx
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-1932 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.
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.
Neutralitytalk 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You can stay the fuck off my talk page edit
Template me again with this sort of blatant hypocrisy, and I WILL bring it to ANI, and you will be surprised to learn that the admins aren't stupid enough to fall for your not-nearly-as-subtle-as-you-think-they-are personal attacks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 edit
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:MjolnirPants has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 20:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Luciusfoxx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Obvious socking?!??! Without an SPI?!??!? Based upon what evidence, exactly? If this isn't a censorship move, I don't know what is. It is clear, based on an angry admin's opinion that he thinks "I'm obviously socking" that this was put into place. I don't apologize for my support of Trump, I don't apologize for my political opinions. Clear mob rule over an active ANI resulted in this. Fix this all you want. This isn't how you moderate wikipedia. Where is the duck evidence? Where is the check user??? Sock of whom FCS? Ridiculous, no other way to put it. Examine my history. Find my old account from 2006-08. Never blocked. My occasional IP edits over the years harmless enough. Knee-jerk moderating from people that just can't stand that I have an opinion other than they have. Finally, as far as being also accused of "trolling" an user named MPants, how so? Because my defense of Dinesh D'Souza whom I find to be a great filmmaker happens to be my opinion, and he can't handle it because he disagree with it?! Any remarks, on the talk page no less, where mine and mine alone. They were civil. Directed at me, and my own personal opinion, and kept on-topic for the purpose of the solitary benign change I proposed to the Dinesh D'Souza article. For that I was attacked out of the gate by a disruptive editor (ie. Mpants) who have been banned before for this behavior. When I politely put a template on his page, which an admin essentially trolled me over by suggesting it was used wrongly, he attacked me with vicious verbally violent sexual remarks and derogatory statements against me. When I went to make a civil complaint on an admin board, I was greeted by a dogpile and mockery. Finally an admin with his opinion and only his opinion indef bans me because in his mind I am a sock. If he were psychic, he'd know this was wrong. His paranoia and knee-jerk reaction count as a serious indictment, trial and life-sentence?? I am guilty until proven innocent???? Look at my history. Look at my humble edits and remarks on the Dinesh D'Souza page. Look at my thoughtful ANI about disruptive user Mpants. Try and tell me that I'm the troll when nothing I have done even compares to this repeat offender?? This is at least projecting and at worst rigged in some sense. I hope that the reviewing admin actually takes time to look into this rather than rubber stamp and outcome. But the editor I reported was attacking me with the words "fuck off" and a rape threat telling me to [http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MjolnirPants&diff=prev&oldid=884143661 "fuck [my] shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube."] It was my duty to report that and given what was said I am within my rights to be a little shaken and emotional. For reporting it, I get accused of being a sock and then indeffed? So, I get sexually harassed in that way and my punishment for reporting it is I get banned? Talk about victim blaming. I should consider a lawsuit against Wikipedia for blatantly enabling harassment. Luciusfoxx (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nothing in this request is a reason to grant you the ability to edit any further on this project, this private website. You may call this mob rule or censorship, but that you'd use that terminology already suggests you didn't come here with good intentions. I don't know if I should be happy for you or sad for us that I'm only confirming what you're pretending you already thought, but it is what it is: your edits are disruptive and you give no indication that you will play by the rules. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
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.
Congrats you can't be unblocked now that you made a legal threat at the end. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did no such thing. Do not put words into my mouth. I said "I should consider a lawsuit." For the record I am not threatening a lawsuit. If you read what happened to me and actually looked into it, you'd see I was sexually harassed, and understand the legal implications of that. Still sorting this out. Trying to figure out if someone found my old account as I can not find it. If they did they would see that I'm openly gay. The remarks smacked of homophobia. One of the embarrassing very private reasons I retired in '08 from wikipedia. I am a Log Cabin Republican. Experienced terrible online harassment then for opening up about that. These attacks now are eerily similar to the attacks made against me then. Unless you have something of value to offer in this discussion I would ask you do not rush to judgement and leave me be. I've appealed this and there is little more I can do to challenge this injustice other than pray to God everything happens for a reason. Take care.Luciusfoxx (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.