User talk:Alexcasperphilly

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Longestview (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is outside interference in our democratic process of our political party. Thank you. Alexcasperphilly (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was editing a page as an elected member of the party

Decline reason:

Your attacks upon other editors are intolerable. And your conflict of interest on this topic is overwhelming. That you are an elected member of the body makes it inappropriate for you to be editing this article at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:54, 1 January 2024 (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.

I am an elected member of the party. The reasons for the edits where because the reasons for exclusion lead to racism, homophobia, and transphobia in the electoral coverage. the page itself would be an example of how we code and design webpages in ways that discriminate. I condemn people outside the party painting a different picture of who is running and a part of that party. There was never a discussion about the inclusion of most of these candidates. Just edits removing them and claims that I was edit warring. As of now the webpage says we have less elected people than we have, have less candidates than we have, and they are only including cishet candidates. Please revise the candidate inclusion process on this page and undo this block. Alexcasperphilly (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]