Posts by Nathan Phillips2

I am the proud proprietor of a certain blog mentioned in my signature—though I’ve omitted the actual link, purely for my own mischievous amusement. I maintain that any individual possessing even a modicum of intelligence would find it essential reading; however, if you are particularly eager to pay for such enlightenment, I would be more than happy to provide my bank details so you can arrange a commercial transaction.

Look, conspiracy theories don't belong here in the history subforum anyway.

amberwalker4 said:Another blatant lie. When I was reinstated, I actually went out of my way to thank the moderator in question and asked how he managed to get me back online, but he just told me it had nothing to do with him and that he hadn't even heard about it yet.

It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "advocating" means here. I think wiredangler5 could easily testify that during that discussion on history moderation, I was actively standing up for amberwalker4 (once the situation became "problematic").

Besides, what is this nonsense about me constantly handing you red cards? If we look at the 43 total cards you’ve received from me, only 14 of them were yours. A simple bit of arithmetic shows that the percentage doesn't quite justify using a word like "constantly."

Greetings, everyone,

I am requesting that the super-moderators and administrators conduct a formal review of the infractions I, in my capacity as a moderator, have issued to user amberwalker4. To provide some context, this individual sent me a private message complaining about receiving automated notifications stating, "You have received an infraction at Reddit," and demanded that I cease sending them. I attempted to clarify that these alerts are system-generated notifications triggered automatically whenever any user receives a strike. Following that explanation, I received this rather peculiar response:

amberwalker4 said:Look, let’s not kid ourselves here—you’re clearly waging some sort of personal vendetta against me. Fine. But if you’re going to do it, at least have the decency to ask one of your more rational moderator buddies to issue the strikes instead. This approach is just too obvious.

Given that this user reaches out to me with claims of "persecution" regarding every single infraction I hand down, I believe a full audit of these actions is necessary. If it turns out that > is indeed correct, then I ask that my moderator privileges be revoked immediately. Conversely, if my disciplinary actions are found to be justified, I would ask the administration to consider that this user was previously banned and subsequently granted amnesty (partly due to my own advocacy)—and perhaps reflect on whether such leniency remains appropriate under these circumstances.

Additionally, since > is currently unable to view this specific thread, I request that his access be adjusted accordingly.

Thank you for your time,
Nathan Phillips2