64.238.189.139

March 2021

Hello, I'm Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ron DeSantis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I posted peer-reviewed science with full citations, attempting to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. As a publichealth professional, I understand that bad science leads to disease and death. I was blocked because the science did not conform to the political agenda of Snooganssnoogans and Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck. These "editors" apparently think that disease and death are less important than ensuring that Wikipedia meets their political agenda

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, the block is now expired. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2021 (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.

Wikipedia and Reliable Sources

Many Wikipedia pages are "watched" (see tab up top). The watchers have funny names like Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck or Snooganssnoogans and are usually anonymous. I do not edit anonymously because I do not have an agenda. I am a FL resident and on the ground things are different than the Wikipedia page describes. That is why I thought the WSJ editorial might provide another point of view for readers. However, Snooganssnoogans who deleted my edit did not think so. I have learned over the years that pages with watchers who have an agenda will be fierce protecting that agenda. The FL newspapers seem to dislike the governor so you will not find much that tells another side that could be cited. I often see similar non-reliable sources left alone in articles that are not "watched." I mainly edit non controversial things because edit wars are exhausting and you can not win against the people with funny anonymous names like Snooganssnoogans or Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck as they seem to have a lot of energy. Only 10% of people who edit Wikipedia are women (I am) and my efforts to encourage women make little headway for these reasons. We do not like to fight. I tried. I was deleted. I did not get into an edit war. I gave up with the "unreliable source" reason as it can not be argued. Wikipedia is a very good source of information for the most part, but in the case of political topics it is a cage match and I don't have a reason to fight. I almost always lose if there is a watcher with an agenda. (Don't ever try adding something about a baseball team!) If there is a reliable source from the Tampa Bay Times or the Sun-Sentinel that would write an unbiased news story about COVID response in FL that is a source that would be citable. However, when only one side appears in the press there is no material to cite. I did not know that the WSJ editorial was an unreliable source, but Snooganssnoogans thinks so and thus my edit was deleted. This experience has taught me to never cite editorials in the future. The talk pages of Wikipedia can be discouraging. I work hard to add to Wikipedia and identify reliable sources. I now realize editorials are not reliable sources (from any newspaper, I would think). Here is a guide from Cornell that is useful. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/wikipedia I think the best way to feel comfortable using Wikipedia is to write only about non-controversial topics. Thank you for your note and interesting discussion. You should probably make a user page. ISP addresses draw attention. I just use my real name.Kmccook (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans are closely watching this page, and are deleting any facts that do not conform to their political agenda, including those that are tightly referenced to peer reviewed scientific studies; the references that Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans cite are political hit pieces that they mischaracterize as "news" pieces. It was obvious from the start that no, Florida did not rely on the Governor's wife, sportscasters, and discredited "experts" in guiding its pandemic response, and for Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans to put this on Wikipedia as "referenced fact" is absurd.

Interestingly, I make substantial donations to Wikipedia each year, and got back a very nice letter from a real person when I called to their attention the (mis)behavior of Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans. They are guiding me as we attempt to undo the damage that Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans have done.

My concern, as a medical health professional, is that their misinformation will lead to a failure in the general public to understand the lessons of the COVID pandemic. Last March, none of us knew quite what to do by public policy. Now we do. For this virus, the curves are more or less the same regardless of whether you locked down or not, had a mask mandate or not, and so on. The only important thing is whether you protected elder care facilities. Florida's "outstanding" death rates compared to other jurisdictions came from Florida's learning this lesson early from the Italian experience.

• I reviewed the talk page. It is quite clear what is going on, but very few users look at the talk pages. I worry that this kind of agenda-drive behavior will undercut peoples' confidence in Wikipedia.I can be reached here. to discuss how to make Wikipedia a more trusted source. I looked at pages of other governors this past weekend and the page where you are making such effort seems to be an extreme case. Most of the other governor's pages are straight forward. This page's editors undercut Wikipedia's reliability for readers. And this does damage to trust in the platform. Kmccook (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruption, harassment and a return to edit warring following previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As you can see from the edit history, we are public health professional with knowledge of the peer reviewed literature. We have attempted to provide Wikipedia readers with fair, apolitical, and accurate information about the impact of Florida's pandemic management policy over the past year. These posts have been fully supported by peer reviewed, published science, from universities, the Brookings Institute, and other reputable sources. None of it is "original research". None of our efforts are "vandalism". None of these activities meet the criterion for being blocking. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans have repeatedly deleted our posts. Further, they have restored posts, possibly theirs, that are: (a) Old, some a year old, for example, the alleged interactions in March 2020 between DeSantis and Fauci that appear cherry picked simply to pursue their political agendas. (b) Rely on two sources, a WaPo "political hit piece" and a Sun Sentinel "political hit piece". Makes statements that we know, now for sure in retrospect, are false. For example, Florida was never a "global epicenter of the coronavirus". Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans keep restoring the falsehood that it was. (c) post libelous statements about a living person, misquoting their sources as they do. (d) provide "original research" commentary that is transparently biased. For some reason, Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck has the power to deplatform people. THIS POWER MUST BE REMOVED FROM HER. This is the only time that I have engaged in Wikipedia editing. I do so now because many lay people come to Wikipedia for information, and we in public health understand the damage that politicization of the pandemic has done. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans are, through their vandalism, literally increasing the number of case, the number of hospitalizations, and the number of dead. Separately, since I annually give large donations to Wikipedia, I have informed Wikipedia.Donor that they should look at this. Nicely, they are doing so.

Decline reason:

The block is justified. You are harassing and personally attacking other editors. You are making legal threats via your accusations of libel. That you claim to be an expert of some sort is irrelevant; we have no way of knowing who is editing from an IP address, and expertise doesn't much matter on Wikipedia; verifiability does. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:22, 12 March 2021 (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.

---