User talk:Thenightaway/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Talk:Kirkland_&_Ellis#Admin_Help_Requested_to_Enforce_RfC_Consensus_Decision

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I was drawn into a conversation on the Kirkland & Ellis talk page while responding to an "admin-help" ticket and made an interim change on the article per established consensus on that talk page that affected an edit you recently made. Feel free to weigh in if you think the article (the lede in particular—you're of course 100% right on the PR-ey nature of the $5 million pledge bit) should be different than what the outcome of the 2019 RfC indicated. Thanks! Go Phightins! 23:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you not understand peer reviewed science? Do you not understand that misepresenting the pandemic in Florida causes disease and death? Or do you simply think that disease and death are acceptable outcomes, as long as you enforce your political ideology

As a public health expert, as I talk to the Wikipedia administration and various other editors, we really want to know what motivates you?

Again and again, you have deleted peer reviewed science, with detailed citations to the literature, that show that in terms of outcome, Florida made more or less the correct decisions concerning pandemic management. Further, we have shown that the "news" pieces that you claim support your anti-science are in fact political hit pieces. In any case, they are old and proven wrong. No, Florida did not become "global epicenter of the coronavirus", no matter what the Sun Sentinel said in June.

Do you not understand peer reviewed science? Do you not understand that misrepresenting the pandemic in Florida causes disease and death? Or do you simply think that disease and death are acceptable outcomes, as long as you enforce your political ideology.

Don't worry it is because Snooganssnoogans is a butthurt liberal who lives in his mommy's basement. Don't worry you are right, he doesn't believe in science since he lives in liberal la la land. 2600:1700:D090:3250:CC25:1670:7D18:4636 (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We try to appear to the better angels of your nature by imploring you to allow readers of Wikipedia to know the truth of the Florida pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is a wikipedia vandal who repeatedly deletes peer reviewed science, which (s)he seeks to suppress because it disagrees with his/her political ideology

Snooganssnoogans continues to be a science-denier. In doing so, he is undermining the ability of the public to support sensible pandemic management policies, now and in the future. This will, of course, increase the number of cases, their severity, and the amount of death.

Further, Snooganssnoogans is a vandal, by the Wikipedia definition of the term. He is editing in a way that defeats the mission of Wikipedia.

Still further, Snooganssnoogans refuses to engage in collegial discussion to arrive at a consensus, as Wikipedia rules require. In particular, (s)he refuses to state his/her motivations. Again and again, (s)he has deleted peer reviewed science, with detailed citations to the literature, that show that in terms of outcome, Florida made more or less the correct decisions concerning pandemic management. Further, we have shown that the "news" pieces that Snooganssnoogans claims support his/her science denialism are in fact political hit pieces. In any case, they are old and proven wrong. No, Florida did not become "global epicenter of the coronavirus", no matter what the Sun Sentinel said in June.

We have tried to appeal to the better angels of Snooganssnoogans nature by imploring him/her to allow readers of Wikipedia to know the truth of the Florida pandemic. Unfortunately, (s)he evidently is willing to have more people die, as (s)he pursues a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course I do not have any affiliation with DeSantis. I have informed WikiDonors that in 72 hours, I will post the attached on my public blog, where you may comment, but not delete

Robert Heinlein, the noted author of science fiction, remarked in his book "Have Space Suit, Will Travel" that “library science is the key to all science, just as mathematics is its language. Civilization will rise or fall depending on how well librarians do their jobs".

The sentiment is, of course, entirely true. Civilization can be defined by the knowledge accumulated by hominoids living today, and more importantly, in the past. While we get our essential survival skills from our parents and a few dozen others with whom we have immediate contact, libraries provide access to knowledge of a few dozen billions of hominoids. A big difference, nine orders of magnitude.

That knowledge has very little marginal cost. One person can use it without preventing another from doing so. To the benefit of everyone. However, that knowledge likely was expensive to collect in the first place. Hence the enormous return that comes from small investments in our libraries.

Classically, before the printing press, the information in the library was quite fragile. When the Library at Alexandria was burned, a measurable fraction of civilization was lost. Monks copying manuscripts in monasteries and, more effectively, the printing press, allowed better dispersal of knowledge, increasing the likelihood that it would survive. But one still had to find it.

And so library science emerged to make it easier to access the brains of billions of our forebears. That science is not dispensable, even today. Google and the Internet need not make things better, as an overwhelming amount of information can make the interesting information more difficult to find.

As a fan of Heinlein, I was naturally struck by the emergence of Wikipedia as a “crowd sourced” distiller of information. Indeed, I give a couple hundred dollars every year to the Wikimedia Foundation to support the Wikipedia enterprise.

How did my investment do? Consider this vignette from the past month.

When I am not working with NASA to search for life on Mars, I develop coronavirus tests, including those that can be used at the entrances to public spaces. COVID-19 has been a particular problem for testing, because people having no symptoms at all can infect others. This was not true for SARS, MERS, or any other serious coronavirus disease. Accordingly, testing must be done widely.

The failure of the CDC to get a test rapidly last February created a conundrum for policymakers across the United States. Lockdown, or not? Should sick patients be returned to elder care facilities, or not? How sensitive must a test be to let a negative result allow an individual enter a public space? As we now know from experience in New York, thousands of lives hung on those decisions.

All around the world, different jurisdictions adopted different policies based (in all cases) on incomplete information. Without minimizing the enormous human cost of the pandemic, last year been a fascinating global experiment in the impact of public health policies on public health outcomes. An important one, also, as another pandemic will surely arise.

So how did various jurisdictions with different policies do? Well, like many Americans, I consulted Wikipedia to find out. I ended up on a Wikipedia page describing the policies of Florida in managing the pandemic.

Wikipedia authoritatively informed me that in July 2020, Florida “became a global epicenter of the virus”.

Well, that was not true in July 2020. That was not true at any other month in 2020. That is not true today.

As of March 2021, the total numbers of cases per 100,000 inhabitants in Florida, California, and New York were 8734, 8805, and 8337, respectively. About the same. The numbers of deaths per 100,000 in Florida, California, and New York were 144, 132, and 163, compared to 154 for the US as a whole. Yes, these numbers have "error bars", but Florida's performance becomes significantly better than the national average after adjusting for its median population age. Florida is number two nationally in its proportion of senior citizens (according to Wikipedia).

So how did Wikipedia get it so wrong? Since civilization hangs on this, I spent a Saturday afternoon working through the Wikipedia history tab.

The misinformation was placed onto this repository of civilization at 15:08 on July 26 by someone named Snooganssnoogans. He deleted a piece that was, at the time accurate, and replaced it with his piece, which was not.

Further, "Snoog" (shall we call him?) was transparently political. Snoog editorialized that the Governor of Florida “boasted”, ignored experts, and made decisions based on the advice of his wife. The source? What we would call today a “political hit piece” from the Washington Post. These "editorials masquerading as news" are, of course, common.

"OK", I said to myself, "so this part of civilization will rise and fall based on someone named Snooganssnoogans." Well, at least (s)he is not named Aurelian.

Having been a large donor to Wikipedia, I contacted the Wikipedia donor help center to ask "What gives?" Wikipedia responded, in effect “no problem”. Through talk pages, Wikipedia assured me, the gatekeepers of civilization will arrive at a “consensus”. And Wikipedia will eventually carry civilization forward to generations future.

Nice idea, but not with someone named Snooganssnoogans involved. On 26 July Pemilligan tried to fix Wikipedia, "to stop comparisons of the June 28 quote with statistics from weeks later”. Snoog deleted civilization and restored his/her anti-civilization. Pemilligan persisted, noting on 3 September in a fact that “the mortality rate in Florida remains considerably lower than in other states. For example, Florida has seen roughly 53 deaths for every 100,000 residents, compared to over 160 deaths per 100,000 residents in New York.”

But Snoog could not let the civilization stay on Wikipedia. Facts were not consistent with his/her misinformed view that Florida was a "global epicenter" for the virus. Snoog deleted Pemilligan a few hours later. A few more cycles and Pemilligan gave up. Perhaps Pemilligan had a real job.

It is tedious to carry the story farther. Dozens of times, various editors attempted to have Wikipedia be a repository for civilization. Again and again, Snoog deleted civilization and restored anti-civilization. (S)he and someone named Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (where do they get these names?) even managed to de-platform some of the people who were posting civilization.

Civilization gone. A small part, but just as seriously as when the Library at Alexandria burned.

And it is important. Yes, like all health care professionals, I can go to the peer reviewed literature and get the facts. But public policy is influenced by public opinion, and the public goes to Wikipedia. There, they see a WaPo political hit piece presented as fact. That prevents public policy deciders from having fact-based public support. And that, in turn, prevents public policy from preventing disease and saving live.

It is that simple.

My colleague at the University of South Florida, Kathleen McCook, who actually is a librarian (and wrote a fine textbook in the field), suggested that this kind of thing happens all of the time.

“No problem” says Wikipedia. A supervisory individual will moderate this.

“Ah”, I said to myself, “Someone who will surely understand that fact and objectivity are important to civilization”.

No such luck. The case was kicked out to someone named Josh Gordon. With no hint of irony, Josh remarked that “expertise doesn't much matter on Wikipedia”.

And so the anti-civilization of Snoog and Vizzin remains on Wikipedia. Even to this day.

I expect that come this November, I will again get a personal message from Jimmy Wales begging me to support Wikipedia. This time, I think I will not do so.

Instead, I think I will make a contribution to a real library, one that can be trusted with the treasures of truth past. And donate it in the name of Robert Heinlein.

Perhaps you should consider doing the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

You are getting lengthy diatribes on your talk page from unregistered editors. You can request semi-protection of your talk page. You can, of course, simply collapse the rants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Ethics violations (four, count 'em, four kinds yadda yadda yadda) ... Please. You're welcome.--Oblio4 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A series of concerns regarding GOP article

I'll be frank. I appreciate your desire to include certain content within the article (such as the prevalence of illiberal attitudes in elements of the party). However, you must always act with the awareness that the subject matter is not a fringe one – it's the second largest political party in America by membership and holds a majority of state governorships and houses. You've shown an incessant arrogance regarding how the article should be phrased and formatted. Reversions of common-sense edits (such as changing "civil rights" to "affirmative action" for the subheading denoting the GOP's policy toward... affirmative action) is POV pushing at its worst. Furthermore, you've been subjective concerning what content to allow. You were steadfastly against the article elaborating on the present varied and diverse views within the party on drug policy, for instance, resulting in the current status quo where two sentences are dedicated to the subject. Never mind that a plethora of reliable sources could be used for this.

I intend to re-instate my edits (excluding the picture formatting, which I botched). If you have any concerns whatsoever, raise it on the talk page. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party's anti-democratic maneuver's has nothing to do with the "composition" of the party. Also, stop bringing content disputes to this talk page rather than the article talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of a warning to edit warring (which you've also left on my talk page), if my memory is correct I haven't done so before. I left this comment here, which I am happy to replicate on the article talk, because it was addressing you specifically. thorpewilliam (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How to find/identify aggregate polling?

Hi! I just looked at your userpage and saw this: "instruct editors to use aggregate polling (if it exists) rather than individual polls (which partisans cherrypick to make subjects appear better/worse)"

I agree, by what questions you ask, often generates what responses you'll get. Do you have any advice on how to IDENTIFY or FIND such aggregate polling? Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern was with political candidates running for office and major politicians who have approval ratings. Partisan editors have historically cherry-picked individual poll numbers to make their preferred candidate look great. 538 and RealClearPolitics tend to aggregate those, so my recommendation was to use those. For other issues, I'm not sure if consistent aggregations exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

1RR violation

Snoogan, please self revert this edit[[1]] as it violates 1RR. You removed the content, I restored it. Adding some well poisoning comments about Dershowitz defending Trump is a reversion of the text I restored. That puts you at 2 reverts. You are an experienced editor and know better. Springee (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not a revert. Furthermore, that is actually stating what the cited RS says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to include that off topic comment in our article and it is a revert since you have changed the sentence in a significant way. Simply adding who nominated would be honest and reasonable. Trying to then poison the well by noting that Dershowitz defended Trump is a problem. Springee (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly pertinent context that the man behind the nomination is involved with the Trump administration. That is after all why the cited RS made note of it early and prominently. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a 1RR discussion here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans, I am concerned about Springee making false claims about edit warring and breaking 1RR/3RR warnings. They similarly made a false complaint about me on another page related to conservative politics (in that case Andy Ngo). I'm concerned this is part of an extended pattern of litigiousness and WP:LAWYERING on their part, and that you shouldn't take this complaint too seriously Noteduck (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

AAR Corp

I have no COI. Just know a little about the company. What criteria do you use to decide what is of interest to a reader? Fgbwashdc (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are not the subject of the report but you were involved in a dispute with the editor concerned. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing_on_articles_related_to_India. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Check your email - Noteduck

Hi there Snoogans!

Feel free to check your email, there was something I was hoping to discuss.

Cheers Noteduck (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency and to avoid accusations of coordination, I do not respond to emails by other regular editors except in extreme cases. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources 101

Regarding your removal of content from New York Post: it is reliable sources 101 that even the most unreliable source can be used to state that own source's opinions. We can't cite the New York Post to say "the sky is blue." We can cite it to say "the New York Post published an opinion." In other words, The New York Post is a valid source for positions held by the New York Post. This is clearly stated in WP:RSOPINION. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before editing further.2600:1700:E640:D410:311A:2848:365C:51 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm 64.99.226.149. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Daryl Gates seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You falsely characterized the book "Badges without Borders" as a "study." It is not peer reviewed nor published in a notable journal. Instead, it is a book published by an author seeking to advance his theory regarding the issue. Misrepresenting the nature of a source calls into question your neutrality. 64.99.226.149 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Los Angeles Police Department. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You again characterized a book written by a random university lecturer as a "study" while you have removed peer-reviewed studies from other articles.64.99.226.149 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not nice

"remove ignorant WP:OR)" BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop undoing my revisions

You have a problem with a specific part of my revision, just edit that part. Also it is not "fringe" to quote a public official with no claim that what they said was accurate. You want to provide evidence that the claim made by the public official was inaccurate, then you can add that to the article with sources that specifically say the claim you are making. Shuageo (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

West Indies Federation

Hi. I have some issues with this edit (apart from the fact that I think you mean Guyana, not Guinea). I'm not saying race wasn't an issue, but the claim that it contributed to the downfall of the Federation is a contested claim that shouldn't be made in Wikipedia's voice. Beyond that, it strikes me as a smaller issue - smaller than, say, the rivalry between Manley and Busta - so blaming race without bringing in the larger factors strikes me as UNDUE. Guettarda (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the matter. I'm just going with what the source says. If you want, we can weaken the language in some way. Thank you for correcting Guyana/Guinea typo. The book is also about the Ghana/Guinea/Mali union, so that explains my typo re: WIF. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, so I can't fix it. At the least, attribute the claims, don't make them in Wikipedia's voice please. Guettarda (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RE:Talk:Ron_DeSantis#RfC:_COVID-19_content

Since you created this RfC I figured it's best if you also closed it. It's getting pretty bloated and consensus seems to be definitive yes on options 2 and 3, while the reception on option 1 is more mixed. I think it would be a good idea to close the current RfC in favor of options 2 and 3, and then start a fresh one exclusively for option 1 and ping everyone who contributed previously. Curbon7 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's been very humbling and enlightening to read through some of your recently edited articles: Stimson, Krasner, the Naxalites, and Crosland in particular. Thank you for your tremendous work and patience — Hephestus-1964 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Rufo

Thanks for your input. Left you a note on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B048:382:1179:A496:4AB6:FEFB (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved our discussion over the the reliable sources chatboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_text_of_an_Executive_Order_by_the_President_of_the_United_States_a_Reliable_Source_for_the_Content_of_that_Order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is listing someone's Government titles Puffery?

Why is listing someone's Government titles Puffery?

I have no conflict on Robert Kadlec. I am an expert on the topic. He has a 30 year plus career. Adding the titles of his roles at the White House and the Senate is fact based, nothing more. Likewise noting that his Role at HHS statutorily oversaw BARDA which oversaw operation warp speed? These are inarguable facts. Why are you editing them out? Please explain to me why you feel your opinion should beat proven facts (congressional and federal budget records, for example), or why these are not critical issues to note as we end a pandemic? I look forward to your thoughts, thank you for your work LibrorumCere (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

COI

Do you have an affiliation with Peter Navarro? If you do, you need to declare it per WP:COI. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No. Karagory (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ami Horowitz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

You removed two reliable sources that backed the sections.

• In this edit, you wrote: "nothing about this in this source" however, the reliable source has: "In Portland, he collected donations from college students to explicitly support Hamas terror attacks on schools, hospitals and other Israeli “soft targets.”
• In this edit, you wrote: "same', however, the reliable source has: "The first really viral sensation was the ISIS flag versus Israeli flag."

The Kingfisher (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not support the lengthy quotes that they were used as sources for. Do not post on my talk page again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You wrote "nothing about this in this source" and "same" in the following edit. Your summaries suggest that, well, there is "nothing" in the reliable sources connected to the content which is false. Also, I believe that editors have the right to place reasonable warnings on editor talk pages. Can you show me policy that states otherwise? The Kingfisher (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOBAN, which is a part of the Talk pages guideline instructs: "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." BusterD (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi BusterD. What constitutes good reason? Given that we want editors to give disruptive editors a series of warnings before reporting them, is that a good reason? I ask in part because as can be seen below, I have run into similarly disruptive editing from this editor here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Craft&diff=1025854281&oldid=1025848252 And have warned him. If he continues down this path, should I warn him here? 2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY

As I'm sure you are aware, ARBCOM cleared me of being a sockpuppet. Therefore, per WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY, you need to remove this edit from your userpage immediately and I may consider not reporting you. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

They said you arent a sockpuppet of NoCal100, they did not clear you of being a sockpuppet of anybody else, like say Kamel Tebaast. Obviously if somebody were to accuse you of that they should be prepared to show evidence. nableezy - 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleting RS-supported text as .. not RS supported

Please desist from removing RS-supported text, as non-RS supported. Please take this as a friendly Level 1 warning. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You made several enormous edits where you both removed a bunch of reliably sourced content and added poorly sourced puffery (the "Daily Signal" and the like are not RS). If any of the content is actually reliably sourced, feel free to restore it. And do not remove reliably sourced content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That is untrue.

What bunch of RS content did I delete?

What sources - that you just deleted, along with text - do you believe is not RS? I now see - thank you for that - that a number of editors do not view the Daily Signal as an RS, while others (such as User:Springee) view it as an RS for certain circumstances. I'm happy to delete it, or have you delete it, and any text solely supported by it, where it is used inappropriately. I note that there appear to be four lines of text supported solely by this source. A small fraction of what you deleted.

I am fine with the deletion of non-RSs, and any text wholly supported by it. I am not fine with, as is clearly the case, with your deletions of RS-supported text. Which is the bulk of what you did. Without reason. That is unacceptable. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop deleting material you agree is RS-supported. In no world is that OK. Raise on the talk page any relevant non-cruft material you object to being copy-edited-and why. And discuss it, properly, rather than deleting material you agree is RS-supported. The error in that approach would, I hope, be intuitive. Your assertion is over-broad - you are not allowed to delete proper RS-supported material, which you continue to do.2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social norm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rule.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for being an outstanding contributor! Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Cindy Hyde-Smith

There is a slow-burn edit-war at Cindy Hyde-Smith with which based on your edit history you may have an interest. If you are interested, a discussion has been opened on the talk page. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Politics Improvement Token

	Politics Improvement Token
	Thanks for all the work you do improving politics-related articles! Enjoy this locket-sized Academy. Astrophobe (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop reviewing my work

This message is to ask you to stop reviewing my work. You have been doing destructive edits. If you are going to delete information, your role as editor entails you to put other information instead or validate the information accuracy and add the necessary sources. What you do is only removing, and by now, you should know what is best for this platform.

When information is cited just as they appear in the credible sources, then that is not puffery. What is puffery to you is valid information to others so your argument is weak and this is subjective.

I urge you not to check my edits again, I will revert your edits and it will end up in war edits.

Another editor shall review the work. End of the story.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Well this is really dumb but have you considered just commenting that one out to get them to stop whining? It would still be visible to you at the click of the edit button, so only mildly less useful. (Just a thought, no need to respond -- but please ping if you do.) --JBL (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)4

This their sections on this page where we can discuss the changes been made to that article. Instead of just reversing each others decisions?

On Aliyev

Hello fellow editor, I've been looking at the recent edits on Ilham Aliyev's article. You edits are more than welcome and really appreciated. I just wanted to note that some of the content you changed in the lead are also in the body of the article, such as the part with the caviar diplomacy/ Azerbaijani laundromat and Heydar Aliyev. As the lead is a reflection to the body of the article I humbly advise that you change the body of article too along with migrating the refs to the body wherever possible, as anything sourced in the body of the article can be put into the lead without source. Hope you have a wonderful day. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

General comment; edit summaries

Please use edit summaries. Especially when undoing another editor's edits - especially when it is not vandalism. See for example Wikipedia:UNRESPONSIVE. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8C73:ABC0:74AB:56FD (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Al Gergawi

Hi, I am new here, could you please guide me on what's wrong with my edits? I have added several unbiased references and can't spot the issue. Thanks!Jaa Noble (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

Clearly the people in the RfC didn't read the basics of the sources and trusted the body of a Wikipedia article, which is both hilarious and depressing. They trusted what someone wrote using decade old sources in the body of an article on a website well-known for being unreliable... Anyway, can you find a source within the last few years describing all of the claims in the sentence, because otherwise most are false. The Editorial Board has not even written about the scientific consensus on the topics in years, since your supposed sources are from around 20 years old in one case or 10 years old in two other cases. Either trim it to simply mention the views on climate change, which you can probably find a recent source for, or I'll just open a new RfC on the absurdity of ten year old unnoteworthy claims. Bill Williams (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add sources that substantiate that the WSJ suddenly accepts the scientific consensus on climate change. The WSJ editorial board explicitly said it did not accept the scientific consensus in 2010, and I'm unaware of any updates to the WSJ ed board's stance. The WSJ editorial board still publishes bogus crap about climate change.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the "acid rain" part of "The Journal editorial board has promoted views that differ from the scientific consensus on... acid rain" because the fact that they had incorrect views 30+ years ago is irrelevant now that the source in the article states their views have changed. It is not noteworthy and is misleading to mention that at all, like calling the New York Post liberal in the lead because it was 40+ years ago. Bill Williams (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I literally stated that you can keep the climate change part... I said the other claims are absurdly inaccurate based on the fact that they have changed their opinion or not even mentioned anything "fringe" about those topics in decades... Bill Williams (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me open an RfC on the issue of everything besides climate change? You are using a 26 year old claim on second hand smoking, a 31 year old claim on ozone depletion, and a 31 year old claim on acid rain to dictate the supposed views of the Editorial Board today. That is completely absurd and has no logic to it whatsoever. Not a single other news organization lists some past denials of science from decades ago and pretends it is their opinions today. The RfC was focused on the part about climate change and obviously didn't look into the sources on the other matters. Bill Williams (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The point of the text is that the WSJ ed board has historically and to the present been a key promoter of pseudoscience in the US. That they at some point no longer hold view X when X is no longer politically salient is besides the point. It's like removing "support for the Iraq War" from Neoconservatism just because neocons in 2021 might no longer support going to war in Iraq. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant comparison about an ideology. I see not a single mention about the inaccuracies of the New York Post in the lead, much less its editorial board. I see not a single mention of the New York Times or Washington Post editorial boards, or their opinions or biases. Can you explain how the Wall Street Journal is so magically special, that an inaccurate claim about seldom mentioned opinion 30+ years ago on issues that they changed their mind on should be mentioned in the lead? Bill Williams (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

What makes the WSJ ed board special? The fact that they are mentioned in key academic works on science disinformation and pseudoscience as key promoters of science disinformation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It took me ten seconds to check two newspapers I've seen before as well, Washington Examiner and USA Today, and wow, what a surprise, neither even mentions the editorial board in the lead, much less their opinions on anything at all. This mentions WSJ Editorial opinions on climate change, why not mention New York Times Editorial opinions on the police, or Washington Examiner Editorial opinions on the military? NYT and WaPo have around the same circulation as WSJ. And that's pretty funny, your supposed mentions in academia for your absurd claims are 30+ years old for every single one besides climate change. I agree that the article should mention their views on climate change, but the others are 30+ years old from like two or three sources, not exactly "mentioned in key academic works." Bill Williams (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop posting on my talk page. I have no interest in discussing this with you here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay that's fine, I can open an RfC on the actual article. Thanks for wasting my time. Bill Williams (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates articles

Hi. Is there anyway I can request you to slow down and reconsider your edits on UAE-related articles? While language use in the UAE frequently tends to flowery blanking whole sections of articles - particularly sourced sections with 'remove puffery' isn't really adding to WP's coverage of the Emirates. It would take a great deal less collective work if you dialled back the language in articles where you disagree with the tone rather than just blanking content and dismissing it as puffery. We do have tags for that kind of thing, which would avoid losing sourced content in an area where coverage is already patchy on WP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. 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.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein

Please make sure that the content you add is well sourced. Especially in BLPs and more so in heavily contested articles such as Bret Weinstein. Changes probably should be discussed on the talk page. Please see the rather wp:contentious discussion on talk:Bret Weinstein in multiple sections and especially towards the bottom. Please feel free join the discussion! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Russell Vought

Hello Snooganssnoogans, why did you undo my last edit? It added an outstanding secondary source flagged by the community and included the newsworthy facts of the advocacy arm releasing a report and Russ' quote about it. The former was requested by the community and the latter provides more detailabout actions.

Kanan Yusif-zada

Hi there, I stumbled across this article, Kanan Yusif-zada, which looks like it wouldn't pass an AfD, but I want to ask for your opinion first, could you please have a look at it? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like puffery, but the notability criteria for professors are very low, so I'm unsure that a AfD would be successful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Non functioning sources in Cuba

Hello Snooganssnoogans. Nice edits on Cuba (20 July). However I wanted to highlight that, for some reason, source 31 and source 32 do not work. I was actually able to recover source 32, here, but couldn't with source 31 which directs to homepage. Lone Internaut (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Those sources were imported from Freedom of the press in Cuba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Village Preservation page

Please refrain from making your unconstructive and inaccurate edits to this nonprofit's Wikipedia page. I have undone your changes several times this morning to keep the page accurate for all users, and if you continue to make those edits, I will have to take the next steps toward ensuring the integrity of the page.

cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Rationalism (international relations) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Rational Choice (international relations). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make sure to do it properly in the future. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you change the target of your move request from Rational Choice (international relations) → Rational choice (international relations)? That seems to be your intention; this doesn't seem to be a proper name; Wikipedia titles are in sentence case, not title case. No problem making this change as nobody else has voted yet. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I just did it on the talk page.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Quincy Institute

Your edits [5] [6] [7] [8] seem to suggest you are trying to hide negative POVs towards this subject from our readers.

Are you in any way connected to this subject with potential pecuniary or other benefit? You know the requirement for WP:DISCLOSE if that is the case, right? Normchou ^💬 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not only do I not have any association with the institute or the people involved with it, but I disagree with the main policy advocated by the institute and consider some of the backers of the institute to be very disagreeable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders merger discussion

Hello, I remember that you were significantly involved with Bernie Sanders-related articles. I have started a proposal to merge Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders into Bernie Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders#Merge_Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders_into_Bernie_Sanders Yleventa2 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this a behavioral issue?

I saw your post here and wonder if this is a behavioral issue? See this discussion where the same user argues against scholarly sources because they are "self-censored". See this discussion and this one where others are also disturbed by the same user's editing.VR _talk 04:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello, I'm NMW03. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NMW03 (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit NMW03 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Byron York

SnooganssnoogansTo be complete and cover the range of what York does I note that the article, citations & applicable wiki articles for definitions support: (1) "pundit" - see, wiki article- NO article for "commentator" as such - best practice is to USE THE WIKI ARTICLE - "person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis)" - he offers commentary on TV & through blogs, so need to add (2) "columnist" as "a person who WRITES for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions", and (3) "correspondent" is in addition because she or he is a "reporter (read his articles, he often just REPORTS W/O COMMENTARY) usually a journalist or commentator from a REMOTE, often distant, location." Thanks Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Byron York

Your recent editing history 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..Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Trump is bad

Just wanted to say hi and say trump is bad

Presidency of Joe Biden

Can you please fix the first sentence here? (when you have time.) It's not entirely clear what it means because of a verb missing. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Anna News

May I ask you the whole reason of deleting the critique section of Bellingcat, please? Pro-Russian Spy (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Pesticide and GMO related topics

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 genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. 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.

KoA (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of GMOs and pesticides. This is just a heads up about the topic that it has 1RR if you weren't aware of it.

Unfortunately you're seeing some of the leftover behavior back from the GMO Arbcom that burned a lot of us science editors out and resulted in a lot of anti-GMO, etc. type editors being banned. TFD is one that's had advocacy issues with in the past, but they've generally flown under the radar when it comes to bringing up their behavior at AE compared to the other stuff that was going on. The agriculture topic has been fairly quiet when it comes to fringe stuff for awhile, so I'm not sure what's setting recent comments off. Either way, it's refreshing to see others noticing the issues at least. KoA (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

AAR Corp

In the description I tried adding, and you removed, the first paragraph is straight from the SEC, the 10-K form. What's wrong with that? Fgbwashdc (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Fgbwashdc

I added the text from Yahoo Finance. You say it's is self-sourced. Where else should a simple, straightforward description come from? Fgbwashdc (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Check out Lufthansa Technik. The top description is self-sourced and not even referenced. So why can't we do the same for AAR Corp? Fgbwashdc (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't answer. I'm going to add the description of the company from the SEC. Fgbwashdc (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not your worker monkey. I am not compelled to spend my time debating with the PR teams of companies. I've already explained why your edit is inappropriate and I have zero interest in debating it further with you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Allegory of the cave

Hello fellow user, we seem to have a believer in the Azerbaijan article who doesn't seems to perceive dictators. Could you check in and add some sources? I'm asking you because I remember you could easily list sources when the dictatorship discussion happened in Aliyev's article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I started a talk section about reversion of my edit

On the talk page for Elections in Cuba, I started a new section about you reverting my edit.

Now, I do not think that I attacked you and I am trying to operate in good faith. Rhino Ryan (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Some good news

Hey! Just wanted to let you know I managed to get Future Investment Initiative Institute to semi-protected status for 6 months. That should help deal with ongoing IP PR edits and improve our ability to detect the very likely saudi pr sockpuppet network. Thought you'd appreciate the good news. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring at Democracy in China. 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 ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I reverted an IP user who was edit-warring against multiple veteran editors, as well as setting up a sockpuppet account with a homophobic insult in the username. The user was deleting content sourced to multiple peer-reviewed academic publications and inserting their own fringe original research into the lead of an article. At no point did I cross 3RR. At no point was I warned that there was anything wrong with reverting an edit-warrior who was editing against consensus, against multiple editor and setting up homophobic sockpuppet accounts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion below, especially Cryptic and Awilley. I understand JBW's argument that Snoogansnoogans has a history of edit warring, but, as S points out, there's little sign of it at all recently. And it's surely a problem to let the IP who actually violated 3RR off scot free. Bishonen | tålk 06:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

JBW, I looked at the edits in question and for what it matters I support the unblock request. Snoogans and I disagree far more than we agree and I make no claim regarding the content questions at the heart of this issue. Still, I don't see that Snoogans violated 3RR. Perhaps I missed an edit restriction that applies to the page or the editors in question? Anyway, as an uninvolved editor I don't think this sanction is warranted. Springee (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the edit history for Colin Powell, and I was surprised to see Snoog's name crossed out. Like Springee, I disagree with Snoogans' approach to editing articles, but I think JBW went a little far. I too would be fine with an accepted unblock request because I am not seeing that egregious of a violation. However, I think he could soften the wording just a bit. I am not trying to whitewash China, but the way the text was worded seemed a little too strong for my liking, and I am a conservative. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I support this block. Snood has a history of engaging in edit warring on multiple pages in an attempt to make the pages align with his personal political views. In this specific instance, Snood did not provide appropriate edit summaries and simply reverted and then insulted other editors. Furthermore, it appears that the page has been protected and that all other editing users have been blocked. There is no reason that Snood needs to edit this page again prior to his block expiring. Cbpoofs (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an egregiously bad block in multiple ways. Fortunately, User:Neutrality has restored the right version and undone the vandalism. -- Valjean (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that I would call it vandalism, but I would definitely call it tendentious editing. However, the "WikiModsgay" thing makes me unsure as to whether this was trolling or a tantrum. Snoog's version was the better version. Scorpions13256 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Much of what has been written above is based on the belief that one editor's edits were right and the other's edits wrong. The belief that I should have let such considerations influence my decision as to whether to block shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the policies both on edit-warring and on administrators. Edit-warring is unacceptable whether the edits are good or bad. In Snooganssnoogans's case, as Cbpoofs has mentioned, there has been an extensive history of edit-warring, with countless warnings about it, over the course of almost five and a half years. There has to be a limit to how many times an editor can get away with edit-warring despite being warned over and over again. JBW (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You didn't take any action against the IP, who actually did breach 3RR, and the edits being reverted were so poor that another administrator rolled them back and semiprotected the article. I don't think your position is defensible. —Cryptic 20:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment. Am I being blocked because of a history of edit-warring (which you did not initially say, never warned me about and have not demonstrated) or because it was wrong to revert an IP user three times when the IP user was editing against consensus, against multiple editors and setting up sockpuppet accounts with homophobic usernames in them? In the last year, I have one warning about edit-warring on my talk page (it was in relation to editing on a page in which I made two reverts)[9]. Is this the history of edit-warring that I'm being blocked over? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Edit-warring is unacceptable whether the edits are good or bad." Then why don't we just have bots make the blocks and get rid of things like WP:3RRNO? Nuance shmuance. ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, the page that I was restoring to the status quo was being targeted by off-wiki canvassers[10]. Shortly after the off-wiki canvassers' post hit the subreddit's frontpage, User:JBW decided to block me while not taking any action against the IP users. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Support block user has history of political bias and using editing to fit his viewpoints block reinstatement is warranted137.49.109.224 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC).

It turns out that the block was far more controversial than I expected, and I accept that consensus is against me. However, perhaps I can answer the statements "You didn't take any action against the IP, who actually did breach 3RR" from Cryptic, "JBW decided to block me while not taking any action against the IP users" from Snooganssnoogans, and "it's surely a problem to let the IP who actually violated 3RR off scot free" from Bishonen. I didn't take any action against the other account because it was already blocked by the time I took action, and I didn't take action against the IP address because the article was already semi-protected. Was I supposed to gratuitously unblock and reblock the account, and place an IP block which would have no preventive effect, just to make sure that nobody could say that I had not taken action against that editor? Actually, while I was typing that last sentence it occurred to me that, although I was assuming that those comments were made knowing the facts, it may be that the three editors concerned had not checked the timings, and didn't realise that the block and protection were already in place when I took action, which would explain their comments. However, for what it may be worth to anyone, I did actually click the link to block the account, but found that it was already blocked, so there was nothing for me to do. My next step would have been to deal with the IP address, but I discovered that it was already dealt with by page protection. JBW (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)