User talk:Thenightaway

RAISE Act

Note, if you undo the edit again you may be in violation of the following rule designed to stop edit warring

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Haxonek (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Is this something you want to be involved in ~ (I'm at the bottom of the page) by the way HI! ~mitch~ (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceran (talk • contribs)

You've been roped in

... to this ANI discussion. Sorry, I probably should have pinged you at the start, but since your name is being brought up, you should definitely be in the loop now. Nblund ^talk 15:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

This radical is at it again, this time on Joseph DiGenova undoing the legitimate edits removing incredulous descriptions of the subject as a conspiracy theorist and otherwise negatively affected individual. It is beyond comprehension how this user continues to engage in this long-documented radical crafting of text, construed potentially by countless millions (lest we forget) as objective, first-order, sincerely arrived at knowledge of the world, which it patently is not in too many cases involving this user. It is not beyond question that Wikipedia as an entirety is an increasing disgrace every moment this crystal clearly sabotageur is allowed to play any role in this (formerly serious) community. His undoing of the precious edits should obviously be reversed immediately, or it's all just an absurd joke at this point...

~ You still alive? ~

	Greetings
	~ You know the last time I saw one of these ~ I was on IH35 heading south ~ Nice to see you again ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

Agreement between 3 editors on the Talk page which you appear to be ignoring. Please stop edit warring and make consensus on Talk prior to further edits. Your next edit puts you at 3RR. Please stop edit warring against agreement between 3 editors. CodexJustin (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Peter Navarro

Your next revert puts you at 3RR. Please stop edit warring and make consensus on the Talk page prior to further reverts. CodexJustin (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CodexJustin, can you tell me which discussion involves Snooganssnoogans. I looked at the current discussions and don't see the editors name anywhere. ~ maybe I overlooked it ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Mitch McConnell

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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. EdJF (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please remove a comment

Snoogans, this edit is not acceptable for an article talk page [[1]]. It has clear CIVIL issues. Please self revert. Personally I think the article is getting much better now that we have some additional editors. I would suggest you review and take to heart some of the concerns raised here [[2]]. The Rubin article suffered from over reliance on hostile yet largely opinionated sources as well as too many "sound bite" type additions which used quotes to avoid having to summarize material in an encyclopedic tone. Regardless, the accusation of bad faith doesn't help anyone. Please remove it. Springee (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans's is your unsupported !vote here based on actual knowledge of the subject or as sort of a response to my request that you follow CIVIL at the article above? [[3]] Springee (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. CodexJustin (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian Monetary Union

Perhaps you could give your reasons for the ending quote here User talk:RexxS ("Admin request")Boeing720 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to quote what i said on the article talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever read a similar quote in a printed encyclopedia ? It's the form I think is just all wrong. Would you object if I rephrased the quote to a normal reference to that source ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of similar quotes. If you want to suggest a paraphrasing, feel free to do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can agree with you that we have lots of quotes and I don't think they are wrong in general. But I think to end an article with a quote like this, gives it too much weight. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Cory Booker - Spanish

Good morning. What is RS? You mentioned it on the reversion of my correction and wanted to know what you were referencing before I correct the post again. Thanks and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyChanclas.DeLaBiblioteca (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard regarding a multitude of reasons. The thread is "Request for topic ban". Thank you. — Boscaswell talk 08:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian Monetary Union 2

Sorry to disturb you again. I just hope you think my contributions/changes was to the better. About refs, I don't get the kind of ref used. But they remain as "old refs". Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

courtesy notice: The Western Journal

Due to your previous interest in The Western Journal, notice it has been restarted/redone at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Western Journal" (September). X1\ (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Brian Kemp edit

It really doesn't matter what the sources say, "assault-style" is a completely subjective term and, as I said in the edit summary, implies bias against the firearms/their accessories because it's a term used almost exclusively by those in favor of gun control. Wikipedia is, last time I checked, an impartial platform and there's a fundamental rule regarding this. The term "assault-style" isn't even defined by US federal law. The reason you gave for reverting my edit is a complete non-starter and doesn't address the flaws with such an inclusion.--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... "assault-style" is a completely subjective term ... Maybe, but "assault weapon" has a legal definition – looks pretty objective to me, and here's an "assault rifle" for sale – I doubt the seller is biased against firearms. About 90% of the US favors gun control such as background checks – I doubt they're all biased against firearms, either. I do agree with you that Wikipedia is an impartial platform, and the fundamental rule regarding this is WP:NPOV. I don't even know what article this is about, but your argument above was a complete non-starter, and I wanted to address the flaws. – Levivich 06:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about a revert to the article for Brian Kemp, Governor of Georgia. "I don't even know what article this is about, but your argument above was a complete non-starter, and I wanted to address the flaws." That's funny. I love how you don't understand the context of the situation and still get involved. First off, a poll isn't a definitive/credible conclusion of support for any subject or practice. Many of the 2016 election polls showed that Hillary Clinton held a considerable lead over Trump, but the election was actually very close in terms of the popular vote. Frankly, polls are worth less than a used sheet of toilet paper. A poll of, say, 1,000 people isn't a reliable indicator of the opinion of hundreds of millions because, well... It doesn't involve those hundreds of millions. "90% of the 1,000 respondents support universal background checks, so that means 90% of all Americans support universal background checks" is a completely fallacious statement. You didn't ask every single person in the United States their opinion on universal background checks, how can you possibly conclude that a poll of, say, 1,000 is representative of every single person (or at least adult) in the US? Second, even if the term is legally defined, how does that mean the term is somehow objective and impartial? The term "colored person" and the associated racial slurs were defined under Jim Crow laws, but the states which enacted and enforced Jim Crow laws disagreed on the blood quantum and ancestry required to be considered "colored." I hardly find that to be an objective term based on the disagreements, do you? In either case, after some thought on the issue, the best thing to do (in my opinion) is to replace "assault-style" with "AR-15 style rifles." It avoids arguments involving implicit bias and subjectivity while addressing both sides of the debate. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault-style" have been proven by assault weapons legislation itself to be completely frivolous and subjective. Again, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a focus on neutrality, this would be the best course of action. People disagree on the terms "assault weapon" and "assault-style," but nobody's going to seriously dispute the clear fact that those rifles are modeled after the AR-15.--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article so that WP:NPOV is more clearly followed while still maintaining representation of both sides of the controversy. This should resolve the dispute. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

... and I've reverted your edit. First, as to "... how can you possibly conclude that a poll of, say, 1,000 is representative of every single person (or at least adult) in the US?", there is a branch of mathematics called statistics that explains this. Moving on, changing "assault style" to "AR-15 style" or something else at Brian Kemp is original research. It's not up to you, or me, or Snoog, or even the three of us together, to decide whether to use the phrase "assault style" or "AR-15 style" or "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" or just "rifle". It's up the sources, and only the sources. In this case, the sources–including the specific one that is cited for the sentence at issue–says "assault style". Thus, we will say, "assault style". That's literally the end of the discussion, until and unless you or someone else brings forward other reliable sources that describe the weapon using different language. If you do have such sources, please post them on the article talk page, together with your proposed revision to the language, and see if there is consensus for the change. Please do not revert any further at the article, to avoid edit warring. Thanks and happy editing! – Levivich 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Scott L. Fitzgerald

Your recent contributions appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.232.147 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

Snooganssnoogans, you recently suggested I've consistently misrepresented sources.[[4]] I'm asking that you strike that per CIVIL. I can see how you feel Sommers is a conservative author though I was referring to the web sites in question. I think you have a fair claim that even though HuffPo and DailyBeast are left leaning, the author is not. Would you mind striking the "There is a consistent problem here with you misrepresenting sources." I don't think I misrepresented either of the sources but I can see where you are coming from in terms of that author. Springee (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Complaint at WP:AN3

Please see this complaint about your edits of the RAISE Act. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#The_Daily_Caller. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark Morgan

I want to point out that WP:SELFPUB allows the use of self-published sources under certain circumstances. In this case, there is no doubt about the authenticity of an official biography of a leader of a government agency. There are plenty of secondary sources to confirm this, which can be added later. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's quite an extraordinary claim that you believe the information in this biography is falsified. Do you have secondary sources that back this up? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please consider prose

Snooganssnoogans, you are an experienced editor but edits like this are very questionable. [[5]] You simply copied the exact same text from the lead into the body. The content is a single sentence that doesn't actually summarize the sources you have cited. On the talk page I suggested better ways to integrate the material but your reversion seemed more about being POINTY vs actually improving the article. That may not be your intent but please consider the optics of such an edit. Springee (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please remove this comment

Snooganssnoggans, this comment "incapable of distinguishing fact and fiction" is a personal attack.[[6]] Please remove. Springee (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I will take this as a request to limit talk page comments to required notifications only. If you continue to make personal attacks I will report them to ANI. Springee (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil

You have ignored my petition [7] for striking out your unwarranted SPA-comment [8] I feel belittled by, and instead repeated that comment.[9] Additionally you uttered an unwarranted and false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest.[10] My impression is that these two things serve an attempt to damage my reputation and that you are attempting to bait me into retaliating with aggression. This constitutes uncivil behavior on your part. Please be civil. Xenagoras (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Abby Martin

You have now made by my count three reverts on this article within 24 hours and I will take it to the edit-warring noticeboard if you continue. TFD (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec's Page

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 a 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I have requested a consensus on the edits which you have repeatedly reverted to which violate the BLP neutrality policy for this page in order to prevent further vandalism.

Ihuntrocks (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ihuntrocks

3RR

Your recent editing history at Don Bacon (politician) 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--MONGO (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. MONGO (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brexit Article

Thanks for attempting to shorten the Brexit article by removing lots of irrelevant, bloated content while I was away on vacation. That article was long overdue getting reviewed and made more concise and your deletions were most certainly needed. I don't plan to edit that article and was relieved when I returned from vacation to see someone had attempted to finally address the issues with its length. I think you need to do some more removal and shortening of that article and you seem to have a knack for getting rid of excessive content. Also, I notice you yet again have folks taking you to various notice boards with complaints of edit warring. Taking a vacation from Wikipedia really helps to get focused and all of us at times need to take a break once and a while. Glad to be back and great work on the Brexit article.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Explain-like-I'm-5 how to add archiving to a talk page?

If I see a talk page with ancient discussions clogging up the page, what should I add and where to make sure those old discussions get archived? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Use user:MiszaBot/config. Add to the top of the page with the templates. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification

Because you have declared that we should not discuss editing on your talk page I am notifying you that you are not to post on my talk page other than required warnings. If you choose to open your talk page to discussions with me I will reciprocate. Springee (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Concealed carry in the United States

I noticed that you reverted my edits on the page for concealed carry in the United States. First off, what's a "lede?" If you're talking about the summary of the "effects on violent crime," then I can rewrite that in the aforementioned section. However, if, as you said, we shouldn't "mention specific studies," then that summary would have to be either rewritten or deleted entirely, since it mentions a specific study. Thanks. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - you edited the above article at 21:18 hrs today, cut out a paragraph of text and then changed it to the exact opposite of what the source says. You said the study said "Subsequent research has indicated that right-to-carry laws either have no impact on violent crime or that they increase violent crime.". The study reference you removed states in the preamble "These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level". Why did you remove this reference and also make an unfounded comment to say the exact opposite? This is very concerning Apeholder (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that this is one study and that body of the article literally contains dozens of studies? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit to the article. If you seriously and in good faith want the summary to accurately summarize the below section, then you'll find the edit satisfactory. Leave the issue be. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Your summary is not an accurate reflection of the body of the article at all: nearly every study after the NAP review was published concludes that concealed carry either has no impact or that crime rates increase. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Ironic of you to reference that very study when it disputes your assertations. Did you come up with a "comprehensive" list of studies on the subject, too? I find it pretty telling that you said, in your most recent edit summary on this matter, "why he is not allowed to..." Sounds pretty narcissistic. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's getting incredibly tiring trying to understand your strange comments: (1) "Ironic of you to reference that very study when it disputes your assertations." I added a reflist code so that the other editor's cite would stop screwing up my talk page. I am not the one adding the study. (2) "Did you come up with a "comprehensive" list of studies on the subject, too?" This is presumably in reference to my version of the lede actually summarizing the body, whereas your version of the lede was just a summary of your personal feelings on the subject, although I'm not actually sure what your point is. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

Just keep on editing it for some reason... a.k.a. I made two, you've now made three, glad you can count

Your recent editing history at Evo Morales government resignation 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

It isn't a violation of BLP to include well-sourced information on a widely-reported aspect of the Ahmed Mohahamed

This is simple reporting on an important aspect of the incident that the national media ran with and got wrong. The almost instant worldwide outrage, fed by social and traditional media, was part of the incident, yet the outrage got a key fact wrong. These articles address that.

On the other hand, to leave out this part of the incident is to muddy up what happened. And right now, the article is quite a disjointed mess. Hard, straight facts about the important elements of an incident give its account a firm structure that makes it more intelligible to readers.

And there is also no actual accusation of fraud.

But if BLP is to be applied that broadly, then it's likely a BLP violation to even have an article on Ahmed Mohamed since the suspicions of the school officials and police, his arrest, and the dismissal of the lawsuit are all mentioned.

The revelation about the clock's origins was part of the developing story which was covered by mainstream news outlets. So are you then maintaining that it needs to be wholly censored and left out, or is there some version of this angle that you would accept?

Here's an article from 2015 from another writer at Artvoice which discusses the public response to DiPasquale's original piece. It could be incorporated into the article, perhaps under Opinions.

Psalm84 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether "ArtVoice" is a reliable source in this matter is doubtful; the personal opinion blog of a weekly newspaper's "System Administrator" is, at best, questionable as a source for claims about a living person. The article already discusses the origins of the clock and there's no reason to add more detail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

edit warring on Julian Assange

Edit warring on the Julian Assange article

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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Snooganssnoogans_edits_on_Julian_Assange Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are subject to a WP:1RR restriction on all articles related to American Politics, and on all top-level biographies of living people for a period of 1 year. In addition to the normal exceptions listed at WP:BANEX you are also permitted to revert edits by unregistered IP editors and named accounts that have been indefinitely blocked for things like sock-puppetry, without those reverts counting against the 1RR.

You have been sanctioned for persistent edit warring and 3RR gaming despite many warnings

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Stricken, per commitment below ~Awilley (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Although the AN/I thread about you has been closed as "no consensus" I'm placing this modified sanction under my own authority. Part of the reason for doing this is that many of the diffs listed at AN/I happened so soon after my latest warning about edit warring and specifically edit warring on BLPs. (For example: [11] [12] [13] and [14] [15] [16]) I'm sympathetic to your concerns about patrolling articles about fringy subjects against drive-by POV pushing, and for that reason I've included an exemption in the sanction for reverting edits by IP editors and accounts that have been indefinitely blocked. Note that reverting vandalism and clear BLP violations also does not count towards 1RR. If you have suggestions on how this exemption might be tweaked to accommodate your work against fringe pushers, I'm open to modifying it. But it needs to be a bright-line rule. You won't get extra reverts against people just because you judge them to be fringe pushers, and I don't want you being hauled off to noticeboards for borderline cases. Also note that this is for American Politics and BLPs, so it covers articles about people that might be outside the scope of American Politics like Eva Bartlett. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~Awilley (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Appeal this immediately, Snog. There's no consensus for this and this is an appalling decision. Toa Nidhiki05 00:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Discretionary sanctions do not require an explicit consensus and are designed to let individual admins, with discretion, take carefully considered but unilateral actions. If I had seen the diffs like the ones above and there hadn't been an AN/I thread I likely would have taken the same or similar action. As it was I let the thread run its course, not wanting to interfere, and took action after it closed with no consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It comes off as incredibly poor form. You not only ignored what the community has said, you added an additional restriction nobody talked about. I'm sorry, nothing about this seems carefully considered at all, and I hope you're willing to step up personally and prevent some of the garbage agenda editing Snog deals with on a daily basis. Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: not sure why you skipped the AE request step to apply this by fiat, but as mentioned at AN/I, the optics, indeed, seem a bit poor form. El_C 01:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I see you opted not to respond. Oh well. Anyway, as the admin who closed the AN3 report where this editing restriction proposal was originally advanced and the one who thereby told participants that this proposal should probably not be decided by a single admin, by fiat — only to then have you just go ahead and do exactly that (also doubling the duration proposed and expanding its scope). In light of that, I hope you could see why I felt the optics here were subpar. I still think these issues need to either undergo a community decision on AN/I (which is still ongoing), or failing that, an AE request where a quorum of admins gets to participate. El_C 06:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry for the delay, it wasn't opting not to respond, but prioritizing where to respond first in a situation made messier by the AN/I thread starting back up. On why I skipped WP:AE community decision step, the reason is this: I had just finished watching a 3-day community decision with input from 50+ editors grind to a stalemate. I had a pretty good idea of where the community stood. Why would I want to then drag those same editors through a second similarly divisive multi-day community process at WP:AE, wasting tens of hours of contributor time, when I am fully capable of addressing the problem myself? If I can use an hour of two of my time to save a group of editors 20 hours of time that could be spent editing articles, I consider that to be a good deal. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: because then other admins can participate in the result stage — that's why. You're basically using AE as supervote to close what seems like a no consensus discussion at AN/I. El_C 17:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, that response of yours reads very self-serving and convenient, without addressing the core issues of community and AE processes. Your words appear either disingenuous or so naive that you need to take an extended leave of absence from these American Politics articles. Similarly, your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA. And finally, I don't think anybody believes your claim that it would be easy for Admins to spot POV pushers and address them with Discretionary Sanctions. I'm not talking about Trump-related articles, but rather the broader politics-related area that sees most of Snoogs activity. If your claim were true, I presume we would already have seen you or others in action cleaning things up. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Awilley is not ignoring the will of the community. I think there must be some mix-up as to which discussion was closed. The discussion as to whether Snoog should be subject to a 1RR restriction is open and in favor of Support. The discussion as to an AP2 topic ban was closed. Awilley's actions are appropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: The 1RR discussion had been closed and then re-opened shortly before I placed my own restriction. There are diffs in the first AN/I subthread that was opened about me. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, 27 supporting and 23 opposing =/= "in favor of Support" because community decisions are not straight up and down votes. And any reasonable closer is going to take a hard look at the newish nature of some of the accounts supporting. When that discussion is closed, it will almost certainly be again as "no consensus". Grandpallama (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: - Also consider that an "Oppose" voter is a vandalism-only IP, and that quite a few Oppose votes are made without rationale or with rationale not in accordance with policy (e.g. the edit warring is OK because it's deserved.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

quite a few Oppose votes are made without rationale or with rationale not in accordance with policy I'd make a similar observation about a good number of the Support votes, but I think my point is still that the state is mostly that of "no consensus". Grandpallama (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Response

So the straw that broke the camel's back was when I restored a peer-reviewed study by one of the leading experts on the subject when another editor was changing the text so that it no longer adhered to what the study was saying (and did so without any consensus or any attempt to discuss the subject)?[17][18][19] This is Christmas Eve for most of the 'support' voters in the noticeboard discussion who now have carte blanche to stalk me around and revert me (some already do: for some of these users, a large share of their last 50 edits is just reverting me), knowing I'm completely crippled to actually resolve any disputes without spending countless hours starting pointless discussion threads like "The NY Times is a RS" and "Why are we not adhering to the language of a peer-reviewed study by the leading expert in the field?" Many of these pages do not have active and attentive veteran editors who pay attention, meaning that the talk pages for articles where users are scrubbing peer-reviewed research from the encyclopedia will contain one comment by me, and maybe one comment by the fringe POV pusher if we're lucky (and no resolution). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"You won't get extra reverts against people just because you judge them to be fringe pushers." This is precisely why this won't work, and this shows so clearly that you have no familiarity at all with what patrolling hundreds of intensely controversial pages is like in practice:

• There is in many cases no clear distinction between fringe POV pushers and what you would consider normal editors... an illustrative example: the neonazi sockpuppet whom I reverted multiple times[20], and whom Levivich cited as an example of my problematic behavior. If your restriction had been in place, I would reverted the guy once, he would have reverted me back, I would have started a talk page thread about it, and nothing would have come off it: the neonazi would have gotten what he wanted and been free to edit more across Wikipedia. In fact, knowing that I have 1RR, I might not have bothered reverting him or patrolling the page in the first place, because there are clear tradeoffs in terms of time that I can actually spend patrolling pages if I also have start countless "Please restore this peer-reviewed study" discussion threads on other articles and if I have to do in-depth analyses of every editor who adds crap to the encyclopedia before I can revert them. I also know that if I had brought this user to you, you would have either ignored it or told me to eff off... or like Levivich, used the case as an excuse to sanction me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• There is furthermore no clear distinction by fringe POV pushers and those you would consider veteran editors. For example, many of the 'support' votes in that thread are by people who reject science (numerous editors who reject the scientific consensus on climate change, who are on record stating that scientists are biased against conservatives, and who state in RfCs that peer-reviewed research and expert assessments in top journals is unreliable), who hold that sources such as the Washington Post are not RS, and who subscribe to a wide range of falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the world, and edit accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The end result is that it'll be impossible to patrol pages in any reasonably effective way. Just in the last few days, I've reverted likely-COI accounts on two low-volume pages (one of whom I had to bust as a COI[21], the other I just regularly revert without bothering to seek external help[22]). The unbusted COI account has reverted me again on the latter page, but due to your restriction, I'm not allowed to revert this user again... instead I have to go through the bureaucracy to make sure this editor is stopped. This is the daily life of patrolling hundreds of controversial pages. I can bring this editor to your attention right now, but am I seriously going to bother doing so for the next hundred COI accounts and neonazi sockpuppets? Of course not, there are only 24 hrs in a day and I cannot spend all my time on talk pages and noticeboards asking others for external aid when a simple revert used to do the trick. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snoogans, I think you're conflating the sanction I threatened with the sanction I imposed. There is no discussion requirement. You don't have to start hundreds of talkpage threads to say the NYTimes is a reliable source. Nor does it prohibit you from asking for page protection, reporting socks, or the like. ~Awilley (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a substantive response to any of the points I've made, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what I wrote and what it entails to patrol controversial politics pages. Of course, there is an implicit discussion requirement (unless you somehow think every act of bad editing gets resolved with one revert). Where did I give you the impression that I believed I was not allowed to go external boards for aid? Did I not explicitly write that I could do that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to have a substantive discussion if we're not on the same page on what the sanction actually is. Now that's out of the way, let's get to the main point. You seem to be under the impression that your ability to revert up to 3RR is all that is standing between order and chaos on hundreds of articles. I'm saying that there are editors who are able to edit in highly controversial areas without edit warring. And the ability to do that will be a valuable skill for you to learn. And please let's not pretend that you're only reverting socks and trolls. In 5 of the 6 diffs above you were reverting veteran editors with tens of thousands of edits. Of course using talk pages will be necessary from time to time. That is literally part of what it takes to edit Wikipedia. On the issue of reverting NeoNazi sockpuppets and COI accounts, that's something I've already indicated I'm willing to work with you on. Can you think of a 1RR exemption that would allow you to revert the majority of sockpuppets? Do you need a pocket admin to semi-protect or pending-changes protect pages that are plagued by persistent sock-puppetry? Is there some sort of voluntary commitment you're willing to make that will fix the problems people brought up in the AN/I thread? Something that will stop the edit warring, namecalling, unwillingness to compromise an inch? ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How about this voluntary commitment:

(1) when I add new content (or alter existing content) and it gets reverted by a regular editor, I will start a talk page discussion and wait a few days before making the first restoration. If it gets reverted again after I restore it, I will not restore it again, unless it gets support in a RfC or through external dispute resolution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(2) when a regular editor removes or alters long-standing text, I revert this user once. If the user restores the content again, I start a talk page discussion (even if the other editor is violating BRD) and will wait a few days before restoring the status quo version. If the other editor re-adds the content into the article at that point, I start a RfC about the content, but I'm allowed to make sure that the status quo version is maintained until the new content gets approved in the RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I think we're about 75% there. I don't like the last sentence of #2. There are a lot of dispute resolution techniques you should exhaust before jumping to RfC. (WP:3O is one, BRD and its variants are another, partial reverts are another, boring old Compromise is another.) I would prefer if you replaced the last sentence with something along the lines of "If the user restores...I will continue trying to resolve the dispute on talk, may try to preserve the Status Quo, but will avoid reverting the same content more than once per day." Same goes for the RfC allusion in #1. Lastly, I would very much like to see a #3 saying that you will make an honest effort to understand the concerns of your opponent and will try to resolve those concerns with alternate wordings that are still in line with the sources and NPOV. ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. I need you to put it into your words, not to make you grovel, but so you own it. Also, even though you're under a lot of pressure, I do want this to be voluntary in the sense that it's not something people can haul you off to AN/I or WP:AE for violating. (If they do, point to this diff.) This isn't to get you tripped up and sanctioned for technical violations. It's not formal. The only threat is if you renege in a big way over a long term I'll probably be back here again. I'll plan on logging on tomorrow, striking the template above, and leaving a note at AN/I apologizing for the disruption of the still-ongoing community process. ~Awilley (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) when I add new content (or alter existing content) and it gets reverted by a regular editor, I will start a talk page discussion per BRD and wait a few days before making the first restoration or partial revert. If it gets reverted again after I restore it, I will not restore it again, unless it gets resolved in WP:3O, a RfC or with external noticeboard discussion (e.g. BLP, NPOV, RS noticeboards). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(2) when a regular editor removes or alters long-standing text, I revert this user once. If the user restores the content again, I will start a talk page discussion (even if the other editor is violating BRD), attempt to resolve it through discussion and will wait a few days before restoring the status quo version. If the other editor re-adds the content into the article at that point, I will again try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, seek 3O/RfC/external noticeboard discussion about the content, but I'm allowed to revert the content once a day to maintain the status quo version of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(3) I will make an honest effort to understand the concerns of other editors, and ask how those concerns can be reflected in the text without undermining the content of the sources and NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll strike the sanction now. By the way, I don't know if you've seen Springee's comments on my talk page here. They are 100% correct, and I think it's important enough that it would make a good #4. But I'm not going to force you because we had a deal. But at a minimum it would be a good idea to make a private commitment to use edit summaries and talk pages to explain and educate, focusing on content rather than the individual. Write it on a post-it note and stick above your monitor or whatever. As I said below, your current style is self-defeating: it's helping to destroy what should be a collaborative atmosphere, and creating new "enemies" to hound you. ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've started removing articles from my watchlist that I consider low-priority (unimportant in the grand scheme of things). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, what is there to be done about editors, such as this one[23][24], who are singularly obsessed with reverting me, and who create new accounts in order to do it more prolifically? How on Earth can I edit under 1RR if my editing is cancelled out by these stalker editors? This is what I regularly experience when I edit (in just the last few days: COIs, neonazi sockpuppets, stalkers) whereas other editors don't - are you aware that this is what it's like when you patrol hundreds of controversial pages and happen to be good at it? Just a few minutes ago, this editor restored the neonazi sockpuppet's edit.[25] If I were to revert him, Levivich would cite it as an example of my sustained long-term edit-warring on that page. If I were to revert this stalker twice, I'd be violating your sanction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - I did not create any new account in order to revert you more prolifically; that is ridiculous. Like I stated, I couldn't get into my BattleshipGray account, so I changed my user name to GlassBones. This is not a secret; I have been very up-front about it. As for stalking you and reverting you - please be serious. You edit here for hours and hours nearly every day, whereas I edit Wikipedia only once in a while. I could never begin to revert all your edits, even if I wanted to (which I don't). Now, on my user talk page, I have a warning from an administrator to stop hounding you. This is just another example of your bullying tactics against editors who do not share your point of view and who revert your edits.GlassBones (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans, 9 minutes after you brought up the edit somebody reverted it. You're not alone here. As for stalkers wikihounders, that kind of behavior is easy for admins to see and sanction. I'll go warn the editor you pointed out now. If they continue I'll block them. I think you'll be surprised in the coming days when regular editors, including the people who normally oppose you, are sympathetic of your 1RR, less likely to take advantage of it and more likely to revert on your behalf. As for attracting new stalkers, you'll attract fewer if you stop being so abrasive in edit summaries, and fewer still if you learn to WP:Write for the enemy. Somebody on the AN/I thread said something to the effect of you're trying to do the right things, but in the wrong way. The high-conflict approach is self-defeating. ~Awilley (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason it was reverted is because people are paying attention to this drama right now. The editor that I highlighted would not have been warned under any other circumstance. I've brought multiple wikihounding cases to admins, and they never go anywhere unless the stalkers stalk me into a different topic area than American Politics (as the editor Winkelvi did). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Admins have done a terrible job keeping far right POV pushers in check on Wikipedia. If we could count on admin support to deal with extreme right perspectives in AP2 affected articles, there'd be less need to give Snoog leeway. As it is though... Promising admins would deal with wikihounders rings hollow considering recent history. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Snoogs, sorry about what happened. You are a bold and passionate editor and you have made and have a lot of friends, whether you realize it or not, and you are someone who makes a difference on Wikipedia. If all of this seems a little overwhelming, take a wikibreak like I did for a month. When you come back from it Wikipedia will seem a lot friendlier and it really helps to get focused. You can always work with me on articles. As you know, I do not edit war ever with anyone. It's more productive to work with or through others on talk pages and you may be surprised how much can be accomplished. All of us, at one time or another, have to work on improving our social skills, me included. Hope you stick around, Wikipedia would not be the same without you. I am continually impressed with the quality of many of your edits and your use of peer reviewed studies. Not many people could have waded through that Brexit article and shortened it, but you seem to have a knack for tackling complex subjects. Keep your chin up brother, and for the next year avoid the (undo) button on the edit summaries. -) Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. I know where Snoogans is coming from and it's an important service. I know Snoogans does a lot of work in this area. However, I feel the sanctions are appropriate (given my negative experience with Snoogans).

Snoogans, we're all human and research shows doing things on a screen directly reduces your mental health. I know I had some skirmishes with you, but I know you're human (as we all are) and it's probably not healthy to edit controversial pages ad nauseum. It wears at you. In case you think I'm "concern trolling"; no, I think I will take a break myself too.

Part of making Wikipedia really good is having people with multiple viewpoints work together to synthesize the various sources out there. I'm telling you that you are needed here and look forward to having you back.DonCucos (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL i thought snoogans was banned not restricted to one edit. Still dude/ma'am/etc, just take a week off or something. It'll be here when you get back.DonCucos (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

NED

Good revert, but I think the article needs work, NED is not exactly what it says it is. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)