Phoenix and Winslow

Talk to me here. If you're abusive, your words of "wisdom" will be deleted mercilessly with no response. If you're really abusive, I'll leave it up and you'll be reported to the appropriate authority. If you're nice, I hope we can get a lot of work done together, and maybe have some fun too. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the warm welcomes from ALS, WD and JMHN below. Especially JMHN. I love you too man. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I hope I'm not being abusive...

I just came here to welcome you, the comment above took me aback a little. Um, here you go.

Welcome!

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! A little insignificant ^{Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH!} 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not abuse!

How's your battle with the professional disinfo agents coming on the Franklin Scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. <-- It's a nice pretty sign. It is Wikipedia's way of saying pretty please. But yes, welcome!

Thanks! ~~~~

- Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My dear Mr or M/s Phoenix and Winslow

Apparently, according to some, you are a bad, bad editor, all of whose edits are sh*tty in some way or another. [Just wanted to bust ur never-abused-yet cherry.]↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Never abused yet"? Have you read WP:ANI lately? He's the proverbial messenger-who-was-shot.

64/Phoenix, live long and prosper. I've proposed a solution at WP:ANI that may be acceptable for all concerned. Please review and comment. Thanks .... 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see a phoenix rising from 64's ashes -- can any allusions be drawn from Winslow? (Guess I'll Google the name. BRB.)

Have come back with nothing. (Other than the supposed meaning of the original place name, related to that given- or surname, in Anglo Saxon as a hill belonging to a friend. [WINE > 'friend'; WINS > 'hill belonging to'?])↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a clue: "Phoenix" and "Winslow" are the names of municipalities in the state of Arizona. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Winslow Motor Hotel is the closest motel to where I live (which I'd preface "not for nothing" except for the fact it is. Nothing, that is.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your little acorn

Regarding this edit[1] maybe you'd do better with a polite request on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' talk page or the article talk page, because carrying out a dialog by successive edit summaries doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Personally, I'm confused as to why it's a POV issue at all. Saying that an attorney claims she needs more time, or reporting that authorities carried away computers when exercising a search warrant, doesn't seem to be a big slant either way. In the long run what matters is whether they find and prove something, not the form and extent of evidence gathered in one particular search. Anyway, I think your overall series of edits improves the article so thanks for the good work! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours and topic banned for personal comments

You were warned just today about making personal comments. Despite that you made an unnecessary personal comment here. I'm blocking you for 24 hours and topic banning you from the Tea Party movement topic for seven days. That means you cannot edit any pages related to the Tea Party movement, including talkpages such as the moderated discussion; nor can you comment on the Tea Party movement anywhere on Wikipedia, including the talkpages of other users. Violations of the topic ban will result in blocks of increasing duration. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The hell? What am I missing in that comment that justifies this? Arkon (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The following was contained in an email to SilkTork: The block was unnecessary, as was the topic ban. I have no objection to you directing content. In fact, I welcome it. I was simply stating what I felt to be an obvious fact. I have been doing my best to help you move the project along at a faster pace, and make it easier for people to participate, which is why I started archiving the moderated discussion page (MDP), and why I became so frustrated when Casprings reverted the archiving and Ubikwit backed him up. I am also a bit frustrated by the fact that Ubikwit has not been the subject of a topic ban yet, when both North8000 and I have received topic bans, and now you have topic banned me twice. Ubikwit has jumped the gun on consensus twice, and you've been forced to ask him to self-revert both times. He did it once with the Perceptions spin-off article, and now he's done it with the lede of the main article. I would certainly have appreciated an opportunity to self-revert my edit of the mainspace rather than serve a week-long topic ban, and I'm sure North8000 would feel the same, particularly since our offending edits were far less substantive than the ones Ubikwit self-reverted. Regarding the alleged "psychoanalysis" of Ubikwit, this gentleman obviously has paper-thin skin and probably shouldn't even be editing in such a highly contentious topic area. I thought I had achieved a degree of rapport with Ubikwit, and was simply using him as an illustrative example of why we should not rely on academic sources to have the defining word on the Tea Party's agenda. I will not do it again. I am asking you to please remove the block and lift the topic ban, so that we can proceed with improving the article.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. In addition, ANY unblock would require restrictions identical to a topic ban, so any request that asks for that removal would be moot (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Hang in there, P&W. Persecution is a hard pill to swallow, but strength comes from adversity. If interested, we can collab on the iced-DOJ article. I've been meaning to finish it off. Always seem to find a way to embark on less-gratifying endeavors, for whatever reason. †TE†Talk 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allen West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agenda of the Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Agenda of the Tea Party movement

Hello! Your submission of Agenda of the Tea Party movement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing it was me in the Moderated discussion that originally proposed the subarticle you are attempting to hijack, I'm going to have to take you to task.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you had just as much right as anyone else to create that sub-article. You have just as much right as anyone else to edit it, at least for now. P&W went out of his way devising a method to satisfy your need for blockquotes at TPM when nobody else would (albeit, through footnotes). Now you have one better -- An entirely new article to add all the blockquotes you want. Where's the beef? †TE†Talk 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You can follow that thread out by checking the material I've posted at the Talk page and DYK page, including links from the Moderated discussion where the creation of such a subarticle was first suggested by me and subsequently discussed. There has never been a need for a subarticle on the Agenda, only on the Constitution as it relates to the agenda.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, and the content in Agenda of the Tea Party movement does indeed focus on the Tea Party members' understanding of the Constitution, and how it affects their position on such issues as the health care bill. The problem, as I see it, is that there's no established conensus among the academic community that the Tea Party takes an originalist view. Let's move this discussion where it belongs, on the Moderated Discussion (MD) page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

If another instance of stalking happens by the editor you mentioned just let me know.--MONGO 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic

User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Tea Party movement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1865 words and 8 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (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.

ANI notice

{{subst:ANI-notice} I've reported Ubikwit for his personal attacks on the PD. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you about?

Are you editing now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. You have new messages at Malke 2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

-- post removed --

Thanks for your recent correspondence to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Based on that correspondence, it appears the email address associated with this account is out of date. If you get a chance, please update the email address via the "Preferences" tab so a response can be forwarded.

On behalf of BASC, -- Euryalus (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, pleas email us again either through Emailuser or at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org when you see this. Courcelles 23:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • This chapter is closed. Nobody admitted fault and nobody apologized. Time to get some work done. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

You have been unblocked as you have accepted by email the following:

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has reviewed your appeal. We are willing to offer to unblock your account, with the understanding that any existing sanctions on the account, including the topic ban from the Tea Party Movement case, would remain in effect. Additionally, as a condition of unblock, you would be restricted to using only the Phoenix and Winslow account. This would mean to refrain from renaming that account or creating any others except with the express advance permission of the Arbitration Committee, as well as to refrain from anonymous editing. The single-account restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date of unblock, and no less than one year after the most recent unsuccessful appeal thereafter.

On behalf of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,

Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back Phoenix! There are plenty of articles that you can work on tbat will distance you from tea party movement stuff....let me know if there is anything I can help you with.--MONGO 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Militarization of police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarface. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of RightNetwork for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RightNetwork is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Hi. I'm a bit concerned about edits like this and this. The first worsens the article and breaks the long-established consensus, and the second uses a false claim of BLP violation to blank a longstanding FAQ. The first is just a poor edit, and I've undone it. The second is more worrying. If I saw you do anything like that again I'd probably block you then post the block for review by my peers. Given your block log, it would be an indefinite block. Please be more careful. --John (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

I'm disappointed you chose not to take my advice. As promised, I have blocked this account indefinitely and will seek a review of the block. --John (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit WEikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. For several years I have been complaining about a left-wing bias here at Wikipedia. the blocking admin, John, has a quotation from prominent American socialist Eugene V. Debs on his homepage. I am participating in a WP:RFC on the article about Waterboarding and he is on the opposite side of the debate. In fact, he posted the first "Yes" vote and phrased it as, "Of course." He is involved as an editor, and therefore should not be blocking other editors he disagrees with. He should have asked a neutral administrator to review and if necessary, take action. In my opinion, this action is the very embodiment of the left-wing bias I've been complaining about for years. Just block anybody who disagrees with you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit WEikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. For several years I have been complaining about a left-wing bias here at Wikipedia. the blocking admin, [[User:John|John]], has a quotation from prominent American socialist [[Eugene V. Debs]] on his homepage. I am participating in a [[WP:RFC]] on the article about [[Waterboarding]] and he is on the opposite side of the debate. In fact, he posted the first "Yes" vote and phrased it as, "Of course." He is involved as an editor, and therefore should not be blocking other editors he disagrees with. He should have asked a neutral administrator to review and if necessary, take action. In my opinion, this action is the very embodiment of the left-wing bias I've been complaining about for years. Just block anybody who disagrees with you. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow#top|talk]]) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit WEikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. For several years I have been complaining about a left-wing bias here at Wikipedia. the blocking admin, [[User:John|John]], has a quotation from prominent American socialist [[Eugene V. Debs]] on his homepage. I am participating in a [[WP:RFC]] on the article about [[Waterboarding]] and he is on the opposite side of the debate. In fact, he posted the first "Yes" vote and phrased it as, "Of course." He is involved as an editor, and therefore should not be blocking other editors he disagrees with. He should have asked a neutral administrator to review and if necessary, take action. In my opinion, this action is the very embodiment of the left-wing bias I've been complaining about for years. Just block anybody who disagrees with you. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow#top|talk]]) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit WEikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. For several years I have been complaining about a left-wing bias here at Wikipedia. the blocking admin, [[User:John|John]], has a quotation from prominent American socialist [[Eugene V. Debs]] on his homepage. I am participating in a [[WP:RFC]] on the article about [[Waterboarding]] and he is on the opposite side of the debate. In fact, he posted the first "Yes" vote and phrased it as, "Of course." He is involved as an editor, and therefore should not be blocking other editors he disagrees with. He should have asked a neutral administrator to review and if necessary, take action. In my opinion, this action is the very embodiment of the left-wing bias I've been complaining about for years. Just block anybody who disagrees with you. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow#top|talk]]) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}