Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:47, 21 September 2022

If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to promote centralized discussion and maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here.

This is Michael.C.Wright's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles COVID-19, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Edit warring

Hi Michael, and welcome back. Please consider this a non-template warning about edit warring. I'm not sure if you recall, but you were formally warned about it—specifically in regards to Martin Kulldorff—by an administrator. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Kulldorff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"...use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors."

See you there, in the discussion topics I started along with the good-faith edits.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I remember you've had an admin warning not to revert on this article without consensus. Yet here you are with multiple recent reverts to your name. What is going on? Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What is going on is there is an ongoing discussion happening at the appropriate talk page in a genuine attempt to reach consensus.

See you there!

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You are getting zero traction on Talk, and it is the reverting that concerns me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you forgot this prior admin warning - but if, at any time, you revert again on this article without established prior consensus I shall report you to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we could use some additional eyes-on here. I would say, given your history of perceived, disruptive editing, this issue would best be resolved by someone else. Especially given the fact that I have previously tried to resolve our differences without third-party intervention and you refused to participate.

if, at any time, you revert again on this article without established prior consensus I shall report you
— User:Bon courage 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I see this threat as a continued "Campaign to drive away productive contributors." I don't perceive the threat as a good-faith attempt to achieve consensus or resolve a conflict. I perceive it just the opposite; a bad-faith attempt of intimidation.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The "threat" came from an admin, not from me; as a mere editor, I have no power to sanction you. You have been warned. As for "more" eyes ... I have alerted WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The threat clearly and unquestionably came directly from you. It did not come from an admin. You said it. Not an admin.

You have previously used seemingly empty threats of admins being involve before. If an admin is involved, I trust they will work with me directly, fairly, and impartially. If an admin is not involved, I would perceive this as yet an additional example of a campaign to drive away productive contributors.

You have been warned.
— User:Bon courage 17:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't sound like good-faith acting, but more of another threat.

You seem to be implying that I should fear that you have an admin 'in your back pocket.' You said that admin, not you, threatened me. I would say if that admin exists and they issued a threat, their threat excludes them from impartial and uninvolved mediation.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're on about. You have been warned (by me) about edit warring using a standard template. You have been warned by an admin about reverting without consensus. You are now aware of what's going to happen if you keep reverting. You cannot say you were not aware. Bon courage (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael, that latest revert clearly put you over 3RR. I'm not reporting it this time, but you've got to stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, there is plenty of discussion happening at the appropriate talk page (which you've also participated in, so you are aware). Specifically, the newly-added section titled Collective action of edit warring might be of interest to you.

You have been a part of the other discussions and are aware there is not currently a consensus. Your immediate undoing of my addition to another's edit is clearly antagonistic and clearly warring (it doesn't take 3 reverts to constitute warring). Coming here to warn me of warring rings hollow. Anyone looking even at my talk page can clearly see what's unfolding; which is a group of editors squatting a biography.

I have suggested and will continue to suggest that everyone keep the edits in Talk space until consensus is found. I think more eyes may help and Bon courage has requested that. Yet it seems clear that many are not interested in working towards a consensus statement and are instead more concerned with having their biased version portrayed on a biography.

As the article in question is a biography, we should be keeping the back-and-forth edits to the appropriate Talk page. As long as that continues and we continue to work towards consensus, we can be successful in improving the bio.

See you in the appropriate talk page...

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

there is not currently a consensus. I disgree. I think that there is a consensus, you just aren't part of it. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree if the sole dissenter was presenting an unreasonable argument. That's not the case here.

What I propose is from the same article that is previously accepted and does not deviate from what that article reports.

Lastly, this is the wrong place for this discussion and further replies will likely be deleted.

See you in the appropriate talk page...

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No one ever thinks their own argument is unreasonable, but sometimes others disagree nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Michael.C.Wright: I see you have now edit-warred again. I will not report you to AN3, as I see somebody else already has. This has now become an enormous waste of time for multiple editors, not least you. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2022 (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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael.C.Wright reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Would you like to self-revert this edit to bring you out of a 3RR violation? —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was just looking at the rules regarding when or if I could comment on the complaint. Your timing is perfect. By the way, what are those rules? Can I comment on it?

  I would certainly like to de-escalate the issue and believe I have made a good-faith effort to do so. There is a some-what long history behind this complaint that includes several of the same people in talk pages old and stale enough to be archived.

  As I've indicated in the talk page, I would most certainly revert the edit if I can also add a statement to make the end version this (with all current citations unchanged):

  During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed specific measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting other measures such as "age-targeted viral testing." Kulldorff's support for what he called "age-targeted viral testing" was based on CDC guidelines that were later reversed.

  The statement regarding "age-targeted viral testing" is mentioned in the first cited article, which also discusses Kulldorff's opposition to other measures, namely the lockdowns. I feel that the amended statement above better reflects the nuance that is reported in Medpage and shows Kulldorff's position was more nuanced than merely 'opposing control measures.' He was certainly in favor of some measures and the Medpage presents both of those arguments. I think Kulldorff's biography on Wiki should also present both sides, in a neutral point of view, without undue weight given to one side through the willful omission of a relevant fact.

  The decision I felt had to be made was to violate 3RR or knowingly allow what is now a willful omission of a relevant fact remain on a biography of a living person and especially regarding COVID-19 and biomedical information. I hope it's clear in the talk page that my goal was to reach a consensus. I respect the 3RR rule and I also respect the rules designed to protect biographies and in this case I think the two rules contradicted each other. I feel it's more important to take the time to reach a consensus with the comment removed from Article space. The other editors clearly didn't agree with that and would not afford the time for others editors to weigh in on the situation. For example, a request for more opinions is not even five hours old on the Fringe theories notice board. One editor (@Bon courage) also said there was already an admin involved. So I assumed if there was an admin involved and they hand't spoken up yet either way, that the current process was workable or that the admin was working with some of the others and I just couldn't see it.

  I would like to better understand your thoughts on me simply reverting to bring myself out of 3RR violation. That action replaces a willful omission of relevant facts on a biography. Do you feel I'm off base and if so, why?

  I know I can get wordy so I'll stop here. There is plenty of discussion to read on Kulldorff's talk page, especially the last section.

  Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  At this point, I see 1) an edit that violates 3RR with no qualifying exception and 2) an edit that appears to run counter to the prevailing view on the talk page. I opine no further on the content, since I am acting in an administrative capacity. —C.Fred (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  So by no "qualifying exception," do you mean you see no violation of WP:BLP through willfully omitting a relevant fact that provides neutrality to the preceding statement from the same source?

  Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I do not see how the follow-on sentence "provides neutrality" to the statement. It is sufficiently neutral as-is, for BLP purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  It adds neutrality by showing control measures Kulldorff supported. Only documenting the measures he opposed gives the false impression to the reader that he didn't support any measures, especially in the lede, where fewer readers get past. For example, if the lede just lists what Kulldorff opposed and readers only read the lede, they won't have the full set of facts available to them, and the lede won't be an effective summary of the article.

  The omission creates an undue weight on his opposition to certain measures without also telling readers he supported others. It's a lie of willful omission.

  Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff

Per a complaint at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello again and I do apologize you had to step into another of these issues.

I am not disputing the block, nor am I disputing the fact that I repeatedly reverted edits. I knowingly did so, as I mentioned. I understand that is why I was blocked.

Three things:

1. Did you see my comment made just a few minutes before you published your decision? Can you (and maybe even @C.Fred) weigh in on that statement? The group of editors failed to come to consensus on that point and it was (I believe) one of the key reason other editors kept deleting the statement.
2. I was not a lone, disrupting editor in that situation. The very first revert wasn't mine and was the first of several deletions in violation of this ArbCom ruling. My last comment in WP:AN3 indicates my justification for the deleted statement's due weight. The repeated deletion of that valid and POV-balancing statement was why I violated 3RR. Will there be any decision made through this complaint process on those disruptive deletions or should I make a new complaint on a more appropriate noticeboard?
3. Despite the fact that no other individual in the group exceeded two reverts in 24 hours by the time of the complaint, with the total number of reverts and changes, they all contributed to further disruptive editing (beyond the disruptive deletion of valid copy). Since I'm the only editor blocked as a resort of the complaint, other editors may see that if they coordinate reverts and ensure each individual sticks to only two reverts, they can effectively "block" individuals from making an edit by simply threatening an AN3 complaint. That is exactly what they did to me, coordinated or not. Collectively, they successfully blocked a legitimate edit using illegitimate means rather than giving the process of consensus time (and they were all participating in the Talk page).

Thank you both in advance for your clarification and taking the time to dig through this mess (which I know I contributed to).

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for their own edits. See WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)