Misplaced Pages

User talk:Michael.C.Wright: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:00, 29 October 2022 editMichael.C.Wright (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,579 editsm →New Evidence: Fix typoTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 18:58, 1 November 2022 edit undoMichael.C.Wright (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,579 edits →October 2022: 2nd unblock request; make it as concise as possibleTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit →
Line 86: Line 86:
{{unblock reviewed |1=My understanding of an edit war is as defined by ] as "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.” It is further explained as; "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.” I also understand that "any sequence of edits that violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of the three-revert rule are just as worthy of a block." I made no back-and-forth reverts nor did I try to game the system. The revert and template addition + move are the only three edits I've made in article space over the past two weeks. I specifically ensured I reverted only once as part of a ] cycle and thereafter participated in discussions in talk and user space in an attempt to reach a consensus statement. ==To avoid edit warring== I first created this discussion thread in talk space, kicking off a ] cycle with this revert of factually inaccurate information on a ]. My revert was undone by ], which I left in place and did not change. The rest of this is my account of trying to reach consensus: ==To reach consensus== I then added a <code>{{]}}</code> into article space then immediately moved that template to better-indicate the disputed phrase. This was meant to flag the statement to get more editors involved to work towards a consensus. That was the extent of my edits in article space before getting blocked: one revert, one template placed, same template moved. I made nine edits to the talk page in an attempt to demonstrate how the statement is factually inaccurate, in an attempt to reach a consensus statement and to avoid disrupting article space. At the same time I removed the factually inaccurate statement, I proposed an alternative statement (talk sub-section titled “Proposed statement”) and offered for other editors to work toward a consensus statement that is directly supported. I offered this in talk space specifically to avoid an edit war. During discussion in talk space, the statement in article space was further edited by ]. That edit was changed by ] then further edited by ]. While trying to reach consensus, several editors disagreed on the time frame meant by “the past two years.” First, ] claimed (in article space) it was two years, then ] changed it (also in article space) to the 2020/21 season. ] called the source "slightly ambiguous" and ] said of the article: “The wording is imprecise." After failing to reach consensus and seeing the article disruptively edited by other editors, I filed an incident at ], per guidance at ], which states “In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.” It was necessary to seek an uninvolved administrator because multiple editors were actively "interpreting" in article space what the source meant by "the past two years." Irregardless of the interpretation used, the statement remains false. The original phrase in the SBM article incorrectly states the facts of COVID vs Influenza pediatric deaths. This is why I sought guidance in reading ], which lead me to ]. This block is not needed as I was not edit warring and intend to continue to avoid edit warring. My goal was and is to seek consensus. My ] cycle included an explanation for the revert as well as a proposed, alternative statement, and an invitation to discuss and edit the proposed statement in talk space. I understand it can be difficult to reach consensus and that it might take a long and arduous debate between editors to get there. I also think that hard work is how a good and accurate ] is achieved. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC) |decline = An unblock request should show an awareness of what went wrong with an indication of how problems would be avoided in the future. Rather than respond at ] above, you posted a long report at ANI (]). "Seeking consensus" does not mean persisting until everyone agrees with you. ] (]) 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)}} {{unblock reviewed |1=My understanding of an edit war is as defined by ] as "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.” It is further explained as; "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.” I also understand that "any sequence of edits that violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of the three-revert rule are just as worthy of a block." I made no back-and-forth reverts nor did I try to game the system. The revert and template addition + move are the only three edits I've made in article space over the past two weeks. I specifically ensured I reverted only once as part of a ] cycle and thereafter participated in discussions in talk and user space in an attempt to reach a consensus statement. ==To avoid edit warring== I first created this discussion thread in talk space, kicking off a ] cycle with this revert of factually inaccurate information on a ]. My revert was undone by ], which I left in place and did not change. The rest of this is my account of trying to reach consensus: ==To reach consensus== I then added a <code>{{]}}</code> into article space then immediately moved that template to better-indicate the disputed phrase. This was meant to flag the statement to get more editors involved to work towards a consensus. That was the extent of my edits in article space before getting blocked: one revert, one template placed, same template moved. I made nine edits to the talk page in an attempt to demonstrate how the statement is factually inaccurate, in an attempt to reach a consensus statement and to avoid disrupting article space. At the same time I removed the factually inaccurate statement, I proposed an alternative statement (talk sub-section titled “Proposed statement”) and offered for other editors to work toward a consensus statement that is directly supported. I offered this in talk space specifically to avoid an edit war. During discussion in talk space, the statement in article space was further edited by ]. That edit was changed by ] then further edited by ]. While trying to reach consensus, several editors disagreed on the time frame meant by “the past two years.” First, ] claimed (in article space) it was two years, then ] changed it (also in article space) to the 2020/21 season. ] called the source "slightly ambiguous" and ] said of the article: “The wording is imprecise." After failing to reach consensus and seeing the article disruptively edited by other editors, I filed an incident at ], per guidance at ], which states “In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.” It was necessary to seek an uninvolved administrator because multiple editors were actively "interpreting" in article space what the source meant by "the past two years." Irregardless of the interpretation used, the statement remains false. The original phrase in the SBM article incorrectly states the facts of COVID vs Influenza pediatric deaths. This is why I sought guidance in reading ], which lead me to ]. This block is not needed as I was not edit warring and intend to continue to avoid edit warring. My goal was and is to seek consensus. My ] cycle included an explanation for the revert as well as a proposed, alternative statement, and an invitation to discuss and edit the proposed statement in talk space. I understand it can be difficult to reach consensus and that it might take a long and arduous debate between editors to get there. I also think that hard work is how a good and accurate ] is achieved. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC) |decline = An unblock request should show an awareness of what went wrong with an indication of how problems would be avoided in the future. Rather than respond at ] above, you posted a long report at ANI (]). "Seeking consensus" does not mean persisting until everyone agrees with you. ] (]) 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)}}


{{unblock|reason=
{{unblock|reason={{talk quote block|An unblock request should show an awareness of what went wrong…}}


* The reason for the block was edit warring. No evidence of edit warring has been provided. I provided clear evidence that I was not edit warring: I made a single revert as part of a ]. That single revert was one of only three edits in article space in two weeks. As stated in ]: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.” As I this request is getting near its two-week max life, I wanted to summarize the request as concisely as possible. I still stand by my first request , which was denied for reasons unrelated to edit warring. I still stand by the first version of this second request, which contains more of the context around, and reasons for my edits.


I believe the block should be reversed for the following reasons:
* My revert removed poorly sourced information. The fact that an editor had to inject ] to interpret the source supports that. Furthermore, ] said the source is ‘worded imprecisely,’ which also supports the fact the statement is poorly sourced.


1. One revert does not an edit war make.
I followed the explicit guidance of ], which states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that…is unsourced or poorly sourced;”


{{quote frame |An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.|]}}
] stated the source was imprecise enough that he had to clarify what it “means’, i.e. he interpreted it. He knowingly inserted clear ] into article space with this edit (). He was explicit about his intentions with this comment in talk:


2. ] explicitly recommends filing an incident at ], which I did.
{{talk quote block|The wording is imprecise. From the SBM link the "two years" comment means the period straddling 2020/21. I have tweaked the text to reflect this.|Bon_courage|18:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)|oldid=1117616416}}


⚫ {{quote frame|In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.|]}}
] explicitly states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that…is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources.”


3. No evidence of edit warring has been provided. I have requested that evidence twice. , .
⚫ It also states: “In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.”


{{quote frame|Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Misplaced Pages, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages).|]}}
At the time that I filed a report at ANI (]), there was widespread confusion (a lack of consensus) in the talk page specifically about about the meaning of “the past two years.” The poorly sourced statement had been reinserted by MrOllie , edited by MrOlle to indicate “that two year period” and then edited by Bon courage to indicate “the 2020/21 season” . The phrase "2020/21 season" is not used in the source article at all. That is Bon courage's interpretation of what "the past two years" means.


{{quote frame|The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.|]}}
The article was, and within the last 24 hours, still is being disrupted by editors trying to reach consensus in article space rather than first working through the issue in talk.

Lastly, it does not matter if one interprets “the past two years” as the past 24 months or the period straddling 2020/21. The CDC web-pages provided by the source article clearly indicate that there was not “over 1000” child deaths from COVID in the 2020/21 flu season alone, nor was there only 1 flu death in “the past 24 months” before the article was published. Because the source claims a ratio of over 1000:1 COVID-to-flu deaths happened “during the same period,” the source article is factually inaccurate according to its own sources (the CDC). This factual inaccuracy is still reflected in the biography of ].


Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.


] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC))}} ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)); edited 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)}}


==New Evidence== ==New Evidence==

Revision as of 18:58, 1 November 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.
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is Michael.C.Wright's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: He should not be given alerts for those areas.


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)
    Editing Misplaced Pages is a volunteer effort. If any editor feels their time is being wasted, they are absolutely free to work on something else.
    As for my time; I appreciate your concern. However, you can rest easy knowing I'll make sure my time isn't wasted.
    Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 11:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Warning regarding discretionary sanctions

There is a "This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area..." box at the top of this page. Before that appeared, a formal notification regarding WP:ARBCOVID was issued on 11 February 2022. In 2022, you have made 686 edits. 122 of those were to Martin Kulldorff, and 285 were to Talk:Martin Kulldorff. It appears that the vast majority of the other 279 edits also relate to disputes concerning Kulldorff. The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to avoid situations like this where an editor is responsible for too much churning and wasting of time in a contentious topic. I will topic ban you from discussing Kulldorff on any page if the disruption continues. Feel free to continue participating in existing discussions but please do so in moderation. Perhaps everyone else is missing something, or maybe they are misguided, or whatever. Nevertheless, you will need to accept that consensus does not support your position and you will have to put your energy into another topic or be topic banned. You may like to start one RfC with a concrete proposal. I have not examined the situation but it appears a current issue regards "I propose the following to replace the statement" on article talk and an RfC asking whether that text should be used or not would be fine. However, if an RfC does not support your proposal, you would need to move on and not attempt to have another bite at the cherry. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

userpage

Asked and answered Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 17:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm concerned your user page violates Misplaced Pages:FAKEARTICLE. Would you please make changes so it looks less like a biography to maximize SEO? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

My user page clearly states it is not an article.
Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 16:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
It says that at top but the rest of the page says otherwise. You've written in third-person, used career and education sections, and used {{Infobox person}} like you would find on a biographical article. Do you disagree that your userpage resembles an article? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2022

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2022 (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).

Michael.C.Wright (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My understanding of an edit war is as defined by WP:EW as "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.” It is further explained as; "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.” I also understand that "any sequence of edits that violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of the three-revert rule are just as worthy of a block." I made no back-and-forth reverts nor did I try to game the system. The revert and template addition + move are the only three edits I've made in article space over the past two weeks. I specifically ensured I reverted only once as part of a WP:BRD cycle and thereafter participated in discussions in talk and user space in an attempt to reach a consensus statement. ==To avoid edit warring== I first created this discussion thread in talk space, kicking off a WP:BRD cycle with this revert of factually inaccurate information on a WP:BLP. My revert was undone by MrOllie, which I left in place and did not change. The rest of this is my account of trying to reach consensus: ==To reach consensus== I then added a {{Disputed inline}} into article space then immediately moved that template to better-indicate the disputed phrase. This was meant to flag the statement to get more editors involved to work towards a consensus. That was the extent of my edits in article space before getting blocked: one revert, one template placed, same template moved. I made nine edits to the talk page in an attempt to demonstrate how the statement is factually inaccurate, in an attempt to reach a consensus statement and to avoid disrupting article space. At the same time I removed the factually inaccurate statement, I proposed an alternative statement (talk sub-section titled “Proposed statement”) and offered for other editors to work toward a consensus statement that is directly supported. I offered this in talk space specifically to avoid an edit war. During discussion in talk space, the statement in article space was further edited by MrOllie. That edit was changed by Bon_courage then further edited by Bon_courage. While trying to reach consensus, several editors disagreed on the time frame meant by “the past two years.” First, MrOllie claimed (in article space) it was two years, then Bon_courage changed it (also in article space) to the 2020/21 season. MrOllie called the source "slightly ambiguous" and Bon courage said of the article: “The wording is imprecise." After failing to reach consensus and seeing the article disruptively edited by other editors, I filed an incident at WP:ANI, per guidance at WP:BLPREMOVE, which states “In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.” It was necessary to seek an uninvolved administrator because multiple editors were actively "interpreting" in article space what the source meant by "the past two years." Irregardless of the interpretation used, the statement remains false. The original phrase in the SBM article incorrectly states the facts of COVID vs Influenza pediatric deaths. This is why I sought guidance in reading WP:BLPREMOVE, which lead me to WP:ANI. This block is not needed as I was not edit warring and intend to continue to avoid edit warring. My goal was and is to seek consensus. My WP:BRP cycle included an explanation for the revert as well as a proposed, alternative statement, and an invitation to discuss and edit the proposed statement in talk space. I understand it can be difficult to reach consensus and that it might take a long and arduous debate between editors to get there. I also think that hard work is how a good and accurate WP:BLP is achieved. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 13:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

An unblock request should show an awareness of what went wrong with an indication of how problems would be avoided in the future. Rather than respond at Warning regarding discretionary sanctions above, you posted a long report at ANI (permalink). "Seeking consensus" does not mean persisting until everyone agrees with you. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2022 (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.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Michael.C.Wright (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I this request is getting near its two-week max life, I wanted to summarize the request as concisely as possible. I still stand by my first request , which was denied for reasons unrelated to edit warring. I still stand by the first version of this second request, which contains more of the context around, and reasons for my edits.

I believe the block should be reversed for the following reasons:

1. One revert does not an edit war make.

An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.
— WP:EW

2. WP:BLPREMOVE explicitly recommends filing an incident at WP:ANI, which I did.

In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.
— WP:BLPREMOVE

3. No evidence of edit warring has been provided. I have requested that evidence twice. , .

Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Misplaced Pages, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages).
— WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE
The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.
— WP:EXPLAINBLOCK

Thank you for taking the time to consider this request.

Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)); edited 18:58, 1 November 2022 (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=As I this request is getting near its two-week max life, I wanted to summarize the request as concisely as possible. I still stand by my first request , which was denied for reasons unrelated to edit warring. I still stand by the first version of this second request, which contains more of the context around, and reasons for my edits. I believe the block should be reversed for the following reasons: 1. One revert does not an edit war make. <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> 2. ] explicitly recommends filing an incident at ], which I did. <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> 3. No evidence of edit warring has been provided. I have requested that evidence twice. , . <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Misplaced Pages, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages).<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)); edited 18:58, 1 November 2022 (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=As I this request is getting near its two-week max life, I wanted to summarize the request as concisely as possible. I still stand by my first request , which was denied for reasons unrelated to edit warring. I still stand by the first version of this second request, which contains more of the context around, and reasons for my edits. I believe the block should be reversed for the following reasons: 1. One revert does not an edit war make. <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> 2. ] explicitly recommends filing an incident at ], which I did. <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> 3. No evidence of edit warring has been provided. I have requested that evidence twice. , . <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Misplaced Pages, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages).<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)); edited 18:58, 1 November 2022 (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=As I this request is getting near its two-week max life, I wanted to summarize the request as concisely as possible. I still stand by my first request , which was denied for reasons unrelated to edit warring. I still stand by the first version of this second request, which contains more of the context around, and reasons for my edits. I believe the block should be reversed for the following reasons: 1. One revert does not an edit war make. <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> 2. ] explicitly recommends filing an incident at ], which I did. <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> 3. No evidence of edit warring has been provided. I have requested that evidence twice. , . <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Misplaced Pages, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages).<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> <blockquote class="quote-frame pullquote" style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0.5em 2em; background-color: var( --background-color-neutral-subtle, #f8f9fa ); color: var( --color-base, black ); border: 1px solid #aaa; display:table; float:none; "><div style="padding: 0.6em 1em;">The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.<br/><cite style="display: block; text-align: right;"> — ]</cite></div></blockquote> Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)); edited 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

New Evidence

@Bbb23,

Based on new evidence that shows I was not editing with two accounts, if this block was made based on edits made by User_talk:71.128.145.158, I request that this block be reversed.

If this block is based on other activity of mine, I request that any evidence supporting that claim be provided. Blocking policy makes it very clear that blocks must be "based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement."

WP:BEFOREBLOCK states "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these."

  • No warning was provided.

WP:EXPLAINBLOCK states "The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

  • No evidence has been provided.

WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE states "Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Misplaced Pages, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages)."

  • No evidence has been provided and WP:SOCK has been disproven. Because there is no WP:SOCK, if the only evidence is concealed for that reason, the block should be reversed.

Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Your block was not based on the IP's edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Then please provide the evidence upon which it was based.
Thank you,
Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 15:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC); edited 14:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If you continue to be repetitively disruptive, demanding, and generally combative, I will revoke TPA. You have an unblock request. You have nothing new to say. So just stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no sockpuppets

@Zzuuzz

I am reaching out to you after reading WP:CONTACTCU and seeing that you are a recently-active admin with CheckUser privileges.

The block (block log) of User_talk:71.128.145.158 for “Block evasion; User:Michael.C.Wright” is erroneous, as that account is not associated with mine. As indicated by User_talk:71.128.145.158 , we are two different people.

The user IP is 71.128.145.158, which is an IP on a completely different Internet provider than mine and is geolocated in another state entirely. An admin with CheckUser privileges can see that I am not located in or near that state and my Internet provider is not the same as the one that owns that IP.

I don't see where it has been made explicit exactly which edit triggered suspicion of sock puppetry or block evasion and I have not been contacted by any admin to discuss or explain any edits related to that block.

Despite User_talk:71.128.145.158 requesting CheckUser assistance in relation to that block, I see that no request has been filed by any involved admin. Therefore I am reaching out to you for assistance.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 02:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hrmph. My response. -- zzuuzz 04:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your honest and unbiased response.
Michael.C.Wright (/Edits) 13:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Category: