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

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:28, 21 November 2022 editBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,570 edits →Unblock review: comments← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:39, 21 November 2022 edit undoMichael.C.Wright (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,579 edits →Unblock review: replyTag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 163:		Line 163:
	:{{quote frame \|An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.\|]}}		:{{quote frame \|An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.\|]}}
	:] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)		:] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

			::@] & @],

			::The reason given for the block was edit warring not for any number of other, ]. I reverted the disputed statement only one time.

			::I do not understand the continued justification for this block as edit warring and at no point has any evidence of edit warring been provided. If there were diffs provided that explained exactly which behavior is at issue, I would then be able to understand the problem and propose corrections. If there are diffs that indicate a 'series of back and forth reverts,' I would like to see them in order to clearly understand the block.

			::I do not think it is wikilawyering for an editor to seek to understand the reason for a block. At no time has the blocking admin explained the behavior that justifies an indefinite, site-wide block beyond the blocking summary of "Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff after expiration of last block for the same thing."

			::I also do not think it is wikilawyering for an editor to request that a block follow the blocking policy, which requires ] and ].

			::My experience with this block is that of an opaque process in which I have to guess which behavior is considered edit warring. When I claim innocence, that very claim is used as evidence of guilt—a .

			::{{quote frame\|Some editors, even some administrators on Misplaced Pages, forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Misplaced Pages politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content.\|]}}

			::] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:39, 21 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

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

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 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 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 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 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)

Requesting assistance

@WereSpielChequers, I am reaching out to you after reading some of your work on edit warring, including this piece: WereSpielChequers/Edit_Warring and especially your comments here: Isaacl/Community/Fostering_collaborative_behaviour

@Charles_Matthews, I am reaching out to you because you have offered guidance to me before and also you have tried to help steer the environment of a page (Martin Kulldorff, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration) towards a more collaborative environment.

I have been an editor since 2014 and have contributed significantly, especially around topics concerning coffee and most recently a biography of a living person.

Recently I was blocked indefinitely, site-wide for "Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff after expiration of last block for the same thing.”

I have twice, formally requested an unblock. , . The first request was declined for reasons including what I believe to be a legitimate request at WP:ANI (permalink) per explicit guidance from WP:BLPREMOVE. The second request is now officially stale but still open.

Shortly after the block, I was also wrongly accused of block evasion in a way that was vague and difficult for me to first detect and then to rebut, despite an involved admin having CheckUser privileges. My user page was deleted for “U5: Misuse of Misplaced Pages as a web host.” without any input from the deleting administrator. The admin archiving the ANI request posted the archiving result as “returning curvy stick for justice!” with the edit summary of “boomerang applied.” My latest request for the evidence leading to the block was met with a threat of revoking WP:TPA. The threat to revoke TPA has been the only direct interaction I’ve received from the blocking admin.

Taken together, this feels punitive and feels like a case of piling-on. My block is being advertised in Talk:Martin Kulldorff in a way that could be interpreted as intimidating to other editors who might disagree with this group of editors. , Similarly, the blocking admin advertised or broadcasted my indefinite block to the ANI request. This too could be interpreted by other editors as a caution against filing contentious but otherwise-legitimate ANI requests in an attempt to resolve conflicts. The contended statement that my BRD and single revert removed, continues to be challenged by other editors. ,

Even if I was edit warring, the contentious behavior has been strictly limited to the Martin Kulldorff page. Therefore a site-wide, indefinite block for behavior limited to one page adds to the perception that this is punitive rather than protective.

My actions did not cross the bright line. I did not participate in a ’series of back and forth reverts.’ I do not understand the accusation of further edit warring and no explanation has been offered.

Thank you both for taking the time to read this and for helping in any way you can.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Unwise to use edit summaries for personal attacks, for sure. That said, the outcome here seems unsatisfactory to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. That was not my finest work. I did not intend the summary to be a personal attack but it certainly was an inappropriate use of an edit summary. I was trying to get other editors to participate in the discussion rather than a series of back-and-forth reverts and I became frustrated and used the summary inappropriately. I won't repeat the mistake.

That edit was part of a series of edits in which I thought I had a valid WP:BLPREMOVE exemption for WP:3RR, and for which I was subsequently blocked for 48 hours. I explicitly did not dispute the block , as it was made clear the blocking admin did not feel my edit qualified for an exemption. I learned from that block that a 3RR exemption is a rare and difficult-to-define thing, which is why I filed an ANI request for this one, rather than revert even a second time.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 20:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Unblock review

First of all, a procedural apology. This renewed unblock request has taken much too long to be reviewed. I will initiate a review now. I invite Bbb23, the blocking administrator, and Johnuniq, who declined the first request, to comment on the current unblock request as well as the scope and duration of the block. Charles Matthews, where are you seeing personal attacks in edit summaries, and what do you think should be done with the block? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I was referring to the ad hominem in this edit from September.

I became involved in editing the article after Michael came to my user talk. I had concerns about NPOV, and carried out a division into sections, which probably did help somewhat. I have unfinished business there, at the more zoomed-in level of dating Kulldorff's views more accurately: getting a timeline of what he thought and when.

I would like the block to have an endpoint put to it, some weeks off. COVID is not the current affairs topic it once was, and the article ought to be put on some sort of stable basis, as history. It is not the sort of article that should be protected. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the issues with this user's editing have been largely confined to one article. If that is the case, a sitewide indefinite block seems excessive. Allowing some time for the other admins I pinged to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I oppose any alteration of the block for the following reasons: (1) the user shows no insight into his behavior, (2) he was blocked once before the indefinite block, (3) of the 883 edits he has made to article and article talk spaces, 408 have been made to the Kulldorff article and its Talk page. I am willing to consider extending the standard offer of 6 months (from now), at which point he can make a new unblock request that indicates that he understands his misconduct and how he intends to change it in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to create a fuss if NYB wants to unblock but this is a clear case of someone on a mission who regards other editors as an obstacle to be worn down. I'm particularly concerned that Michael.C.Wright has posted many messages since my decline at 23:50, 24 October 2022 above but I still do not see any response to #Warning regarding discretionary sanctions above. Someone with a potential for collaboration would at least acknowledge the points raised and show some insight for why the current situation is not satisfactory. That problem can be solved with a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
(Non-admin comment) As a mere editor, but one who has been in conflict with Michael, I would intercede and say surely his work on coffee and so on is of benefit to the Project. However, User:Michael.C.Wright/Lunatic fringe makes me think that the underlying issues that have caused issues at Martin Kulldorff are a bit wider than just that bio, so would propose a topic ban on "biomedical aspects of COVID-19, broadly construed". Bon courage (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Bon courage is the editor who, in response to an article-talk-page notice about blocks on Michael.C.Wright and an IP, wrote "WP:SOCKING eh. While whining about bad faith. Classic." Although WP:GRAVEDANCING is a worthless essay I do believe that the block should be lifted so Michael.C.Wright has a chance to reply to such a remark in the same thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, I am not familiar with this portion of an unblock request and I don't see where there are rules or recommendations regarding how I should proceed. Is there a point in this process where I am allowed to respond to the comments above? Given Bbb23's previous comment regarding revocation of TPA for using the talk page during the unblock review, I would like to make sure by you that I can respond to the comments that have been made by others.

Thank you.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC); edited Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, it looks like no one wanted to respond to this. You are free to respond to the comments. Making the case for an unblocking is probably the main reason blocked users continue to have talk page access; you should retain that access as long as you don't fall afoul of any of the issues mentioned at WP:TPA. It's possible that what you say might be used against you in the unblock review. I'm not an admin, but that's my best understanding.For the record, I'd support an unblock with a COVID-19 TBAN. I haven't really reviewed MCW's history, but I have a vague sense that he's edited unproblematically in other areas (e.g. coffee). It would help to see some acknowledgment of wrongdoing, but not a dealbreaker for me. I was involved in the dispute at Kulldorff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to bring this unblock review to some sort of a resolution. I do not think that leaving an indefinite site-wide block in place indefinitely is justifiable, and the block has already been in place for almost a month now. Michael.C.Wright, please either clarify whether you agree that some scope of topic-ban is warranted or alternatively please explain how you would modify your approach going forward to avoid further edit-wars or other problems. Bbb23, Johnuniq, and Charles Matthews, please advise if you have any further thoughts. If we can't come to a consensus among the admins on this page concerning how to proceed, I will either have to make a decision as the reviewing admin, or else post the review request to ANI. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I'm not sure your pings worked (didn't for me), but I have this page on my watchlist. I'm opposed to an unblock even with restrictions. Users who have no insight into their own conduct, who deny they were doing anything wrong, who are apparently more interested in wikilawyering (see Michael's latest example below) should not be unblocked. If in the future after perhaps some reflection, they see the problems with their behavior that led to the block, then such an unblock request and appropriate restrictions may be considered.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, thank you for taking the time to review and adjudicate this process. I also appreciate your goal of resolving the issue both quickly and fairly.

In order to best answer your question and address your concerns, I would like to first ask a question that may help clear up some confusion on my part. Is this definition of edit warring correct?

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

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad & @Bbb23,

The reason given for the block was edit warring not for any number of other, templated reasons to block. I reverted the disputed statement only one time.

I do not understand the continued justification for this block as edit warring and at no point has any evidence of edit warring been provided. If there were diffs provided that explained exactly which behavior is at issue, I would then be able to understand the problem and propose corrections. If there are diffs that indicate a 'series of back and forth reverts,' I would like to see them in order to clearly understand the block.

I do not think it is wikilawyering for an editor to seek to understand the reason for a block. At no time has the blocking admin explained the behavior that justifies an indefinite, site-wide block beyond the blocking summary of "Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff after expiration of last block for the same thing."

I also do not think it is wikilawyering for an editor to request that a block follow the blocking policy, which requires WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK.

My experience with this block is that of an opaque process in which I have to guess which behavior is considered edit warring. When I claim innocence, that very claim is used as evidence of guilt—a Kafka trap.

Some editors, even some administrators on Misplaced Pages, forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Misplaced Pages politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content.
— WP:NOTPUNISHMENT

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:

Requests for unblock