User talk:Michael.C.Wright/Archive2

January 2021

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Michael.C.Wright! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Martin Kulldorff several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Martin Kulldorff, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Llll5032 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Llll5032 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This ongoing discussion will continue at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the article Martin Kulldorff. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you.Llll5032 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Llll5032 (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, all attempts to reach consensus on this topic are being made on the appropriate talk page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff.

Your violations of WP:3RR occurred with the following reversions that began our exchange. One can clearly see that my first edits of the page included an entry in the talk page in an attempt to avoid such an edit war and your first response below was in fact a violation of the three-revert rule and your second set of responses below were also a violation of the WP:3RR.

First

1. 1065378354

2. 1065379783

3. 1065380260

4. 1065381204

Second:

1. 1065446047

2. 1065446393

3. 1065450035

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No, your reverts are more recent and numerous. I stopped reverting to avoid WP:3RR, and suggest you self-revert any use of unreliable sources or original analysis of primary sources (per WP:MEDPRI) to do the same. Llll5032 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly; my edits are more recent and your earlier reverts (linked above) are clearly the first two violations of WP:3RR.

My first major edit included an addition to the appropriate talk page and an invitation in my change comment to join the discussion on the talk page. Your initial reverts are linked above. Anyone viewing the change history of the page can clearly see how this disagreement has progressed.

My first edits preceding your edit war were:

1. An addition

2. A removal of an un-sourced claim

3. Adding a template to an obvious straw-man

4. An alteration clarifying a statement (without altering the premise of the statement)

The next four edits are linked above and are your first violation of WP:3RR.

Your first engagement in the talk page was specifically directed only my first addition (#1 just above) and then you had no further engagement in the talk until after you made four consecutive reversions of my content within 23 minutes, in direct violation of WP:3RR.

Not only have you failed to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to congenial co-editing, you have initiated an edit war, falsely accused me of starting one, repeatedly made biased edits to the page (using loaded language), intentionally tried to smear me here in my talk page with unfounded warnings and accusations, and now you repeatedly request that I unilaterally revert my changes.

It bears repeating: this ongoing discussion will continue at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff Discussion of the ongoing issue here rather than the appropriate talk page is counter-productive. Any comments here specifically regarding the discussion at Talk:Martin_Kulldorff will be deleted by me (as I've just done). Let's keep the discussion on the appropriate page: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff There is no sense in dragging the discussion out over multiple different pages.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello Michael.C.Wright. You've been warned for edit warring per the complaint you filed at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

COI ?

Re this the question is simple enough: do you have any kind of COI for Kulldorff to WP:DISCLOSE? There is already an admin involved and it's a routine question with a simple enough answer. The reason you're being asked I guess is because of what looks like out-of-the-ordinary POV-pushing. Answering the question saves community time, which is helpful all round! Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn: As I've stated clearly before and will state again here: I am well aware of the WP:DISCLOSE requirements and am in compliance with them. If an admin is involved, I welcome their engagement in this matter.

This is the third time you have insinuated I have COI to disclose. Again, if you believe I am violating WP:DISCLOSE, you are encouraged to follow the correct procedure by filing a report at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

I have requested feedback from an administrator. Hopefully they will respond here but they could also simply respond on their talk page.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have "insinuated" nothing, just asked a question. And since you seemed unaware of what the WP:PAGs are (by saying the "correct procedure" was for me first to report you for paid editing, which I never ever mentioned) the question seems apt. Instead of this ridiculous dance-around you could have simply said "I have no COI for Martin Kulldorff" or "Whoops! I wasn't aware of WP:DISCLOSE, will do that now". Would have saved time, no? Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A word from someone uninvolved

I suggest you take a look at User talk:Rebroad and read about how well the argument that your understanding of policy trumps consensus. If an overwhelming majority of editors disagree with you, especially after you have brought your concern to the pertinent noticeboard, you really should consider that your views are out of sync with the community consensus regarding the content you're arguing and the policy you're citing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1. There is obviously a misunderstanding of what consensus is. It has nothing to do with numbers, a majority, a vote, etc.

The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.

2. Consensus should not and can not trump core neutrality policy

Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions...

3. Let's keep this discussion centralized (and civil). Any further replies here will be removed.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia: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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_Edits) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

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 (^Talk/_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)

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 (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I remember you've had an admin warning not to revert on this article without consensus.[1] 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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_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 (^Talk/_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 Wikipedia 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 (^Talk/_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

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 Wikipedia: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 (^Talk/_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.

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 [2], 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 (^Talk/_Edits) 02:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hrmph. My response. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest and unbiased response.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 13:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello I received your email, and am not going to get involved in this at this time. Please note if you solicit many people about this by email that may be considered disruption and your wikimail access may be revoked. Blocks, even of an indefinite nature, are generally able to eventually be overcome - see Wikipedia:Appealing a block for information on this. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the reply and for the advice. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 00:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Third unblock request

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:

I believe this block is no longer necessary. Since my block, I have focused on contributing to other Wiki projects, particularly Wikinews, where my edit count has quickly surpassed my seven years on Wikipedia. I'm proud of the collaborative work I've done there to enhance content. During my time away from Wikipedia, I've worked hard to maintain a congenial demeanor and handle disagreements respectfully. I understand that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I understand that it is disruptive to turn a talk page into a battleground of factions arguing for their own side rather than for the quality of content on the page. Moving forward, I will monitor my editing and debate style by being mindful of decorum and civility expectations. When I disagree with a given point, I will respectfully log my dissent in talk space. I will make every effort to revert others’ changes only once if at all, as reverts often escalate issues. If others revert back again, I will either discuss it on the talk page or just drop it. Additionally, I will consider community feedback, even in cases where I may not fully agree, and I remain open to legitimate criticism. While it was certainly not my intention to be an example of what not to do, nine months after my block,[3] I find that kind of reaction informative in understanding the dynamics at play. It was previously suggested that a topic ban should be applied once the block is lifted. I disagree with this. Outside of the Kulldorff BLP, I have edited only one COVID-19-related page; the Great Barrington Declaration to remove a broken link.[4] I have not edited any other COVID-19 pages in any other project. Thank you for your consideration. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 19:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 00:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2024 (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.

An unblock request is a pretty dumb place to subtly snark about other editors. I won't decline this outright, to allow you to address this comment and perhaps convince another admin, but I looked at this with the intent to consider an unblock, and that sentence led me to believe there's a decent chance you're just going to go back to fighting. No thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam, I can assure you that the comment was sincere and not snark. I do find other editors' comments useful and informative. I'm not sure why you think that is snarky or what makes you think I wish to fight anyone. Neither is the case.

As can be seen in my cross-wiki contributions since the block, my interactions have all remained civil, collaborative, and constructive.[5], [6] Very recently I have gained elevated privileges at en.Wikinews.[7] There was no opposition to the request. Had I spent my editing time fighting with others, I doubt the request would have been successful. I intend to continue the collaborative and constructive style of editing across all wiki projects moving forward. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC); edited 20:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I obviously can't see into people's minds, and acknowledge I may have read the wrong thing into it. Another reviewing admin is free to disagree and unblock. But the wording of "While it was certainly not my intention to linger in the minds of certain users for nine months after my block,[65] I find that kind of reaction informative in understanding the dynamics at play." strikes me as a subtle dig at a "certain" user; if it was an innocent remark, it feels like it would have been worded differently. Anyway, I am not declining, and as I said, another admin may decide I'm over-reacting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I see how the wording could be misconstrued and I have therefore modified it, hopefully clarifying that the comment is intended to convey that 1. I did not intend for my name to be used as an example of what not to do and 2. that feedback is indeed useful and informative. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 00:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

MCW, you say you disagree with the suggestion of a topic ban, and you mention your very limited participation in the broad COVID-19 topic area. Do you have any plans to edit further in that broad topic area, and would you oppose a narrower TBAN—say from the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors—as a condition of the unblock? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no justification for a COVID-19 topic ban nor the GBD and its authors. Not only were none of my disputed edits outside of the Kulldorff BLP, but the single, uncontroversial edit I made outside of Kulldorff to any other COVID-related page was the removal of a broken link at GBD. Since the block I haven't edited a single page wiki-wide related to COVID. My editing interest at the time, prior to the block, was clearly focused on Kulldorff's BLP. Article probation on the Kulldorff BLP seems more appropriate and less punitive.

And to that end, I'll add that the recent changes to the contentious statement reflect an acceptable level of consensus. I see GeogSage’s handling of that edit as a model for me moving forward. They engaged effectively, patiently, and civilly with others to reach a compromise that is an improvement to the article reflected in its relative stability after that change.

I have no plans to edit any specific Wikipedia pages or topics. I do however plan to ensure my edits to all pages and topics remain civil, collaborative, and constructive, as they have demonstrably been on other projects since the block. My focus right now is working with en.Wikinews to see if we can reinvigorate that project. Part of the reason I am requesting an unblock is so that I can link to Wikinews articles from Wikipedia articles, as was done for an article I wrote at Wikinews about the Willow project. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying that you don't plan to edit COVID-19-related pages, and yet don't agree to be subjected to a topic ban? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

But just for formality sake, do you agree to, as part of an unblock condition:

1. Be topic-banned from Martin Kulldorff?
2. Be subject to an indefinite 1RR restriction, as you have written in your unblock request?

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

[Y]ou are saying that you don't plan to edit COVID-19-related pages, and yet don't agree to be subjected to a topic ban? Both things can be true and desirable at the same time. I would agree to article probation on the Kulldorff article, for even up to a year of probation. I have already put in over a year and a half of non-contentious editing on other projects since the block and zero edits in the COVID space, despite not being restricted in other projects. I hope that shows that I understand what is necessary to contribute effectively and civilly to more than one Wiki project, without the need for broad, let-alone indefinite restrictions.

I have also added a single revert pledge to the top of my talk page that I will do my best to stick to. I will add that I was blocked after only a single revert. I did not revert the contentious statement even a second time. I therefore see no justification for an indefinite 1RR restriction. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 03:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable compromise for an unblock:

• 23 months block, "time served"
• 1 year article probation on Kulldorff BLP
• Single revert pledge (already committed at top of talk page)

I think it is fair to also consider my uncontroversial contributions to the Kulldorff BLP. The article is rated "B" and depending on the metric used, I am either the #1 or #2 contributor to the page (even after 23 months of no contributions).[8] I am neither claiming sole responsibility for the article being rated "B" nor for its current state. But my contributions have been significant and have improved the article. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you meaning by 'article probation'? Valereee (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean 'supervised editing' as in the following:

Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior.
— Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, Probation (supervised editing)

Rather than an outright ban, for the duration of the probation I am temporarily restricted in some way, say, zero reverts to Kulldorff BLP without first achieving consensus. If I violate that probationary requirement, it converts to an indefinite page-ban from Kulldorff BLP. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 17:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, this would not prevent some of the types of disruption that you engaged in. The revert pledge and probation would not address the "churning and wasting of time" noted in a prior admin warning. We got in a situation where your efforts were almost entirely focused on disputes related to Kulldorff and the GBD. A topic ban would prevent that while still allowing you to edit other topics. I would be happy to see you demonstrate some new approach to disputes here and later appeal to downgrade from TBAN to probation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, would a p-block from Kulldorff and GBD, with the ability to make edit requests on those talks, be a possible solution for preventing disruption while allowing MCW to show they are not here to waste other people's time? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the idea that only templated edit requests would be permissible? Of the "change x to y, uncontroversial" type? If so, I'm amenable, but I'd suggest it as a narrowly construed TBAN instead of p-blocks, and the scope should include the GBD and all its authors, including Kulldorff. There are too many perfect parallels between Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and Gupta, and it would be very possible to exactly rehash the same disputes at a different biography. There's a messiness to p-blocking from articles that the user has never edited, which is why I'd suggest a TBAN is cleaner than p-blocks, especially since the requests-only part of the restriction requires some self-policing anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just go with a flat topic ban and let that sit for a while before working on any bespoke sanctions. Let them demonstrate productive editing for a while before there's any allowance back to the problem area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between a messy p-block of pages never edited and a messy TBAN of pages never edited. What is a "p-block" and what makes one messy (honest question)? Please explain further.

I would like to reiterate that not only have I never edited other related pages (beyond the link-fix at the GBD) but I have not edited any COVID-related pages wiki-wide since the block. The concern that I will suddenly disrupt other pages has no foundation in past behavior.

I would be happy to see you demonstrate some new approach to disputes here and later appeal to downgrade from TBAN to probation. Have I not shown that already in just over 1.5 years of editing on other projects and working through disputes civilly and constructively? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

MCW, sorry for the jargon. A p-block is fairly new, it's a partial block from a page or a space. We can now block an editor from a single page or an entire space. So editors who have been disruptive at a particular page can be p-blocked from that page but can edit everywhere else. Or an editor who has engaged in edit-warring can be p-blocked from article space instead of being blocked everywhere. Valereee (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the jargon. A p-block is a partial block, meaning you're technically prevented from editing those articles. P-blocks are not generally messy. TBANs are almost always at least slightly more extensive than the pages directly affected by disruption, and p-blocks are usually used more precisely. Just speaking from my own experience.

For me, your contributions to Wikinews are a factor in thinking an unblock with some limits is a good idea. I can't see that you've been in situations as contentious as those that are common in the COVID-19 topic area here. For example, it looks like you've almost never been reverted at Wikinews, with most of the results there being self-reverts. I don't think it's unreasonable for me and others affected by the past disruption to want to see both stronger and more local evidence of changed ways. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify what "stronger evidence" would look like to you.

Also, please explain what this would look like, logistically: Is the idea that only templated edit requests would be permissible? Of the "change x to y, uncontroversial" type? If so, I'm amenable, but I'd suggest it as a narrowly construed TBAN... —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

For me, the strongest evidence would be something like:

1. Steady, mostly non-controversial work, with
2. a few civil disputes, in which
3. you sometimes don't win and are able to walk away.

As described at Wikipedia:Edit requests, the requests I'm envisioning could be something like "Please add 'Sentence describing Kulldorff's work on SaTScan' right at the end of the relevant paragraph in §Career. It's supported by references X and Y." You'd have to reasonably expect that the addition would not be controversial. Controversial requests would be declined, and you would not participate further in discussion about that proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So that I understand clearly; you are proposing a TBAN on the GBD and its three authors that permits me to fully participate in their talk pages, even to occasionally dispute others as long as the dispute remains civil. And to have that TBAN lifted in the future, I must demonstrate, through a few civil disputes and a few lost arguments that I am capable of walking away. In addition, I can request changes to those pages and those changes can be implemented by anyone else. I'm not being snarky, just clarifying to ensure I understand what you are asking of me.

I am otherwise freely able to edit any other pages in any other topics, to include linking to Wikinews articles, whether they are written by me or not. Correct? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This back and forth negotiation is leaving me unimpressed. I'm going to propose the following:

1. Topic ban from COVID-19, broadly construed, appealable after one year.
2. Indefinite 1RR restriction, appealable after one year.

If you don't take it, I'm suspecting that this discussion is continuing disruption. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

to fully participate in their talk pages, even to occasionally dispute others as long as the dispute remains civil: no, definitely not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef I was seeking to clarify, not to disrupt. I apologize that it came across as disruptive.

@Firefangledfeathers It is clear that the community wants some form of TBAN and therefore I can accept a TBAN on the GBD and its three authors. To help assuage any fears that I will disrupt other pages, I will say that I have no plans on editing any specific pages or topics. As I stated earlier; I feel the contentious statement at Kulldorff's BLP has reached an acceptable level of consensus. Further, I am no longer interested in editing that page. My current focus is to work on Wikipedia pages as they connect to or coincide with Wikinews articles.

I will continue to monitor my editing and discussion style to ensure they comply with WP:CIVIL. I will remain open to constructive feedback and I will strive to maintain civil and constructive engagement with others. As this is a volunteer project, I can not commit to "steady" work. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Please either take the conditions I have requested, or give that a "no". 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that's my only real choice, I accept. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Uhh. Okay. @Bbb23: what do you think about this unblock request? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just an additional note that the conditions I was suggesting is based off from the discussions above and the reason behind your block. It is meant to minimize your disruption to our project. You have mentioned that you can and will edit topics outside of COVID-19. You have mentioned that you can and will not revert more than once. Imposing them is good for both because the community would be reassured that you will abide to them, and you would have a lower chance of going back to the original disruptive editing behavior if you respect the conditions given. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)