User talk:Michael.C.Wright

Single revert pledge

[edit]

If you believe one of my edits worsens the encyclopedia, feel free to revert it. Please try to leave a clear edit summary or discuss it on the talk page. In return, I will make an effort to revert your changes only once, if at all. (If I accidentally revert twice, I sincerely apologize.) If you revert back again, I will either discuss it on the talk page or acknowledge that you are correct. We both have equal rights to edit here. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 02:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 2022

[edit]
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)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
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[1] in talk space, kicking off a WP:BRD cycle with this revert[2] of factually inaccurate information on a WP:BLP.

My revert was undone by MrOllie[3], 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[4] then immediately moved that template to better-indicate the disputed phrase[5]. 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[6] (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[7]. That edit was changed by Bon_courage[8] then further edited by Bon_courage[9].

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[10], then Bon_courage changed it (also in article space) to the 2020/21 season[11].

MrOllie called the source "slightly ambiguous"[12] and Bon courage said of the article: “The wording is imprecise."[13]

After failing to reach consensus and seeing the article disruptively edited by other editors, I filed an incident[14] 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 (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Second unblock request

[edit]
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:

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 [15], which was denied for reasons unrelated to edit warring. I still stand by the first version [16] 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 [17] does not an edit war make. See also: My Understanding of Edit Warring
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. [18]
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 multiple times. [19], [20], [21], [22].

Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Wikipedia, 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 (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC); edited 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC); edited 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

New Evidence

[edit]
See also User_talk:Michael.C.Wright/Archive2 § I have no sockpuppets

@Bbb23,

Based on new evidence [23] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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.[24] Because there is no WP:SOCK, if the only evidence is concealed for that reason, the block should be reversed.

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

Your block was not based on the IP's edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide the evidence upon which it was based.
Thank you,
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC); edited 14:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requesting assistance

[edit]

@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. [25]

Recently I was blocked indefinitely, site-wide for "Edit warring at Martin Kulldorff after expiration of last block for the same thing.” [26]

I have twice, formally requested an unblock. [27], [28]. The first request was declined for reasons including what I believe to be a legitimate request at WP:ANI (permalink) [29] 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. [30] My user page was deleted for “U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host.” [31] 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.” [32] My latest request for the evidence leading to the block was met with a threat of revoking WP:TPA. [33] 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. [34], [35] Similarly, the blocking admin advertised or broadcasted my indefinite block to the ANI request. [36] 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. [37], [38]

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 (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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 [39], 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 (Talk/Edits) 20:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • (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) Stricken 17:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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,[40] 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 (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC); edited Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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 (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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 Wikipedia, forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia 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 (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]
See archived ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114 § Block review request by User:Michael.C.Wright

Unblock review posted to ANI for broader input, here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think @User:Swarm hit the nail on the head.
I agree that a retroactive reframe to “disruptive editing” fits the situation better, given the explanations for the denial of the first unblock request and the many responses from other editors.
My argument from the beginning has been (and remains still) that ‘edit warring’ is not the right reason for this block and the lack of evidence or explanation presented supports that (in my opinion). However, if the block reason was formally and retroactively changed to ‘disruptive editing’ we would have a more amicable situation.
I am open to discussing how my edits were disruptive, specifically ‘rejecting or ignoring community input,’ and ways I plan to avoid that in the future.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC);edited (partially stricken) 14:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad, @Swarm, @WereSpielChequers,
I have partially stricken my comments above. I have thought about them over the past few days and have come to the conclusion that I should not participate in the process of finding a valid reason to block or ban me.
This block does not conform to block policy:
  • The blocking admin still has not provided any WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE of edit warring.
  • The blocking admin still has not explained the block beyond the block summary.
  • The blocking admin has refused to answer my questions or otherwise engage with me in a discussion. This is counter to WP:ADMINCOND, specifically this Arbcom ruling.
  • "[E]ditors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions." [41] I believe I have done so civilly and in reasonably good faith (without any accusation of malicious intent).
As previously stated, I do not contend I did nothing wrong. However, I did not edit war. If my understanding of an edit war is incorrect (as a series of back-and-forth reverts), then I would request that an admin explain how I have it wrong and show where I edit warred after the previous block.
Having said that, one of my key take-aways from this proceeding is that multiple editors feel that there is something in the way I edit and interact that has lead to multiple accusations of policy violations and recommendations of a broad topic ban (which I don't believe is necessary). And while I may not agree with all of the accusations, they can still provide valuable information to me for inflection.
I admit that I can debate too strongly and that I can be a “dog with a bone.” I also admit that I have in the past taken the contrarian position too far. I’ll submit that I have also acknowledged when I recognize I have done so. [42], [43]
One of the ways I can tone-down my editing and debate style is with increased mindfulness of decorum and civility expectations. Another is to remember that I can simply log my dissent in talk space and then disengage without reverting. Reverts tend to escalate rather than de-escalate issues. A third is to evaluate community input—even if I don't agree with it—to look for and be open to legitimate criticism.
I hope that the fact that I explicitly did not dispute the first block [44] shows that I am capable of accepting legitimate criticism and am not just 'bucking the system.'
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My summary response to the ANI process

[edit]

I don’t claim broad innocence but I wasn’t blocked for broad behavior. I was blocked for the very specific behavior of edit warring. The definition of edit warring states it only occurs with a series of back-and-forth reverts.

There was neither a zero-revert nor a one-revert rule in effect, which are the two defined, stricter rules regarding edit warring.

Therefore my single revert [45] does not fit the official, documented definition of an edit war. As EdJohnston stated, I am only responsible for my own edits. [46]

I believe the unstated definition of edit warring that is being used by many editors in this case has strayed from what is explicitly defined as a bright-line rule—“a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation.”

Of the twelve responses at ANI, six cite my claim of innocence of edit warring as evidence of guilt. [47] Claiming innocence when no evidence of guilt has been provided is not only rational but entirely reasonable. Leveraging a claim of innocence as evidence of guilt is a logical fallacy. [48]

I believe that the environment surrounding this block has generally devolved into “a punitive model for Wikipedia politics.” [49] I also believe that it has become increasingly easy and acceptable for editors to spend more time debating the rules of inclusion of information rather than the validity and neutrality of the information (I am certainly guilty of this). I believe the end-results speak for themselves in copy that is not neutral and sometimes not even factually accurate. I contend that is exactly the case [50] with the disputed statement that is at the core of this entire issue and the statement I reverted.

Lastly, the existence of both a formal and informal reason [51] for a block is also against blocking policy. Informal, undisclosed reasons for blocking contribute to the punitive model. As they are undisclosed, they are impossible to refute or correct behavior for. This is the reason blocking policy requires blocks to be clearly stated, explained, and backed by visible evidence [52]—so that blocked editors can learn from the block and change their behavior.

In such circumstances it is important that the block message is clear as to the reason for the block so that the blocked editor knows what they have to change when they return. Fixed term blocks for unclear or undisclosed reasons should be considered a form of toxic behaviour and an abuse of the admin toolset.
— User:WereSpielChequers 1:26, 13 August 2019

I have certainly learned that reverts are more likely to escalate an issue rather than de-escalate one. And as stated regarding decorum and civilty in an Arbcom ruling; [53] if my behavior created or contributed to the repeated, good-faith accusations of persistent policy violations, the behavior should be changed. To that end, and as stated above, I will work harder to avoid rejecting or ignoring community input.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 19:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newer evidence

[edit]

@Newyorkbrad, @Swarm;

As I’ve previously said, [54] one of the reasons I reverted the statement is because it is, in part, an original interpretation by Bon courage.

In the talk page, Bon courage states that he is interpreting what the original author “means:”

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.
— User:Bon courage 18:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Recently, Bon courage has edit warred in another article and in that content dispute, he stated to Crossroads “interpreting what “he means” is OR:”

…interpreting what “he means” is OR. This is one of the central points here. Editors trying to coerce everything to do with “good news” into meaning “endemic” is not what our good sources are doing (or in this case any source). Why should Wikipedia be doing something so odd?
— User:Bon courage 06:55, 28 November 2022

Bon courage later went on to edit war by removing Crossroads neutrally written, sourced, and pertinent statement three times in less than an hour, not only violating WP:3RR but also this Arbcom decision.

After being warned by Crossroads about edit warring, [55] Bon courage thanked them “for the reminder about 3RR: in my concern to get the article right I’d temporarily put it out of my mind!" [56]

The statement I reverted was original research for reasons its author has shown to know and understand. Original research qualifies for WP:BLPREMOVE. Therefore my single revert should be exempt from edit warring.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well since I'm mentioned perhaps I should respond. It's okay (indeed wanted) that secondary sources "interpret" things, but not for editors to include their own personal interpretations in articles. This is the difference between the two situations above. The statement that I violated 3RR is false. Anyway this above post was just I'm afraid further evidence of why a block is now needed. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You interpreted what the source "meant" and therefore the statement I removed was original research. You stated very clearly—as quoted above— that you were interpreting the 'imprecise wording' of a source. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. It wasn't my interpretation, it was from the source. Which is why I said so, saying "from the SBM link ...". This is indeed further evidence, but not in the way you hope. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source article does not say "the period straddling 2020/21." The source article says "The past two years..." [57] You admittedly interpreted "The past two years" to mean "the period straddling 2020/21." The two statements are not similes of each other. As you stated, the source is worded imprecisely enough that it must be interpreted.
What I reverted was (and still is) biased original research in the biography of a living person. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning was clear from the SBM link, so no "interpretation" was needed. Just faithful summary of what was plain. That is the consensus of multiple editors. Even if you were right (and you are not) this does not justify edit warring, as the BLP exemption only applies to reversions of unambiguously problematic content about living persons; the details of the timings of an influenza season are not content about a living person. Anyway, there's no point arguing with a blocked editor as it cannot improve the encyclopedia, so I'll disengage now. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the time there was not a clear consensus, as User:MrOllie was arguing (in article space) that it was a "two year period." [58]
1. I argue the content is biographical because it is directly addressing Kulldorff's opinion that the seasonal flu is more dangerous to children than COVID.
2. If the author (Howard) originally meant "the period straddling 2020/21" then the statement of 'over 1000:1 flu:COVID deaths' becomes false. According to the CDC—who Howard cited in the original article—there were only 65 child COVID deaths [59] during the 2020/21 flu season (Sept. 28 through May 22).
3. Therefore, whether one interprets "The past two years" to mean the "2020/21 flu season" or '24 contiguous months,' the assertion that there were over 1000:1 child COVID:flu deaths "during the same period" [60] is not correct according to Howard's own source: the CDC.
Even if the statement is not considered part of a biography, it is still factually inaccurate information about COVID-19 and should not be repeated by Wiki. It should be removed from article space.
I contend, therefore, that not only was my single revert not edit warring (according to the documented definition of what edit warring is), but that revert also removed unsourced and verifiably inaccurate information about COVID-19.
I too will now disengage.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 18:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Responding to ping) I disagree with the characterization above that I was arguing against Bon courage's editing, I fully support their edits and the subsequent wording changes. Michael, given the results of the recent block review at ANI, I must say that attempting to get your block overturned by continuing the same rejected arguments about COVID-19 is extremely unlikely to succeed. If anything, I think you are making it more likely that you will remain blocked sitewide. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is TPA still enabled for this user? They are attempting to WikiLawyer their way out of a block for the sole purpose of editing against consensus. WP:NOTHERE 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:3DB4:FB48:2FF:1DDE (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia.
I see this is your first edit ever and you are already using wiki jargon and short-links like a seasoned editor.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 23:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Understanding of Edit Warring

[edit]

On the edit warring description page, the first sentence states:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other’s contributions. [emphasis added]
— WP:EW

On the same page, under the section titled "What edit warring is”, it is further defined:

An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. [emphasis added]
— WP:EW#What_edit_warring_is

Uw-3rr is a warning template used by the tools Twinkle, Ultraviolet, and Redwarn to warn editors of potential edit warring behavior. At the time of this writing, it is posted on over 1,000 talk pages. Its text includes:

…you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back… [emphasis added]
— Uw-3rr

It also says:

To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. [emphasis added]
— Uw-3rr

In other words; do not revert a revert, therefore making a series of back-and-forth reverts.

It also says:

…should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly… [emphasis added]
— Uw-3rr

This revert was my only revert of this statement and my first edit in twelve days. The undoing (reversion) of my revert is what could be argued as edit warring, as it begins a series of back-and-forth editing that defines an edit war. However, I no longer engaged in changing the statement in article space.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

From there I continued to participate in discussion only and made no further edits in article space

  • No complaints about edit waring were made in the discussion thread
  • No warning about edit warring was placed on my user page

Despite other editors first reverting my reversion, [61] and then repeatedly editing the statement in article space, [62], [63], [64] I made no further edits to article space.

I then created a request at ANI, as recommended by WP:BLPREMOVE and within 20 minutes of creating that request I was blocked indefinitely, site-wide. My user page was later deleted. I was wrongly accused of block evasion. And finally, the ANI request was closed without the core issue ever being addressed.

The statement in article space remains biased, contains original research, and contains objectively false statistics—verifiable data is publicly available from the CDC.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

@Newyorkbrad, @Bbb23,

I am seeking to better understand what went wrong and how to change my editing process. To help me, can you please answer the following questions:

  • If my understanding of the definition of edit warring is incorrect, how is it incorrect?
  • Which edit or edits are considered evidence of edit warring?

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A successful community

[edit]

@Newyorkbrad, @WereSpielChequers, @Swarm, @Charles_Matthews,

A successful community in Wikipedia is based on trust, including trust in administrators. That trust is formed, in part, by administrators not only enforcing policy, but also themselves adhering to it—leading by example.

Communication is a central tool for building trust. When all parties know what to expect, what is considered acceptable versus what is not, then the community navigates controversial issues much more effectively.

The toolset available to administrators, which includes the ability to block other editors is meant to be used to protect the project from vandalism and other disruptive behavior. The community expects the toolset to be wielded justly, fairly, and evenly.

When an administrator blocks an editor for disruptive behavior, it is expected that the editor improve the behavior and return to the work of building an encyclopedia. For an editor to improve, they must have a clear, and shared understanding of how and where they went wrong.

The behavioral guideline titled “ Wikipedia:Appealing a block ” states the following:

If you don’t understand any detail of the policy, or still don’t understand the action or reason that caused you to receive a block, you can ask the administrator that blocked you for help, or for any clarification on details that may be unclear to you. Administrators are expected to answer your questions and reasonably explain their actions.

That statement links to Admin policy, which defines the following accountability requirements of administrators:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions…
— WP:ADMINACCT#Accountability

That policy cites an Arbcom case in which a communication principle was accepted unanimously and codified as the following principle:

Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.
— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

I have asked for clarification four times, without receiving a response beyond the threat of removing talk page access. The blocking admin presents my lack of understanding as further justification for an indefinite, site-wide block. The combination of not responding to legitimate, good-faith questions while leveraging the lack of understanding as evidence of guilt not only violates policy but is counter to a collaborative environment. It erodes the trust between editors.

At no point has any admin shown how or where I have edit warred. If I have edit warred because I have an incorrect understanding of what edit warring is, it is the blocking administrator’s responsibility to clarify those policies by explaining their administrative actions when asked. Simply stating ‘you violated policy’ is not enough. Stonewalling and threatening further administrative action against legitimate, good-faith questions is itself toxic behavior and counter to a successful community.

My second unblock request was denied by simply linking to an essay regarding verbosity. That essay provides no insight into any policy or guideline that I violated that lead to an indefinite, site-wide block for edit warring. If I have become too verbose, part of the reason for that is the lack of engagement and the opaqueness of this entire block/unblock request process.

Since the blocking administrator has outright refused to engage beyond threats of further administrative action I’ll ask any administrator willing to respond: how have I misunderstood the definition of edit warring and which edit or edits violated that policy and lead to the block?

Asked in a different way; how is a single revert so grievous that in order to protect the project an administrator must violate policy?

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally shocked by what I see here

[edit]

I'm an objective independent Wikipedia user who accidentally got to this page and I can say that I'm absolutely shocked by what I see here. Here's a guy who's trying to make Wikipedia better, collaborating with others and doing his best to reach consensus, and he gets blocked for no apparent reason. I read the talk section of the article on Martin Kulldorff (which is how I got here) and Michael was by far the most collaborative person there. Other users there are still gloating over his block. When he then asks the reason for his block, he gets nothing. In the end his unblocking request is denied because an admin, @Yamla is too lazy to read.

@Newyorkbrad, @WereSpielChequers, @Swarm, @Charles_Matthews, from this page I understand you are admins. As an independent person, I can say that based on his behaviour on this talk page, @Bbb23 should immediately be relieved of his admin duties. His behaviour here is an absolute disgrace to a community project. He's clearly abusing his power. My 2 cents to this discussion, if you want to kill Wikipedia as a trustworthy, neutral source, this type of admin behaviour where you just block a model-type of editor for no apparent reason, is definitely the way to go. Martdj (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Martdj: I'm not happy with the indefinite block. I was involved, in the sense that I had been editing the Martin Kulldorf page. I made some improvement there, I thought. I wished to go further (in clarifying what Kulldorf's recorded views were when), but consensus on the Talk page was lacking.
This is always frustrating, but I had to accept, at least for the time being, the discussion as it stood. Michael, who hasn't I think seen so many WP debates, was also frustrated. The way ahead is usually not to force the issue.
The outcome, as I say, seems unsatisfactory. AGF applies to this situation: typically of the principle, it is most important when it is least likely to be applied. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been invited to comment here, But I don't have the time to get involved. Sorry about that, this is a volunteer project, and I'm not currently in a position to volunteer time to properly address this case. However I would point out that one admin has thought a block necessary and two other admins on separate occasions have looked at this and declined to unblock. Perhaps one or both were lazy and didn't read something, or perhaps three admins perceived something here that isn't obvious to some others. In any event, I'm afraid I don't have time available to get involved in this case. ϢereSpielChequers 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third unblock request

[edit]
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,[65] 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.[66] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.[67], [68] Very recently I have gained elevated privileges at en.Wikinews.[69] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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).[70] 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)[reply]
What are you meaning by 'article probation'? Valereee (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine with me. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Please either take the conditions I have requested, or give that a "no". 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that's my only real choice, I accept. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh. Okay. @Bbb23: what do you think about this unblock request? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Yamla: I do not understand the justification for the denial of this unblock request. It is my understanding there was a general consensus between at least three involved admin for an unblock with additional restrictions as indicated by 0xDeadbeef above. The open, unanswered question is for Bbb23, who has previously indicated pings were problematic for them.[71] The request went stale waiting for a response from Bbb23, which is not something I can control or influence (I can't post a message on their talk page to bring 0xDeadbeef's request to their attention). If Bbb23 has not voiced any objections after sufficient opportunity to do so, why not proceed with the unblock + restrictions as proposed? —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose an unblock. After considerable push-back, the user finally grudgingly accepted 0xDeadbeef's conditions: "Given that's my only real choice, I accept." I don't think the user has enough insight into their misconduct to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael.C.Wright&oldid=1255195347"