User talk:CFRCitation

August 2023
Hello, CFRCitation, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No I am not using multiple accounts or coordinating.
 * Please do not make accusations without basis.
 * Please do not reverse well justified correction you do not agree with by throwing out allegations of bias while ignoring the justifications and reasoning for the edit. CFRCitation (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also coming here to warn you about WP:EDITWARring. Please review Wikipedia's policy on original research, WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR.  If you've been reverted once, discuss on talk-- don't revert again.  I've removed the original research you inserted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The above synopsis is incorrect. I placed an original edit with a justification and that edit was reversed without any discussion on the talk page or response to the justification - and therein lies the problem.
 * I started a discussion on the talk page when putting the edit back in and again noted the justification that had never been addressed.
 * Moreover, you did not remove any original research I provided. You seem to be confusing me with edits of another. CFRCitation (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You added to the original research (if what was there was in fact inaccurate); I'm not confusing you with anyone. At any rate, you should still discuss edits on talk before reinstating them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/SighSci. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet claim
Hello RoySmith, I see you commented on the investigation that the allegation that I am a sockpuppet is "a tenuous comparison based on log extracts." I appreciate your actual review here. Could you please further consider your log extracts, the writing style difference (which seem clear to me) and whatever else you might consider to judge whether I am a sockpuppet?

As I noted above, I am not a sockpuppet (or meatpuppet or whatever) of the specified user or any other user. I have quibbled with SandyGeorgia because I made an edit with a clear justification which was reversed without any response to the allegation. I do not believe the handling of this situation follows Wikipedia's guidelines or is impartial. Please note the order of things below. Regardless, if an edit I make is reversed in the future, I will go straight to the talk page even if there is a clearly noted justification with no response to it in the reversal.

Thank you. CFRCitation

I. You can see my initial edit here along with a clear justification: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168734852 II. This edit was reversed with no substantive reasoning or response to my reasoning, just attacking the messenger of "Rv more POV pushing by SPAs" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168735079 III. I put my edit back in with a revised justification + started discussion on the talk page (see the "Knee-jerk reversing corrections to error and adding research in Pharmacology section") https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Simufilam IV. Although my edit had a justification and the reversal did not, Sandygeorgia came to my talkpage (and not the reverter's) to state "discuss on talk-- don't revert again. I've removed the original research you inserted." This means the standard is, anyone can reverse an edit however justified with no justification for the reversal and thereby the edit to be pre-approved on a talk page. That seemed inappropriate to me, but again, I will go to talk if reversed in the future regardless of whether the reversal had any justification. CFRCitation (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There are some notes in cuwiki which other checkusers can refer to. I'm afraid I can't say anything else publicly. RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)