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&#32;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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 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):
 * 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)
 * 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:. 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:
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * 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&#32; 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: 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)
 * 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.


 * "...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. 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.
 * 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" 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.




 * 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)


 * : 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
I'm concerned your user page violates 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)

I have no sockpuppets
@Zzuuzz

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Michael.C.Wright (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 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. 

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)