71.128.145.158

October 2022

Hello, I'm Pizzaplayer219. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Martin Kulldorff seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for block evasion.

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:  Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

71.128.145.158 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was never blocked, how have I engaged in block evasion? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address why you are making the same inappropriate edits as a blocked user. Yamla (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user'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).

71.128.145.158 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Yamla I'm not sure what you're talking about. The reason for the block was "block evasion" and I can't have evaded any block because before this block I haven't been blocked. What am I expected to address? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As Yamla stated, "why you are making the same inappropriate edits as a blocked user". 331dot (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

71.128.145.158 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

And as I've said, I'm not sure what you're talking about. 1) How are my edits inappropriate, and 2) why didn't I simply receive an initial block with a proper explanation, rather than one for "block evasion"? Doesn't one have to have been blocked to engage in block evasion? I was never blocked. There is zero explanation here as to why I've been blocked. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on zzuuzz's check. Bbb23 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, we'll try it this way. Is the account User:Michael.C.Wright yours? If not, why did you make the exact same edit as that account did(leaving aside the issue of its appropriateness)? 331dot (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@331dot - No, that's someone else. I made my edits starting on 10/20 and that user wasn't blocked until yesterday. Perhaps there are multiple people that feel the paragraph in that article are inappropriate? I assume this means I was blocked because I agree with a user that was blocked? Doesn't change that I didn't engage in block evasion and should be unblocked. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@331dot - I want to make sure this is clear. The apparent assertion here is that I am Michael.C.Wright. To believe that, you'd have to believe that I started posting from a random IP while having a registered account and then, without having been blocked, started posting from a registered account, and then when that account was blocked went back to that IP. The more rational explanation is you have two people that disagree with the content of that article. A sysadmin can surely see that the IPs of me and Michael.C.Wright aren't the same, and likely aren't even geographically close. Please unblock me, or give a reason for me, specifically, to be blocked.

Only checkusers have access to IPs. Please review WP:MEAT. I might suggest that it would help if you agreed to abandon editing about Martin Kulldorff, but that will be up to whomever reviews this. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Besides the obvious behavioral similarities at Martin Kulldorff and its Talk page, the IP created a report at WP:DRN about Kulldorff (which I removed), not something many IPs would even know about, and in February 2022, Michael.C.Wright also created a report at DRN about Kulldorff.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

So to clarify - I am currently blocked for "block evasion" because I 1) hold a similar view as an entirely different user, and 2) am capable of using Google to find out how content disputes are settled on Wikipedia? You have zero basis for blocking me.

You're an admin. Get a checkuser (I just learned that term from 331dot) to validate IPs. Or accept that maybe, just maybe, multiple people read that article and feel it's less than neutral. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, the basis for my block is "block evasion" because I believe a paragraph and source on the Martin Kulldorff is inaccurate and inappropriate, and another user does as well that has been blocked, and I was able to use Google to learn about dispute resolution. The blocking admin has even admitted that the only basis for it is they believe I'm a sock of the blocked user. I'm not sure how to engage a "checkuser" to validate IPs, but if one could be engaged to do so that would be great. I was engaging in good faith editing and disputing, and only got on the radar because I sought attention through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (which the blocking admin deleted without cause). I'd like to be unbanned and for impartial 3rd parties to help resolve the dispute on the Martin Kulldorff article. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Only one open unblock request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I at least appreciate you keeping the comment. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Hello everyone. I was asked to opine on this by User:Michael.C.Wright, who I don't think I've ever come across before. In my opinion, the technical evidence says to me that this IP and Michael.C.Wright are not the same person. Nothing is certain in this world, but I would not say that if I didn't think it. You're welcome to get second opinions from other CUs. FYI pings @331dot and Bbb23. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

---