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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Subicculum per the evidence presented at Wikipedia: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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. qedk (t 愛 c) 19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. This determination is an error as my account is my own, controlled and used solely by myself, and is entirely independent of this other user. The page I am editing is controversial and there appears to be a history of edit wars and blocking/banning. You will see from my history that my edits have always been made with a clear justification and I have readily engaged the talk page as well. From a quick skim, the user I am alleged to be a sockpuppet of, Subicculum, has a different writing and justification style and he/she have not even made the same edits. I request you please review the differences in writing style, edit history (which while including the same page is NOT the same edits), and whatever IP or other information you have in order to see for yourself that we are independent accounts. CFRCitation (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not do checkusers to "prove innocence" because they can't, really. So unblocks that request this are usually declined. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2023 (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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]