User talk:Pazimzadeh

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Linus Pauling. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't reply to user e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23, I am pasting the content of my email below for posterity. Please let me know where we are supposed to be talking, since I can't post on your talk page after being blocked, and you do not communicate over email. Will you receive notifications if I post on my talk page? Contents of my email to you are below:

Hi Bbb23,

I see that you have blocked my account, on the grounds of: 1) edit warring, 2) using a sockpuppetry, and 3. shouting in edit summaries.

I understand and admit to #3, and did not realize that capitalizing edit summaries counted counted as as shouting.

However, could you please explain reason #1 and 2?

Regarding #1, I'm confused as to how I am edit warring when I specifically left MrOllie's last edits on the Linus Pauling page, and instead engaged with him directly on his talk page instead of continuing our back and forth revisions. He then stated that I should not post on his talk page until I had reported him, so I reported him. Now I find myself blocked, and none of my concerns have been addressed. This doesn't seem fair. Can you please clarify?

Regarding #3, I have read the wikipedia entry on Sockpuppetry and I do not understand how my behavior meets that criteria. It is true that my first edits were done while I was not signed in to wikipedia (I am not a power user and barely use my account). Once the back and forth with MrOllie started, I signed in to my account in order to identify myself, thinking that would be better than being anonymous. I don't believe I have engaged in any sockpuppetry at all, if I am reading the page correctly. I did not "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction."

Separately, could you please shed some light on whether it is appropriate for MrOllie to dismiss edits to a page without reading any of the material being discussed, and not engaging with me in good faith discussion about the topic? He also asserted many things, including that the edits were profringe, argue with medical science, and violate WP:MEDRS. I have asked for evidence of these accusations, since I do not believe them to be correct.

I am new to being a contributor to Wikipedia (other than minor edits made over 10 years ago). I would love some clarity on what is going on here, as it doesn't seem fair to me.

Best, Philippe Azimzadeh

Stop sending me e-mail. I have this page on my watchlist, so I am aware when you or anyone else posts to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Pazimzadeh (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether you are planning to reply to my message. I am especially concerned about allegations of sockpuppetry, which seems like a serious allegation. None of my other concerns have been addressed either, regarding MrOllie's interpretation of the WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Pazimzadeh (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really rather straightforward. You edit-warred at the article. You used both your IP and your named account to edit-war, hence the

WP:LOUTSOCK. You can use your IP to edit Wikipedia, but it's always better to log in. You get a warning whenever you edit with your IP, so it's hard for you to say you were unaware of what you were doing. One thing you absolutely cannot do is to use your IP together with your named account to edit-war as you did.

Just so you know, I'm not interested in the content dispute, so your long-winded explanations of why you think you're right are annoying rather than helpful. Frankly, I don't see your contributions here as being an asset to the encyclopedia. During your week-long block, I suggest you reflect on how your own agenda fits with two of the principal purposes of Wikipedia, improving articles and collaborating with other editors in doing so. Perhaps you should spend your energy somewhere else more suitable to what you wish to achieve.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for replying, and attempting to clarify the rules around sock accounts. However, the article you linked to states "There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia while logged out, per se" and further clarifies "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors..." I have no tried to deceive anyone. In fact, when I posted to MrOllie's talk page in order to discuss the problem, I originally did so under the original IP.

Regarding edit warring, it should be noted that I have not made more than three reverts within a 24 hours period, even if you bundle and IP and logged-in edits. Furthermore, rather than continuing to revert (which would have been more than 3 reverts in 24 hours), I left the changes by MrOllie and posted on his talk page, where he failed to engage with the content of the primary and secondary literature provided.

Furthermore, I think you misunderstand my concerns. Although I am glad to learn about the technical details which led to me being blocked, I am less interested in your personal opinion regarding the content in question than in learning the specific rules within WP:MEDRS that I have supposedly violated. I have already spelled out my reasoning for why I think I am not in violation, in "long-winded" fashion as you say. It is my understanding that administrators such as yourself must "exercise care," "be wary of snap judgements," and encourage participants to discuss content.

If you are against reading a few paragraphs of text, which would seem to fall under "exercising care", perhaps you should take some time to evaluate whether being an admin is something which you are suited to in the long term, or let another admin help you out if you have too much on your plate. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Expectations_of_adminship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_guide/Dealing_with_disputes.

Finally, if it's truly the case that "We simply do not cover recent findings based on single animal studies" as stated by MrOllie on his talk page, then please let me know if it would be an asset to the encyclopedia for me to remove all of the existing instances on Wikipedia where a claim was made that cites a single animal study that I come across, once my block expires. There are countless such examples, including the one I linked to in the report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleukin_17#Role_in_psoriasis. Please note that this does not constitute an admission that the content I posted is only supported by a single study. Pazimzadeh (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Communication. Why does it feel like pulling teeth to try to get you to engage with me after you have blocked me with no warning? Pazimzadeh (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E-mailed copy of above message Pazimzadeh (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]