User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit

Legend has it that one day a chosen one will appear whose request will be parsed... El_C 12:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

😅 Wonderful, El C. I have already wondered whether I'd be able to create a request that is correctly interpreted by Cyberbot I. I think that isn't possible at the moment. On it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 100 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

Administrator ToBeFree, over the past year, a group of editors have banded together to:

1) Co-opt Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE policies to WP:CENSOR the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis from Wikipedia.

2) Lobby administrators to effect site bans and topic bans on editors trying to include the topic in pages where it is WP:DUE.

3) Codify their positions in the WP:NOLABLEAK essay and masquerade it as policy in numerous talk page discussions.

Now that I have written WP:YESLABLEAK and unblanked the lab leak hypothesis page, these same editors are:

1) Claiming that a "Scientific background" must be placed in the introduction to describe the mainstream view first, which is like putting an entire introductory section to The Christ in Messiah in Judaism [1].

2) Creating discussions about core elements of the hypothesis, like this discussion started by PaleoNeonate [2], demonstrating that they read neither Chan’s preprint nor the reliable sources that report it. These discussion require editors like myself, who have actually read the sources to engage in the WP:BRD process, instead of giving the little time I have to create content about the hypothesis itself.

3) Claiming that the article must be structured into a "claims and rebuttals" format, citing WP:GEVAL [[3]]. This is yet another attempt to co-opt policy to disrupt the normal editing process on Wikipedia, and completely out of the norm for an article on a hypothesis. See Solutrean hypothesis, Anthropocene, Aquatic ape hypothesis and Timothy Morton's Ecological theory, among many many others.

4) Moved the first mention in the scientific press of the hypothesis down to the body of the article, to give the appearance that it was first proposed by politicians, which is completely false. I have just reinstated the quote by Ebright into the lead of the article, as he was quoted on this in the science press long before Trump was in the general press. Please note also that Wikipedia may need to change its policy on the Daily Mail, which quotes a White House scientist on the matter [4].

5) Repeatedly claiming that there is a "scientific consensus" on the supposed "natural origins" of the virus - based on a WP:MISINTERPRETATION of the Hakim paper, and ignoring a key nuance argued by scientists - such as David Relman - that while origin of the virus may well be natural, but that its origins in humans - i.e. the first infection - may not. This has been discussed ad nauseam with many reliable sources and WP:UPPERCASES being thrown around across many many discussions. Please note also that RandomCanadian has just removed the FV tag I put on this false claim of consensus, saying it has been concluded in other discussions [5].

It should be noted that the only reason we are having to rewrite this article is because as you pointed out to me, RoySmith’s close of the DR allowed only for a "new draft" [6], which appears to me to be based on the "WP:TNT" calls in the delete votes of PaleoNeonate, RandomCanadian and Nsk92. The first two of these three editors are decidedly WP:NOLABLEAK editors who also voted to delete in the MfD and AfD, while the third has changed his position [7]. The only other comment I can find about a rewrite is from Porcelain katana who was against it in the MfD, and has since voted Keep in the AfD.

With this, I ask that you RoySmith clarify the DR close, and what it means for those of us trying to rewrite the article according to WP:PAG’s. Thank you and good night. CutePeach (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach I'll be happy to clarify my close, but I'm not completely sure what question you're asking. Could you be more specific about what needs clarification? Keep in mind, I'm not going to offer an opinion on any specific content. I can only comment on how I summarized the DRV discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pings (since those were clearly deliberately left out above...): @PaleoNeonate and Nsk92:

As for CP's actual comment, beyond the blatant aspersions and accusations, I must say I don't quite understand why they are so desperately trying to prove their unwillingness to collaborate in this difficult area. Their latest behaviour, if you'll excuse the metaphor, is basically yet another attempt to strike yet another full blow with a bludgeon, with the expectation, seemingly, that the bolt will suddenly jolt upwards, to their preferred outcome, instead of going down in the same direction you're expect it to go based on our policies. If I may, it's more likely that this will result in patience running out and the whole building coming back down crumbling on them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I intend to fully read the above later, but would like to mention the unfortunate fact that I already tend to ignore CutePeach's comments and pings. Since this is an administrator's page I'll say it: CutePeach is obviously a promotional account and perhaps that of a previously blocked editor (if not, forgive me, but there are reasons to believe it). If not a sockpuppet, evidence of meatpuppetry also often surfaced in relation to this topic. I have a list of soapboxing evidence that could eventually be presented at AE if this keeps up, given the time. The "a group of editors" above, includes people like me who care about the encyclopedia's accuracy, that it be well cited and reflects reliable sources. Something I try to do since 2005, although my account is more recent than that. I'm also familiar with propaganda and misrepresentation tactics and as such am a regular participant at FTN and joined WikiProject Skepticism... This is not to boast but to explain why I tend to ignore their posts. —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm well after reading a little more I see that it's more of a general problem and dislike of Wikipedia policies... —PaleoNeonate – 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read these messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree and RoySmith i saw this earlier and i think CutePeach is asking you to recognize that there is a faction-like group that has disrupted this topic for a year, and they would like you administrators to provide a remedy for the situation. CNET wrote an article about this war over the lab leak on Wikipedia, saying also that Wikipedia has "just a core group of contributors numbering around in the tens of thousands, at most." What this shows is it's very easy for experienced editors to game the system and the CNET article says also there may be Chinese state actors here. I don’t want to point fingers, but RandomCanadian who commented here is known for editing the lab leak out of every single article on Covid, including biographic articles about notable people who proposed it, twisting sourcing policies and guidelines. I am not saying this is proof of anything of course, and I would also not say this Iraq WMD point they made to My very best wishes on the same day Zhao Lijian made the same point is proof of anything either, of course. Since PaleoNeonate accuses CutePeach of being a sock, I remind you that Jtbobwaysf mentioned to Arbcom that RandomCanadian is a very suspicious account, and PaleoNeonate then immediately showed up on his talk page telling them to file an SPI. Obviously no one has filed an SPI, because by RandomCanadian’s own admission they are very experienced editors, editing as an IP for four years, so they probably have good alibi. RandomCanadian and Novem Linguae welcomed me to Wikipedia by accusing me of being part of a DRASTIC when I created DRASTIC, tried to blank the page with file copyright complaints and emailed Arbcom about me. It's quite suspicious these editors who have blocked the creation of the lab leak page now want to help rewrite it, and, obviously, they want to delete the most important section of it, as you see here. If this is how administrators allow experienced editors to behave, despite obvious signs of WP:GAMING no wonder you have only a core group of only a few tens of thousands of editors.--Francesco espo (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This thread will likely need bumping. As for the above, its entirely comical that the diff provided to support the claim that I am "known for editing the lab leak out of every single article on Covid, including biographic articles about notable people who proposed it" - only actually shows the removal of the primary, self-published source, without altering any text. As for the very unsubtle and baseless accusation that (and the similar comments by CP) needs to stop, because it makes any collaboration very difficult, and again only makes me think of the first law of holes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The previous versions were obviously unacceptable, as most experienced editors can assess. When an inappropriate article passes AfD and will remain in mainspace, it must be fixed and sometimes turned into a stub or rewritten, this is common practice. Wikipedia is not an indicriminate webhost. It's also not for promotion or trying to mainstream ideas that are not the conclusions of the best sources. The reason why the article is about to remain, if it does, is WP:GNG, not because the conclusions previous versions pushed were right. You are free to do that on your own website. As I wrote on the DRASTIC article's talk page earlier, if you are part of the group, trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform taints its reputation and may affect that of members doing more legitimate work, if any. If you are not, sorry for making the erroneous assumption. See the reputation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for instance. WP:SPA on Wikipedia says a lot and can be evidence of WP:NOTHERE. What you call disruption above is routine quality control by regulars, patrolers and administrators who understand the policies. WP:NOTFREESPEECH although an essay, is a pretty good summary of why censorship crying fails on Wikipedia... —PaleoNeonate – 07:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it seems that NOTFREESPEECH is now a redirect to the NOT policy page, it was likely merged. It is relevant, but the essay is WP:FREE. I highly recommend to carefully read both, —PaleoNeonate – 07:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Claiming that the article must be structured into a "claims and rebuttals" format, citing WP:GEVAL if this is related to the discussion at the new article's talk page, when I refer to GEVAL it's a warning to avoid doing it, not to do it. Wikipedia is not "foo says this, bar says that" but attempts to instead focus on the topic in its context. There is some obvious misunderstanding or misrepresentation there. This is also why reminding of the scientific consensus is important. We don't try to give equal validity to two ideas that do not have the same likelyhood especially when reliable sources also stress that. When the next int report and reliable sources also report about it, who knows. At the moment it remains speculative and considered as such by most of the scientific community. This will be my last comment about this on this page. —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate the reason the article will pass is not just because of WP:N, but also because of WP:DUE. There are aspects of the hypothesis that WP:NOLABLEAK activists have repeatedly claimed are undue in COVID-19 origins and related pages, which is why I had to unblank this page. Your attempts to WP:POVDELETE the Apparent pre-adaption section and other sections of the page - ironically for reasons of WP:DUE - lays bare your intention to continue WP:CENSORING the topic from Wikipedia. You claim your WP:ACTIVISM is really just regular quality control, but we have senior admins like DGG who have said they have never seen anything like this campaign of censorship in the fourteen years they’ve been an administrator. I think this is an opportune time for an WP:ARE case. CutePeach (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(There is now an enforcement request at WP:AE#CutePeach, which is a good occasion to pause this discussion here for the time being.)
Bumping thread for 30 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

everyone, let's not escalate this. We are very near having a satisfactory article or group of articles. What matters is the content, not the details of how it's expressed. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

GoFR

What do I do with this very stubborn IP at Gain-of-function research? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I guess what Ohnoitsjamie did. The request at ARCA has finally been closed (1034695626#Clarification_request:_COVID-19). I had seen the request and didn't want to take this action before it's closed, but now I can implement the indefinite semi-protection I had in mind all the time. I should perhaps have had a look at the ARCA discussion more frequently to notice this earlier; thank you for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware there had been an ARCA discussion; in any case, indef semi works for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hello ToBeFree, I apologize for an unexpected message but I simply wanted to ask your 3rd party opinion as a Wikipedia admin on this concern I have:

User by the username of BaxçeyêReş made this edit, where I am particularly concerned about the "your nation's germinal vitriol'" sentence in reference to the country of Azerbaijan. Personally, it seemed to me like a racist sentence to make, given the user referred to a "nation" and not a government, for example. I posted my intention to seek administrative action on the user's talk page in this edit, which was just reverted. The user also has edit the history of removing Azerbaijani names from Caucasus villages and locations, which in itself is not a problem if proper reasoning is provided, by combined with the above sentence looks concerning.

The user also made this statement: "I will continue to crush you and your vitriol every time you re-join Wikipedia", which also I thought is bizarre. The user also informed me of their intention to report me to ANI here immediately after I informed them of my intention, which again seems like bad conduct.

I am asking for your opinion, what do you think? I think a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I also want to ask more people but since you're an admin I wanted to contact you. You are the second admin I contact. I am considering making an ANI post.

Edit: please also note these [8] [9] [10] on Kurdish wikipedia, where the user states: "Azerbaijan is worth as much as dirt", "Azerbaijani articles were created by god to be vandalized" and "you are a dirty prostitue ElijaM".

Thank you in advance. - WimpyDood (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing "Azerbaijani names" is an act of virtue when they are unsourced or even made-up by random IP addresses and hour-old accounts out of Baku.

As I have mentioned to you before, WimpyDood/Creffel, anti-Armenian attitudes are deeply entrenched in Azerbaijani society. When you have a user like EljanM, whose sockpuppets repeatedly claim Armenia as "part of Azerbaijan", try to erase century-old Armenian names from Wikipedia, and continuously attack users, it becomes clear that my words are not only justified, but true. Azerbaijan does have a history of germnial vitriol against Armenians, among others (my own Kurdish family was chased away from Karabakh by Azerbaijani armed forces [believe it or not, WimpyDood, Azerbaijanis can be bad guys, too]).

WimpyDood, the alter ego of Creffel, has a long history of using POV-inspirited language and exaggerated language to describe topics on Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Every discussion I have been involved in with this user has been fruitless, and now that they can no longer feasibly defend their actions, they resort to harassing admins to get me banned. What a sad day to Wikipedia and the concept of objectivity this has been so far. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

BaxçeyêReş, you have been using Wikipedia as a battleground for "banish"ing and "crush"ing – surely in good faith, but repeatedly accusing others of misconduct and malice without evidence (Special:Diff/1034838738, Special:Diff/1035140721, Special:Permalink/1035145026#Request_for_your_opinion). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed notification, WimpyDood. Reverting sockpuppets' contributions is usually fine by itself (WP:BE/WP:BMB), and BaxçeyêReş clearly intends to improve the encyclopedia regading verifiability and neutrality. They have taken this mission a few steps too far and will probably be welcomed back if they manage to step back a bit. I hope that's okay. If possible, please avoid further interaction with them, as it is unlikely that further interaction is wanted or beneficial for either party. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries ToBeFree, thank you for taking administrative action. I am still however concerned about the statements the user made on Kurdish Wikipedia and the generally racist comments there and here on English Wikipedia as well. I mean stating "Azerbaijan is worth as much as dirt" here and "Azerbaijani articles were created by God to be vandalized" here is surely grounds for permaban? at least on Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles? These kinds of opinions don't change quickly and obviously interferes with verifiability and neutrality. - WimpyDood (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We have similar concerns there, WimpyDood: I just sent a message to the blocking administrator (ku:Special:Diff/893849). Please ask them if there is a noticeboard for such reports; if there is none, please encourage the creation of one. If one exists, please tell me and I'll add it to wikidata:Q32402502, wikidata:Q4580256 or similar. All I found was ku:Wîkîpediya:Vandalîzm/Destpêk, which neither seems to be used nor the ideal venue for general requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Once more I am very grateful for your assistance. I will look around there as well. I wanted to ask however, even if the user is ever welcomed back on English Wikipedia, would the user be permitted to edit on Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles in English Wikipedia? I have seen cases on ANI where users have been permanently banned from specific topics for saying less than BaxçeyêReş. Racist POV is the same on English Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia - WimpyDood (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'm reluctant to classify this as "racism", as racism isn't tolerated on Wikimedia projects and justifies an indefinite, practically unappealable exclusion from the community. The quoted "dirt" sentence seems to be highly problematic, but jumping to such a severe conclusion without speaking the used language, based on a machine translation and a user's translation, would be unprofessional. I lack insight into the context of the statement; to me, it looks as if it is primarily meant to offend specifically the reverted person. A statement meant to offend a specific person is likely to contain provocative exaggerations; it does not transparently show the sender's actual position.

Disruptive editing in general, yes, can lead to a community discussion resulting in a topic ban. As a result of WP:ARBAA2, topic-related sanctions can also be applied by individual administrators in this area. Theoretically, as part of a binding unblock condition, any measure can be negotiated.

It is unlikely that the user will be unblocked in a way that allows them to continue making similar edits; any unblock discussion will focus on these issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply ToBeFree. I have to mention however that the user wrote that "dirt" sentence in Azerbaijani, and I speak Azerbaijani, seems very clear what the user meant. Also writing that Azerbaijani articles were "created by god to be vandalized" is also a target at a specific nation, hence racist. Also not forgetting the fact that the user made a comment on English Wikipedia, in English, writing "your nation's germinal vitriol" also seems like a racist phrase to use. You stated that you lack insight into the context of the statement, would it be okay with you if I asked for request for comment on this or other administrators for their opinion? - WimpyDood (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WimpyDood, if the user requests an unblock, the appeal will appear at CAT:RFU and an uninvolved administrator will provide a third opinion. Until then, I see no need for having a large discussion about why specifically they're currently indefinitely blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree I see, thank you very much for information. My only concern is however that the user was banned for accusations of misconduct and malice, but not for racism. I simply believe that the user should be banned for racism as well given the kinds of sentences and statements the user made. You stated you lack insight into the matter, therefore I simply wanted to ask others if the user's behavior can be sanctioned on grounds of racism as well? - WimpyDood (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As blocks are not a punishment, the block serves its preventative purpose even if the block reason doesn't contain a list of all problems. I'll link to our discussion below the block notice to ensure it is read by any later reviewer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(done in Special:Diff/1035157666) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you so very much ToBeFree for patiently considering my concerns and being so helpful and informative. I wish you a good day and a good summer. - WimpyDood (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and the same to you. Thank you for the kind feedback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ban Binksternet

A user named Binksternet ought to be banned. He's started several edit wars and refused to listen to reason.