User talk:CutePeach: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

CutePeach, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

Have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Presumably you are aware of WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No other accounts. I corrected typos when I was in college without an account. I saw this conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your brinkmanship on this topic. You should allow for competing for view points from scientists and experts reported in reliable sources. Did you see the article today in the Wall Street Journal? CutePeach (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh from twitter. If you've been roped-in to edit by others that's a WP:MEAT problem. Also be aware of WP:RGW. I generally do not read American newspapers, and Wikipedia prefers proper scientific publications for scientific topics, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, Wikipedia also has an account on Twitter and no one roped them there. Anyway, this one isn’t British, but close: https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0318/1204794-covid-19-origins-china-wuhan-bats-lab-leak-frozen-food/ CutePeach (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, you are getting pretty close to a block per WP:NOTHERE, or at least a partial block on COVID-related articles--and/or a topic ban considering your edits in relation to the discretionary sanctions you were notified of. This kind of talk of censorship and "competing view points" suggests you think about Wikipedia as if it were a social media type of website: it is not. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, any new user who joins this conversation is immediately labeled as an "SPA", accused of being a "sock" and branded a conspiracy theorist. Just look at how Feynstein, RonnieSays and Fa suisse were treated and now they are gone. I saw that RandomCanadian made a comment about me on your talk page and I defended myself as you would expect of any new user facing such an accusation. If you can give me some specific pointers about how to engage more productively, I will surely comply. CutePeach (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind lab leak controversies, lumping Ireland and Britain together as similar sends the needle off the scale!

Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, I don't know those other editors. But RonnieSays starts with this edit, which is hardly an edit a newbie can make, and then they start edit-warring over it immediately, so yeah. I find it odd you'd know about them--y'all haven't interacted, you just got here, and they've been gone for a week. Feynstein also complained they're being singled out--a puzzling complaint, IMO. And Fa suisse comes into the COVID stuff with this edit--no wonder editors start asking questions.

I haven't said anything about socking in your case: I merely pointed out the aspects of your editing behavior that cause me concern, and I am serious about that. There are only two sides for Wikipedia in a field like this if there is another side that has serious scholarship to back it up; if not, it's FRINGE. This is not a debate club. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that is right, I have never interacted with those editors and I selected them because they are recent. I saw this thread on Twitter a few weeks ago and I have been following the conversation here ever since. I respect your integrity as an administrator but I will be disappointed if you take the side of one group of editors who are polarizing a scientific controversy. I agree with you that we should reference serious scholarship. CutePeach (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any scientific controversy. Drmies (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific controversy: There are reputable scientists and reliable sources on both sides. The WHO will release its full report later this week but some member states may not accept it as China has not released requested blood samples. Here are a few sources on the controversy:

This controversy is similar to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 where the Russian government refused to cooperate so the Dutch government launched its own investigation and litigation [1]. There are also similarities with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 controversy where the Malaysian government didn't give its full cooperation and only much later revealed they knew more than they admitted to earlier [2]. Where COVID-19 possible lab origins and the Chinese government alleged coverup are concerned, the worst-case scenario is that the US government will file a formal complaint using Article VI of the Biological Weapons Convention, or they will push for some big changes to the BWC in the Ninth Review Conference [3]. CutePeach (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single scholarly source in your list I note. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, that post was meant for Drmies. CutePeach (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Global Virome Project

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Global Virome Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://db0nus869y26v.cloudfront.net/en/Viral_metagenomics. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello CutePeach! Your additions to Draft:Global Virome Project have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Viral metagenomics into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers. I will follow your guidence. CutePeach (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Philippine-based music groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Latino. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriella Stern (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gabriella Stern and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gabriella Stern, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CutePeach! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf JPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Gabriella Stern

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Gabriella Stern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://amecorg.com/summit-speaker/gabby-stern/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LionMans Account (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catharina Boehme (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catharina Boehme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Catharina Boehme, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf JPxG how do I reply to this? They are misrepresenting the WHO’s position and also claiming I post a lot to a page because I fixed some indentations. Will the administrator understand that? CutePeach (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source bias

Hello! You used a source in the above article that is only a month old, published on arxiv. It is a somewhat ironic question, but do you have a connection to the authors of that paper?--- Possibly (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Possibly, I do not have any connection to the authors of that paper. The term "source bias" has come up a lot in the scientific controversy on COVID-19 origins [4]. If you think that source isn’t credible, you can remove it, but I think it's ok. CutePeach (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. We see authors trying to plug their papers now and then, so I thought I would ask. Thanks for your kind reply. --- Possibly (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly now I understand why you asked me that [5]. :) CutePeach (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia generates credibility and raises positioning in web searches, among other positive effects. --- Possibly (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutePeach. I am very active on Twitter. I had a look at those links. Wow! Or rather, yikes, regarding the emollick thread. Good find, and thank you for surfacing that! A friend of mine said this in the same conversation. Sadly, it is neither released via pre-print server let alone peer review. He succinctly phrased what I failed to express on the GOF talk page recently. Sorry for barging in here. I like your user name (it is friendly!) so I stopped by.--FeralOink (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase

You might want to reconsider how you explain your view here. You seem to have accidentally claimed that the field of Epidemiology, which did work on microbes in the 16th century, is impossible unless you are using 20th-century technology such as serological tests and DNA sequencing. I suspect that's not quite what you meant.

You might also be interested in reading CSI effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing I think an uninvolved editor without a strong POV would be perfectly capable of dispassionately reading the RFC and understanding that the votes and discussions there were not just about the application of the WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS policies to disease and pandemic origins in the general, but also to COVID-19 origins in specific - and close it accordingly. If we were 17th century Wikipedians, I'd be here advocating for the inclusion of reliable sources reporting on the demands of the people for the Church of England to investigate the Epidemiology of the Great Plague of London using whatever information and technology they had available to them. If they weren’t doing that, then obviously the bishops, priests and deacons would have nothing substantive to write about, and we’d have to question whether WP:ANGLICANRS and WP:BMI are the applicable policies for us to be covering the event and its aftermath. I would be etching my draft on the flea hypothesis into whatever stone, wood or parchment I could find.

Regarding forensic investigations, scientists have said since the beginning that only forensic evidence can determine the origins of the virus [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. A science editor with your level of experience and expertise should be able to comprehend this point and help resolve the content dispute without much effort. CutePeach (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said "there is no raw serological data from the earliest patients, or verifiable phylogenetic data about the virus itself, and without those datas, one can’t do epidemiology". This is not true. This is not what any reputable sources say. There is more to "doing epidemiology" than identifying previous strains of a virus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, are you saying that the WHO’s investigation should go ahead with pre-1901 science and that Wikipedia’s MEDRS policy should block any reputable sources reporting on the abnormality of China refusing to share raw data and blood samples? Are you seriously unaware of these reputable sources? Here is one of many [12]. CutePeach (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since contact tracing is "pre-1901 science", and epidemiologists around the world are doing it, and the WHO is recommending it, then I believe that we should use some "pre-1901 science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I am sure the closer of the RFC will realise my comment does not imply that serological or phylogenetic analysis should constitute the entirety of an epidemiological investigation. I in turn realise that your comment here isn't implying that contact tracing alone constitutes everything that is epidemiology. Where we would agree - I hope - is if a government were to restrict contact tracing from a WHO convened epidemiological investigation, then it would possibly be considered by RSs to be compromised, and we on Wikipedia wouldn’t apply the MEDRS standard for every aspect of our coverage of the controversy. CutePeach (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read that article a few weeks ago. It is very frustrating how Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge how much information China continues to obfuscate about the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in light of it being repeatedly referenced in the real world, with real facts and data etc. Okay, I will go now, sorry. By the way, I am not an idiot nor uninformed about epidemiology. You never said I was. I worked for the State of Arizona Department of Health Services as a non-infectious disease epidemiologist for three years, doing mostly statistical analysis (I don't have an MPH). You are NOT being unreasonable, in my opinion.--FeralOink (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Alina Chan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Alina Chan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GermanKity, I was just about to add a line to that article with reliable independent sources. I have now submitted the draft for review. CutePeach (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutePeach, Yes, i can see you have added few more references. Now let the other editors review your article. GermanKity (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GermanKity, you moved Alina Chan to draftspace literally seconds before I added some more sources to it, and now it's been stuck there for nearly a month, collecting even more sources. Please can you undo your move? CutePeach (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

Why are you insisting on creating a duplicate of existing material, base it on rather poor sources, and then decide to put it at the top to give it undue prominence of placement? If you continue with this kind of problematic editing, you're likely going to get sanctioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, you may be blocked from editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You can't run around like a bull in a china shop, not even explaining what you are doing.Template:Z190 Drmies (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making personal attacks? Your edit was reverted because it duplicated existing material, put undue weight on one aspect, and because you completely ignored WP:ONUS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Word limits at AE

@CutePeach: FYI, Arbitration Enforcement has a very strict limit on word counts (500). You may want to trim or combine aspects of your comments to adhere to that. Here's the tool I use [13].--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shibbolethink. I use Evernote on my laptop which is my work station, and I add links in from my mobile, which is my personal device that I use for posting on Wikipedia. I was aware of the 500 word limit from watching other cases and I tried to keep it in the limit, but I think the links took me over the limit. I’ll try watch out for this in the future. CutePeach (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:COVID-19 naming dispute, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. dudhhr_Contribs 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Hi Dudhhr why did you delete my draft so quickly? I was just about to start translating it from our Chinese article in ZH:WP [14]. There are many good sources also in English [15]. CutePeach (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for CSD as it appeared to be a Test page. You can ask an admin to undelete it. dudhhr_Contribs 16:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing

I've removed the soapboxing by you and Hyperion35. I strongly advise you to stop using talk pages to voice your opinions about China, etc. That page is about discussing changes to a guideline supplement. Even on a covid article talk page, you need to restrain your self by discussing article text in the context of what reliable sources say, rather than spending every day soapboxing about the subject and accusing your fellow editors of censorship. You found a bunch of good sources on the deletion story, so you do know how it works, but you need to bite your tongue on all the other stuff. There are DS hanging over those pages, and at some point an admin will tire of your abuse of talk pages. -- Colin°^Talk 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin thanks for the note. I didn’t mean to sound litigious in my reply to you on the RFC page, but I did intend to be firm as there are some editors here advocating for administrators to ban editors who dare counter their POV on content and policy. I also didn’t mean to imply Bakkster Man is one of these editors, and I only linked to his post in the RFC discussion to show that he and other editors misunderstand WP:MEDRS’s application to COVID-19 origins. Bloom’s findings, as reported by RS, constitute evidence of a cover up, and he does not give it to add weight to the lab leak hypothesis directly, which is also misunderstood and subject of two long conversations on the page. If you read my vote in the RFC, you will know that my view isn’t very much different to yours or WhatamIdoing on changing the MEDRS and BMI policies, but I do think editors need to understand their application better. I have created a WP:POVDELETION shortcut for the benefit of editors who delete stuff in the name of NPOV, and I think we will need a similar shortcut for editors who delete stuff in the name of MEDRS. Good night. CutePeach (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if we agree (or don't) on a particular content question. The main problem is behavioral. A functional response to "please stop talking about your opinions about China" is not "Bloom's findings constitute evidence of China's misbehavior". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from China and weapons of mass destruction into Chinese biological weapons program. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for all of your work towards achieving neutrality in the COVID-related pages.KristinaLu (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KristinaLu! Where are you from? I wouldn't argue so much about the WHO as a source as we already discussed it here [16]. Jtbobwaysf says that sometimes things need to go to an RFC. This may be one of those things, and the right venue would be WP:RS/N. CutePeach (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Some of the comments/accusations you've made on the IITOOC19 talk page are POINTY and don't AGF. Particularly this: "Some editors here seem to be misremembering the paucity of data here, possibly in a bid to downplay Bloom’s findings."

Please keep discussions to content not conduct on article talk. Thank you. Pound the sources, pound the policies, don't pound the table. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 07:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fauci BLP Violation and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This response is in reference to this query: [17]

Please see User talk:Thepigdog#Reliable sources in the context of medical subjects where I describe our standards for reliable sources for medical claims and claims against living people. In short it is not okay to accuse a living person of a coverup regarding a global pandemic with weak sources. This is exactly the sort of thing that will get an editor a topic ban from the subjects of BLP and COVID under the current discretionary sanctions.

In particular I need you to be aware that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are the standards these claims are being held to. Note that WP:MEDRS says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles", this is crucial here.

I see you were notified of the discretionary sanctions in those areas last March. Now that I have given you the link to the conversation I had at User talk:Thepigdog and links to the standards for MEDRS and BLP I am going to assume you have read it. Please be careful to hold to the standards laid out by the community for BLP and medical topics. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, thanks for your reply. I was aware of the discretionary sanctions in the areas of COVID-19 but thanks for the reminder. I am also familiar with BLP guidelines, but only on a basic level. As I mentioned in my query, Fauci has faced criticism from fellow academics on Gain of Function Research of Concern, and I do not see why this can’t be covered neutrally in non BLP pages like COVID-19 investigations. We already say that Peter Daszak was seen by some as a conflict of interest, which is WP:DUE there and cites good WP:RSs. The topics of GoFRoC and COVID-19 origins have political and societal aspects, which are covered not by WP:MEDRSs, but regular RSs. Please note, I do not especially agree with Thepigdog’s choice of sources, or the particular edits they may have been suggesting. CutePeach (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, the argument cn be made using only Fauci's emails and a published paper. Quoting the popular press is not required. Also the GOP hearings are a matter of public record. Thepigdog (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of Wikipedia:No original research particularly Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. Also see WP:PRIMARY which says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Again this secondary source will need to meet the standards I have described above.

As an encyclopedia we should not be making an argument for anything. We should be only stating what relevant reliable secondary sources are saying, and again the standard for this is much higher for medical articles and articles on living people. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and, HighinBC, these excellent principles have in practice sometimes been used in a manner favorable to particular POVs. As I am sure you're aware every word in "relevant reliable secondary" is subjective, as are the BLP guidelines, while the full rigor of MEDRS is applied selectively. Based on my 15 yrs experience here, one can if skilled enough in our style and jargon, argue in such a way as to use WP policy to support almost any position. WP is very much a NPOV zone, more than any other publication has ever been. NPOV does not mean, interpret the rules to support the conventional POV. We shouldn't use our rules to do the equivalent of what the classic EB did, to support the British Empire, or Diderot's Encyclopédie, to subvert the Roman Catholic Church Neither as Fox, to support the extreme conservatives, nor as the WPost does, to support the liberal establishment--I'd add a major left-wing publication, but there unfortunately aren't any in the US. But for my own views in more detail, i'd be glad to discuss them with you or anyone privately. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I of course agree in regards to interpretation. This however seems to a clear enough case. I am not saying the claims made cannot be sourced to our standards but the youtube links surely do not come close. I don't have a stake in this content dispute but I do want to be sure those involved are aware of the relevant policies. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

email

I need to be able to email you--pls turn on your email. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG there is something wrong with my account. My email preferences are blank and I don’t know how to turn it on. Here is a screenshot of what I see: https://i.imgur.com/dKewhge.jpg. CutePeach (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you have to go to user preferces, enter an. email associated with your account, and only the activate your email. it may not work from the phone site--you ma have to go to the desktop site first, and if you dont see an option to do so write the wp address without the .m. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I just confirmed my email from the desktop version so it should be open now. I never received a confirmation email when I first requested my account. Thanks! CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

e mail received. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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

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

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Accept reason:

I've loosened the rangeblock; you should be able to edit now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Blocked by Drmies

Block will expire in a month

See details Reason Kgpg new.svg To edit, please log in. Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

drastic times, drastic measures: CU block

@ToBeFree: [18] CutePeach (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to be blocked. Could it be that you are looking at the commons without being logged in and seeing your IP is blocked? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that link. @Drmies: do you recognize this block? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, HighInBC, like you I don't see a block. Things have been checked by Jpgordon and NinjaRobotPirate, and maybe they have something to offer and, as usual, I will gladly defer to them if they think this or that block is no longer necessary or whatever. I checked months ago but found nothing concerning about this particular account. I do know that there's a couple of range blocks in the Philippines, and I placed some of them ("drastic times" sounds like me, but there are quite a number of heavy disruptors there). But I don't think I've had anything to do with this user specifically recently. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: This is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=117924593 on 110.54.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page). The user can't appeal while they're affected. They can only complain afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC I was definitely logged in when I saved that block message on Saturday. I just got blocked again a few hours ago with the same message and it keeps on happening evening times. I use Globe Telecom but sometimes I have to switch to my Smart Communications SIM, and sometimes I get blocked on that too. Maybe using two SIMs triggers a block, but you should know Dual SIM phones are very common in the Philippines, unlike the US. CutePeach (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the situation correctly, there are two possible solutions: IP block exemption on your account, or making that block anon-only. There seems to be an agreement above that you are not the intended target. {{checkuser needed}} for implementation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser already done. There are actually two rangeblocks affecting this account; the wider one is anon-only, but this narrower one ("drastic times") is all users. I'm going to loosen the block to anon-only and see what happens. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, CutePeach, HighInBC, Drmies and Jpgordon.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ToBeFree and Jpgordon CutePeach (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, CutePeach. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:List of Filipino Singers has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of Filipino Singers. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Filipino Singers has been accepted

List of Filipino Singers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of actions or POV

Hi CutePeach, please do not continue to accuse me of malfeasance, incompetence, or POV in article talk space [19] [20] [21][22]. That page is for discussions of content, not conduct. If you have concerns about such things, the appropriate place to raise them would be (in order) A) my talk page, B) the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN, WP:DRN), or C) the appropriate admin intervention mechanism (WP:ANI, WP:ARBE). But, more than anything, I would tell you that you should have evidence for such accusations. Accusing editors of malfeasance repeatedly without evidence could run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS.

On a more personal note, I very much already told you that my citing the Denver Gazette piece was a mistake, that I did not intend to cite a syndicated column from the Washington Examiner (an opinion piece from a non-RS on this topic according to RSP), and I don't want to use it to support my argument any further. Same with the Forbes contributor columns. In my haste to find every article on this topic (and cast as wide a net as possible), I included several that should not be used in this discussion, as they are not reliable. I am no longer using these to support my point. Continuing to cite these in a way of accusing me of POVSOURCING or of malfeasance several comments after I retracted them is A) beating a dead horse, B) not assuming good faith, and C) not very kind.

Most of all, I really would appreciate it if we could just work together on these articles. I'm not doing the things you've repeatedly said I'm doing. I am not interested in silencing POVs I disagree with, or pushing a POV in article space. I'm not only using the sources I agree with or citing papers without reading them. I have worked to make your inclusions in articles more NPOV and integrate them with both the overall agreeing and disagreeing sources on these controversial topics, just as I hope you would do for me.

I really would like to work together, and I'm very much not a fan of being accused of things I haven't done, let alone repeatedly. As an aside, if you accuse someone of doing something without evidence, and then they respond "I didn't do that," I would not recommend continuing to accuse them of that same thing, again, without any evidence. It isn't very kind and it definitely isn't assuming good faith.

I would appreciate it if you have a problem with my behavior, if you could address it with me directly on my talk page, with specific quotations of something I've said, or diffs of something I edited. That is the proper way to address these things on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: They seem to have disregarded your warning (which there's no point I attempt repeating) and have now posted a long rambling diatribe at ToBeFree's talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, thank you for the note. I will work on this draft and ping you again when it is complete. CutePeach (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alina Chan (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alina Chan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alina Chan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MurielMary thank you for reviewing my draft. Please can you tell me if you read the MIT Technology Review reference, because actually it is almost entirely about the subject, and even has her name in the title. I will also make further improvements to the draft. Tagging Chalst. CutePeach (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation at the moment and have to base my comments on my recollection, but first, on a formal reading of policy, MurielMary's judgement that the article lacks the sourcing to meet GNG is quite wrong: the article's reflist contains ample WP:BASIC-quality sources, and second, not having the article pass in to mainspace at the moment may be a blessing. I advise you not to appeal her closure of the AfC quite yet, but get some feedback from editiors who have experience with contentious AFDs on changes you can make before it goes into mainspace, because I am fairly sure that it will be subject to our deletion process not long after, because Chan's work has been flypaper for conspiracy theorists and at present, the article arguably does a poor job of representing her critics.

I could help once I am back from vacation, but that will be two weeks from now. I'm pinging DGG, who is probably too busy to do much, but at least any advice or people he puts you in touch with are likely to be a great help. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the article this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would pass AfD, as various sources have mentions. If sources have more in depth coverage on the person, I suggest adding those, this would make it unambiguous. I trust DGG's judgement will be good with his extensive experience evaluating BLP notability. —Paleo Neonate – 12:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put a comment on the article explaining the situation . DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 —Paleo Neonate – 22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CutePeach. Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say

Since I'm familiar with WP and its processes I also teach about it (this is humor but related). Often it helps and guides. Sometimes it doesn't, usually for WP:IDHT reasons or because the main goal was to unreasonably push a particular point of view that wasn't mainstream yet (WP:RGW, etc). I didn't actually read your full post at the admin's page and already said that I would stop replying there. I saw ACTIVISM, well, my activism here is Wikipedia and reality. Since someone already filed an AE report, I may also participate tomorrow. In case it doesn't result in a topic ban, I would suggest editing in other areas by your own initiative to show a general interest in the encyclopeda. You have already started a bit and have writing skills. If a topic ban results, I suggest to do the same and to attempt an appeal after six months of productive editing in less involved areas. I also request to please stop pinging me for every reply, unless there's a good reason, like a thread I'm not likely to already be watching. Finally, what is more plausible RGW activism, a new editor who's obvious goal is to push an idea since the beginning, or someone who edited hundreds of pages for years? Those are aspects that are easy to assess. My account was created pre-pandemic, was not a sleeping account and has never been blocked, this hopefully means something. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 15:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another point and you are the one who can determine this. If you happen to have a conflict of interest (this may include having published on the topic elsewhere, being familiar with some relevant people, part of a group, etc) it's difficult to objectively edit, which is why we have policies like WP:COI. I personally avoid editing articles about software I wrote or maintain, musicians I know, companies I've worked with, or about network protocols work I've been involved in (i.e. RFCs). I would tend to either write material that seems promotional, create articles on non-notable people or to unduely criticize some trends or insecure protocols, perhaps be tempted to push links or citations to my own literature, etc. —Paleo Neonate – 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a 574 words statement for AE and at the last minute decided to not post it there at current time. I'll keep it for the next time (and might file a report myself if necessary), as I find that it may be a bit hasty. Moreover, the focus of the current report is on a particular event, while mine is a more general TE and soapboxing case. For now all I ask is to carefully read what others post and try to understand what they perceive, then to also consider my previous advice on this page. —Paleo Neonate – 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate, I would tell you to post your statement there as well, because it is common for AE cases to expand beyond the initial complaint with added comments. It's all about the user's conduct, not only about CutePeach's conduct in the specific instance Bakkster Man described.

Truly, my understanding of that noticeboard is that it's a venue for succinct and sanctions-relevant posting of comments encapsulating a user's behavior, so that admins can read about it and decide if it is problematic. Admins then discuss, generate a loose consensus (although it is not consensus that determines the close) and a closing admin determines appropriate sanctions (or none). Nothing about that restricts the discussion to the initial events of the posting. I think it's just like ANI, except more succinct and only for applications of Discretionary Sanctions. This sort of broadened scope happens at ANI all the time, and I've never perceived it to be out of order in either venue.

I don't think it would be inappropriate for you to comment about CutePeach's alleged TE, as I have already. I say this because I also don't think we should waste more admin time than necessary, and deal with this all in one go. Put all our cards on the table, as it were, so that admins can assess this user's conduct all at once. At the same time, if we feel that the responding uninvolved admins are not amenable to either of us posting longer descriptions of problematic behavior, we can withdraw our comments and post them in a follow-up AE about the user's longer term conduct in this area. Does that sound fair/justifiable to you? You are free to do as you wish, of course. Just a suggestion. Pinging ToBeFree as well, to weigh in re: any procedural concerns.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having all arguments on the table in this specific AE discussion may be necessary to make a fair decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participation request

Hi CutePeach, please take a moment to provide a statement at WP:AE#CutePeach, and please wait for the result of the proceeding before continuing to edit the article in question, COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, this is in essence a de facto page ban, which I'm not sure is supported by policy. CutePeach, if you choose to make a statement, keep it short and direct because there's a group of editors plotting to go after you again, and whatever you say will surely be collected by them for later use. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, I have a very busy day and will not be able to write a statement till after 20:00 GMT +8 at least. Please keep it open. Thank you.

@Mr Ernie: thank you, I will do my best to keep it as short as possible, and maybe I'll put it in my sandbox first for review. Bakkster Man’s complaint pertains to WP:ONUS and WP:ARBPS/4A, but neither of them are applicable here, as deleting content where it is WP:DUE is in fact a WP:POVDELETION, and WP:ARBPS/4A describes "scientific theories" while the lab leak hypothesis - as the name suggests - is just a hypothesis. I may have also made some mistakes, which I will have to confess to and atone for. CutePeach (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, due to what seems to have been edit warring, if it had really been necessary, a completely policy-supported partial block could have been placed. I'd like to let CutePeach answer the accusations, with the time and detail they need, before taking any action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, no worries and no stress, as much as that's possible when one is the subject of an AN discussion. Please take your time. People are asking for long-time sanctions; there is no need to rush the decision, especially if you currently limit your participation to the AE page anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to edit war. Have you approached the other editor who "seems to have been edit warring" with the same concerns? And just so it's very clear - the ones asking for long-time sanctions have content disagreements with CutePeach. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much on that page Ernie, and I would like you to remember of AGF... —Paleo Neonate – 15:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree as a courtesy, I won’t edit the article, but I reserve the right to continue the discussion in the talk page, as there is one matter which requires further clarification.

In this comment in the WP:ARE [23] you say that the evidence presented by Bakkster Man seems to show a case edit warring disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per WP:ONUS. However, as I told Bakkster Man; deleting WP:DUE content is at odds with the WP:POVDELETION, and his response only was that I "do not understand WP:DUE thoroughly enough", then opening the WP:ARE case. Since they premise their case on WP:ONUS, and since I have yet to provide my statement, I ask you not to make assessments of the case from within the docket section until you have heard evidence from all parties. Mr Ernie’s Atsme’s and Dervorguilla’s statements support my position.

It should be noted that in this 15,000 word discussion between myself and Bakkster Man and others [24], a number of edit proposals were put forward, none of which were accepted. In another discussion [25], which got forked into this [26], you see another 10k+ word exchange, where Colin calls Bakkster Man’s objection to covering preprints based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP a red-herring [27], and I am now expected to put forward edit proposals, which I can only presume will be rejected - which is why I have let it slip up till now, but will get on tomorrow. This is why I made this complaint on your talk page, which you did not respond to. Your silence could be interpreted by some as sympathy. Or perhaps you were not aware of these two previous conversations as context to my complaint? Please comment. Tagging: DGG. CutePeach (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did respond, in Special:Diff/1034798681, but I took no action at that time. As there is now an AE request, it seems to have been the right decision to wait. And at the moment, I'm waiting for further AE statements... even the main named party hasn't responded yet. They seem to be actively editing other pages, though, which is perhaps a bit unconventional when exactly this area of editing is currently under discussion. I first thought it's about one article, but that has changed, so I continue waiting.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about red herrings and preprints were specific to that topic, which I think warranted mention purely as a scientific controversy that had wide coverage in mainstream media. I agree with Bakkster Man that preprints are entirely worthless at the level of science and science development, and specific scientific discussion of such preliminary research publication is way too premature for inclusion here. -- Colin°^Talk 09:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the apparent pre-adaptation ~~claim~~ rationale for the COVID-19 lab leak ~~theory~~ hypothesis, was not made only by Chan, Petrovkey and Sorensen in preprints, but also by Robert Redfield in his widely covered interview with Sanjay Gupta on CNN, albeit in a somewhat crude - and even unscientific - way [28]. In a later interview with CNN [29], Marc Lipsitch said of Reford’s comments with all due respect, I think that's nonsense, giving reasons which I am sure you would agree we ~~could~~ should provide for WP:BALANCE. In the MIT Tech Review piece on Chan's paper [30], Jonathan Eisen is quoted as saying he doesn’t think we’ve traced enough outbreaks in enough molecular detail to really know what's normal, which we can provide for BALANCE there too. Chalst mentions the need for this above #Your submission at Articles for creation: Alina Chan (July 21).

In the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 the apparent pre-adaption in also mentioned - in more scientific terms. However, this document is a WP:PRIMARY source, and it isn't offered as a rationale for the lab leak hypothesis, so it would be WP:SYNTH for us to use it in that way. I was planning on asking you and DGG for an expert opinion on how we can use the WHO document as a reference, if at all - and I now also want to ask you to reconsider your current position in the WP:ARE case. Shibbolethink promoted their 34 page WP:SELFPUB diatribe in multiple talk page discussions [31] [32] [33], but I made the apparent mistake of being WP:KIND to him and not dismissing his paper out of hand, which I believed was the right thing to do at the time [34] [35]. I actually read his paper and let him know I agreed with most of it - especially on GoFR versions of the lab leak hypothesis - but I asked him to read one paper of a version of he hadn't considered [36], which he evidently did not do [37], and the conversations went downhill from there. It's telling that he advised Bakkster Man to close the case and wait for me to open one, which in his mind would give them the advantage [38].

You may ask why I didn’t start with Redfield for the apparent pre-adaptation section I rewrote. The answer to that is that I was being asked to rewrite an entire article from scratch, so I started with the publications in chronological order, and Sorensen et all was first. The later papers from Chan and Petrovskey were considered more credible, and were very neutral. Compared to Chan's paper, Petrovskey et al is actually more suggestive of lab origins than natural origins, and it has passed peer review in a prestigious journal [39] [40]. The pushback Chan and Petrovskey received is itself worthy of inclusion, with these sources [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. If you got this far, can you now agree this apparent pre-adaptation thing is potentially bigger than the Bloom et al story, and that WP:SCHOLARSHIP argument is indeed a red-herring? CutePeach (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, The difference between my conduct and that of others in the diffs you linked above is that I have never tried to use my self-published or non-RS-sourced work to support any content placed in article-space.

Because I know that it would contravene A) WP:ARBPS/4A's requirement that statements about scientific theories be sourced to reliable scientific sources, (e.g. literature reviews in topic-relevant peer-reviewed scientific journals), B) our policy on WP:OR, C) our policy on COIs, as I would never cite a paper I published for something controversial or non-topic-relevant, and D) our policy on WP:RSes.

In every one of those instances, I was responding to a claim someone else had made about scientific fact on a talk page, in which they misunderstood some intricate detail about virology. So I provided the knowledge I have about viruses, to try and explain why they were mistaken.

It is also helpful to know that I am not even the one who brought up my reddit post [48], KristinaLu brought it up: [49] [50] [51]. I brought up the userspace essay WP:NOLABLEAK, where Novem Linguae repeats many of the same points I made in that post.

I also added this disclaimer [52]: "all of the above is original research, but this seems a good time to remind everyone that WP:OR does not apply to talk space. I'm not arguing any of the above belongs in article space. not only because it's OR, like the rest of this thread (including most of the other comments in this section), but also because it's WP:UNDUE."

I stand behind these claims, as when they are put in context, it shows I did nothing to contravene WP:PAGs.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink you seem to have your dates mixed up, as you first brought up your Reddit post with me in this dif [53], and you did so to counter a point made by Ralph Baric in his paper WRT speculation about possible laboratory manipulation [54] and a further point made in his RAI interview WRT to his comment you can do it without leaving a signature yes, using three or four different approach for coronaviruses, which were developed by different researchers, you can leave no trace that it was made in a laboratory [55] (27:15), both of which are WP:RSs. You did so without providing any expert opinions quoted in reliable sources to support your POV, which we could then provide for WP:BALANCE in our articles. We have both agreed not to put the POV of one group of scientists to the exclusion of another [56].

In your conversation with KristinaLu, you again get the dates mixed up, and conveniently leave out of the diff where you first brought up your Reddit post here [57], linking to a section of WP:NOLABLEAK which references your paper, again countering the point Baric makes WRT signatures. This is the shameless plugging of a WP:SELFPUB paper in the form an WP:ESSAY, which we should probably nominate for deletion for this very reason. I first published my WP:YESLABLEAK essay in mainspace, to welcome you to contribute to the Counterpoints, since I was asked by the original author of WP:NOLABLEAK not to post there anymore, after I called you out for lack of WP:COMPETENCE for mixing up papers [58]. For some reason ToBeFree moved my essay to userspace, but I would like for it to be moved back to mainspace, as policy guidence for this topic area. Ideally, it should be renamed to WP:LABLEAK for neutrality sake. DGG, do you think this would be possible?

Shibbolethink in the face of the accusations you are making against me at the WP:AE, your disclaimer is moot, as with the diffs I provided here, you are clearly arguing for people to read your Reddit post in article talkspace to effect editorial decisions in article mainspace. Your argumentation has even persuaded Colin, the original author of WP:MEDRS that there is somehow a scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 can’t possibly have been subjected to GoFR [59], when we have a paper and an interview with the most-eminent and most-cited coronavirologist in the world who has clearly been saying otherwise - from early 2020. There are even more stunning comments from Baric in this MIT Technology Review from Rowan Jacobsen [60]. I strongly urge you withdraw your participation in WP:AE before I get around to making my statement, otherwise it may result in a WP:BOOMERANG for you, which is not what I want. I didn’t participate in the WP:AE against you, and you will see from my upcoming statement that I have only good good things to say about you, besides for the fact that you have find it difficult to keep your personal POVs out of our editorial decision making process. CutePeach (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the essay may have escaped a MfD discussion by being a userspace essay.^{(Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Another_day,_another_lab_leak_essay)} It's a user's response to another userspace essay and thus belongs to userspace; it's also likely that you would like to exercise at least some control over how it is edited by others, which isn't possible in the Wikipedia namespace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach, here are some responses:

re: my reddit post, I have only ever mentioned it on talk space, in discussions about matters of scientific content, and only in places where I am referencing the citations I put in that post. This is in line with our policies on WP:OR, which explicitly do not apply to talk space or user space. Can you imagine how onerous discussions would be if it did? When I provided diffs, I did so based on the dates of diffs you provided, there is no mixup. I do not reference my reddit post in that "first diff" you provided of the conversation between myself and KristinaLu, I provide a link to WP:NOLABLEAK, as I explained above. That essay contains this disclaimer right at the top of that section: "This section contains personal opinions and original research. You've been warned."

re: "We have both agreed not to put the POV of one group of scientists to the exclusion of another" I have not agreed to do this, I believe you are misinterpreting my comment there. I believe POVs of various experts should be presented in proportion to their representation in secondary sources, as described in WP:DUE and WP:RSUW.

re: "mixing up papers" I have done nothing of the sort. There are multiple papers in question about whether or not they "qualify" as "GoFR" and I have addressed them as they have been presented to me. It was not a "mix up."

re: Colin, I would guess that his belief in a scientific consensus about the unlikelihood (not impossibility) of GoFR in COVID-19 origins is based on the available RSes and the quotations I provided from peer-reviewed literature review articles published in topic-relevant reliable journals. I would ultimately defer to him about that, though.

I will not be withdrawing my AE participation, as I stand behind the diffs and arguments I provided there.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPS

A note about it, it's an important precedent in relation to WP's coverage of pseudoscientific topics, but does not replace current relevant policy, some are: WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI, WP:PARITY, WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. So although the new WP:ARBPS/4A redirect is harmless, it is less useful than those. Also, when I placed the tag above it was not necessarily in relation to COVID but simply because you mentioned an interest in some articles like about the aquatic ape, at ToBeFree's talk page. —Paleo Neonate – 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Gabriella Stern has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gabriella Stern. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Catharina Boehme has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Catharina Boehme. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Alina Chan has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alina Chan. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't

If I have ever given one single piece of advice in my brief time here this is the best worded I could possibly give, Don't. Almost nothing good ever comes from arbitration and that's after assuming good faith on the part of all involved. I have seen too many amazing editors, both experienced and new, run-off by arbitrary cases and it is wholly because I have never met a human being alive that doesn't have a conflict of interest and most will do anything possible to advance their own interests regardless of its affects on others. Wikipedia will survive long after we are gone but it won't be the same because we are unique and bring our own unique perspectives. It is what makes us intrinsically beautiful but also destructive and leads to ugly moments, as shown in our historical interactions with each other. Humanity can be it's own greatest benefactor or it's own most deadly assassin. Understand that I not only appreciate but very much like many of the editors who have commented on your case from both directions. I am not picking a side, only offering a bit of advice as I understand more about the human psyche than most give me credit for (See Don Quixote). Everyone wants to be a champion for their cause and if you are human, you have a cause, even if you have to make one up as you go. --ARose Wolf 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Let me repeat what others are saying

Post a dignified reply, saying that "you were merely trying to see that everything was covered fairly, and that you regret if you were too insistent about it." That's really all you need say. People are not even canvasing, they're watching each other just as we're doing here. Other people are pursuing the best interests of Wikipedia as they see it, not matter how wrong they may seem, no matter how wrong they actually are. . It's not malice, not conspiracy, not a cabal. There's no one involved in this whom I do not consider a good faith well-meaning Wikipedian, and an honest person. You and I think they have misunderstood the meaning of NPOV. People, even good people, misunderstand even the most important things like that. We may try to explain things, and try to convince others that they are wrong, but sometimes the people who take the other position suceed. At worst, they're opponents, not enemies.

All this is normal in the world, and it sometimes seems worse at Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that as someone relatively inexperienced here you were caught up in it. At WP, the person who stays calm comes out better at the end, or at least not worse than avoidable. Trust me on that. You may feel angry, you ought to feel angry--but do not show it.

Don't go to arb com, it just makes everything worse. Here, as in real life, the only way to do anything that resembles legal or pseudo-legal processes is calmly, after thorough consideration, and with advice. I've helped people, here, and I've seen them wreck their own case by being stubborn, and I couldn't prevent them. Please don't let this be another instance, because I don't want to become so discouraged I won't help other people also. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have much good advice but DGG is a former arbitrator so I'd trust his, particularly the comments made here, and even more specifically this part: Post a dignified reply, saying that you were merely trying to see that everything was covered fairly, and that you regret if you were too insistent about it. That's reeally all you need say. ... You may feel angry, and probably you have the right to feel angry, but do not show it. Don't make it hard for other people to rescue as much of the situation as possible.

I don't think a "I've done nothing wrong" defence is likely to be effective. I'd be more surprised if you didn't have any editing errors, because I think everyone editing in the topic area does. If you do want to proceed with making your case, personally I'd take the help offered by experienced administrators like DGG and valereee's offer here. They've seen similar situations many times and know what an effective response looks like. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a concerned about DGG coaching CutePeach what to say. I see also User:Valereee has offered to help. DGG's position throughout this has concerned me because to me they appear to be viewing this whole thing as a game or battle where certain editors are useful because of the position they represent, the role they are playing, and not because they are good editors in themselves. Two bad editors make a right? So CutePeach must be defended because we need an extremist lab-leak POV editor to counterbalance those DGG perceives as taking too strong a pro-consensus approach. Wrt Valereee's offer, I'm not arguing that editors should not help each other (though one should be aware that even longstanding editors may be quite unaware of how various courts and forums operate and how best to approach them). I'm more concerned that Valereee has read User:CutePeach/AESTATEMENT3 and concluded that this user needs help writing their defence statement. I would much rather read CutePeach's honest statement than some coached two sentences that DGG told them to write. Having read this version, it is highly representative of editing behaviour/agenda/attitude on covid talk pages and contains absolutely zero recognition that they are doing anything wrong. Any admin reading that should not conclude this editor desperately needs help writing their defence, in order that they may continue to edit covid articles. Reading that makes the AE decision a no brainer, and for that we should thank CutePeach for being straight with us. -- Colin°^Talk 09:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should have offered by email instead of being all transparent lol...

I did read that first draft, and I consider it very typical of the type of rants upset people often do spit out onto the page. It's also very typical of newer editors to write those rants in their own sandbox. Experienced editors do that ranting offwiki so they can send their draft to another experienced editor who can talk them down off the ledge by email before they dig their hole any deeper.

This editor has four months' experience with us. She got herself in trouble in a highly contentious area, let her frustrations get the best of her, and now doesn't understand how to navigate her way back out of it. I reject your assertion that offering help to any well-intentioned editor is somehow being a bad editor myself. —valereee (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I'm certainly not saying you are a bad editor, and having seen your reply to CutePeach, I'm very relieved you are taking a different approach from DGG. DGG appears to want CutePeach to remain in the battle, but just feign contrition in order to get over this hurdle. And I use "feign" because it isn't like the statement started with "Ok, I know I did xyz and that abc was wrong and qrs was a dumb move, but...." and all they needed to do is remove anything after the "but". There is nothing to indicate that this editor's only problem is that they don't know how to express contrition at AE. I agree fully with your advice, that the best thing this editor can do right now is to voluntarily step away from Covid and learn the ropes in a non-contentious area of Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 13:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG absolutely did not tell her to feign contrition. He told her to express contrition. He empathized with the fact she was frustrated and upset, and he advised her to try not to let that come out in her editing. I'm surprised you'd think DGG was dumb enough to tell someone in public to feign contrition. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin this exemplifies your bias, where you characterized CutePeach's editing as "extremist lab-leak POV". It isn't extremist or fringe at this point. It is impossible to read anything about the subject, without coming across this supposition. I am not suggesting that it is the scientifically correct source of the virus; but it has not been ruled out, and is one of many possibilities being investigated, NOT "extremism". ~~The Taliban are extremists.~~ CutePeach isn't an extremist.--FeralOink (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment here unless I'm invited, since input has so far been unproductive. I agree that extremism isn't the right term, but that's not necessarily what Colin was suggesting. This post is about standard journalistic statements, like "cannot be not ruled out", that are quite meaningless. Except to the motivated, who need to cast meaning into them. Not only in this area, on WP it's something that's usually rightly ignored. It reminds me of someone who eventually got blocked for edit warring and insulting editors about ridiculous statements like this (this apparently was important to confirm or promote their extraordinary claims that aliens are controlling governments). The similarity is that a lab leak resulting in the pandemic "cannot be ruled out" but is considered extremely unlikely, especially considering already established knowledge on how viruses constantly spill from nature then circulate and adapt in hosts, often intermediary, then the standard procecures labs are subject to and the constant international collaboration that allows to trace major past activity, despite claims that the data is unavailable because it was supposedly not provided by some authorities. The minute statistical possibility "cannot be completely ruled out" must somehow be maximized, to claim that it must ultimately not only be possible but also likely and true. Scientists who collaborated internationally must also be considered suspect and with a conflict of interest, controversy must be fomented about them. And as is common with conspiracy theories, justification arguments on censorship claims or lack of information. Nil Einne's comment is also very clueful: on WP, editors don't have to pass through a court of law, only through WP's rules and processes. By law, WP is a private entity and not subject to free speech and it's not a platform for promotion or public relations. Some have argued that it's not fringe when a significant portion of the public is confused about a topic, but WP is mostly concerned with representing the view of the scientific consensus, as always, (same with creationism). Apologists will then try to claim that this means being sold to big pharma or whatever (a favorite of anti-GMO or anti-vax activists), but these are also excuses... And a last note: experienced editors who have been trying to help with formulating the AE report do it in good faith and out of their experience: they know that statements that lack self-reflexion and focus on others are not likely to have any traction. WP:APPEAL may be useful about the spirit, even if this is about appealing previous blocks. —Paleo Neonate – 05:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was not my intention to ascribe terrorist or illegal actions when I said "extremist" so I apologise for that poor choice of words. Their POV is very much at one end currently of the spread of opinions about the origin of covid, held with a certainty that is not supported yet by any evidence, and pushed with a single focus of mind. There are no mainstream bodies of any kind who regard the lab leak as anything more than a possibility, and one that is far less likely than the bog standard spillover theory from bats or some other animal. That many bodies and scientits are keeping an open mind on that option, as we all should do, does not mean they accept it today as the likely scenario. This is the position documented by numerous reliable sources, for which my POV on Wikipedia is derived. If they change their minds, then I will also. This is how we should edit on Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT CONFLICT WITH COLIN: I am going to be a late adopter and go with PaleoNeonate's and Valereee's stance, i.e. withdraw myself from further discussion of the topics of COVID19 lab leakage (whether intentional or accidental) and Gain of Function research origins of SARS-CoV-2 (whether WIV-engineered and funded by China, EcoHealth, Drs. Fauci, Auchincloss et. al. or anyone else), and all combinations thereof. PaleoNeonate, if Colin uses the expression, "extremist lab-leak POV", then I must take him at his word, i.e. I cannot read minds, and cannot know that it is "not necessarily what Colin was suggesting". I have stricken-out my prior sentence about the Taliban because I don't want to drag the tragedy of Judah and Daniel Pearl into this as a logical analogy. PaleoNeonate I am glad to have met you! I have found a Wikipedian knowledgeable about academic PoV pushing vs academic spamming (re Stokeslets and codons), and am grateful. I squirm uncomfortably at this,

"By law, WP is a private entity and not subject to free speech and it's not a platform for promotion or PR"

but don't contest its veracity. P.S. Corrected my indents and PaleoN's that followed.---FeralOink (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable way of expressing the situation, both on and off Wikipedia, Colin. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've told the facts of life here to a number of people here., in a number of public venues. They are based on observing 12 years of AE/ANI, and on 5 years of experience at arbcom. (more on this later)

I have helped and will continue to help people whom I think are bullied or treated unfairly. I was bullied as a child, and instead of the usual revenge of bullying other people, I help those who are being unfairly set upon. I do this here to the extent I can, whether or not I agree with them, as long as what they are are doing is in my opinion not malicious, and as long as they are not what I would consider people coming here in disguise to harm Wikipedia, . I am personally very far on the left, but I am have willingly helped people whom I would unambiguously class as political opposites. Unlike all too many people nowadays on the left, I want my opponents to have their full say,.

I do think that we should use as wide a range of sources as possible, and that nothing is so unreliable it cannot be used for some purpose and nothing is so reliable it cannot be questioned. I am aware of the errors and deceptions that can be found in all sources, including academic sources, even in medicine.

I do think that FRINGE has been overextended and overused. Fortunately, it has been decided it doesn't apply to such fields as history, and I have thought and said many times it should be used with extreme caution in the social sciences generally, and with considerable restraint in politics.. (Most of what I've written here recently on this has been in connection with the coverage of the 2020 US election). I have also said, and I think most people have agreed , that the origin of covid is both a medical and a political problem, and that epidemiology is in its various aspects a mathematical, a biological, and a social science.

If other people agree with my views here, I am glad of it. If what I say influences other people, that's one of the main reasons I work here.

My main regret in these discussions is that I apparently did not speak effectively enough to convince enough other people, even those I initially thought sympathetic--but perhaps there views were so predetermined that nothing could have convinced them.

I have indeed said we are strangely undervaluing the possibility of a lab origin of covid at a time when almost all responsible general sources take it seriously. I consider the reasons for promulgating it, dismissing it, or accepting it to have so far been at least as much political as biological. At the moment, I think the main argument for it is political, the attitude of the PRC government in denying it. I don't think the least that it settles the question. I hope the scientific evidence does, and is unambiguous, whichever way it goes.

I do not approve of the way CP has been arguing, and I do not like the way she has handled herself in this case. I have told her so in public. So have a number of other people. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC) (revised slightly continued after going to the Farmer's Market. Life outside WP is important also)[reply]

What I will add, is what I didn't have time to write 2 hours ago, that I don't think CP listened to me sufficiently. Or rather, she listened, but she did not really follow my advice, which was of course to prepare a full statement as early as possible, and to apologize for the way she argued. I think quite a few other people have some apologies to make also, but I never bring actions against individuals.

And to answer some of the comments below, I write the way I write in the deliberate hope that other people generally will use my words. Some of my restatements of practice here have ended up as maxims. I think that trying to explain our policies and practices concisely and quotably is what I do best here. I have many times said what I think is the best course at ani , ae, and arbcom, which is to avoid the place at all costs, and if you end up there anyway to give a dignified statement , defend in a straightforward way what can be defended in a single statement early on, not respond further except to correct inaccurate statements very briefly, and to apologize to everyone for everything you have not done correctly. It is my experience that those who do things this way come out best at these venues, and I think I should say so.( I also think and have repeatedly said that the AE venue is particularly unfair, so much so that I would abolish it. )

I do not know if CP is contrite. I do not pretend to understand her personally. If there is one thing I have leared in 5 years at arb com is that nobody here, individually or collectively, is able to accurately judge the sincerity of someone. (not all of this is visible--much of it is in arb com appeals, where we cycle from year to year, sometimes believing nobody, and then realizing we are being unfair, and being as forgiving as possible to people, and then realizing we have been too trusting. This repeats; we have not learned how to do it and never will, because I do not think it can be done.) I do not think we can discern people's true beliefs and intentions, or know the extent to which they will in practice carry out their sincere and honest belief they will reform. I have seen stubborn people refuse to admit they're wrong, although they know it and would like to improve & do improve if they have the opportunity, and of course seen hypocrites do the opposite. (yes, I have people in mind, but my private views about people will remain private). There have been some good experiences, and some very unfortunate. . (FWIW, I think this extend to RW judicial systems also).

Colin I think CP does indeed intent to try to cover the issue fairly. She is trying to do so by emphasizing entirely the side that is under-covered here. This is not usually a wise tactic, but she doesn't have enough experience here to know it. I may be wrong, and she really believes it must be true, but she hasn't said it. There seem to be people here who believe that it must be false, to the extent they regard it as a conspiracy theory, and they have said it. There is a temptation in fighting such prejudice to be equally unreasonable on the other side; that is, as I have said, not a wise tactic.

Colin, I've certainly seen the various excuses she's given for not making her statement. That is exactly the opposite of what I have advised her, as is her statement below, where she says she intended to follow my advice, but isn't going to. (This is not my first experience with such a situation). But I also think we have sometimes been too harsh that way--in large part because of some unfortunate incidents at arb com: Some have had such unfortunate consequences that I can not speak of them here, but there is one of which I can. Of everything I have participated in at WP, that which I most regret is how arb com dealt with Kevin Gorman a short while before his death. There are a few things I will feel guilty about all my life, and this is one of them. This may have had the effect that I am too softhearted in how I treat other people, but I would rather fall in that direction than the opposite. I made it very clear in my statements in running for arb comt hat one of my intentions was to try to make its decisions more moderate. If you look at my record as an admin, I delete a great many articles, but I very rarely block. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee of course I don't think "DGG was dumb enough to tell someone in public to feign contrition" but that is what in practice he is doing. Give me the link to where CutePeach is contrite but just doesn't express themselves the right way. They aren't contrite and so asking them to say something per "that's really all you need say" is not helping them to be contrite or accept their mistakes. It is just telling them what to write to get out of the fix. There's a big difference. And btw, DGG, the "sorry if I was too insistent" type of apology is a rubbish apology because the "if" demonstrates you don't actually accept that you were too insistent, only that you might have been in some people's eyes. DGG is putting words into CutePeach's mouth with "merely trying to see that everything was covered fairly". That might be DGG's intention here, I have no doubt, but it certainly isn't CutePeach's. And the big paragraph above demonstrates DGG has an agenda, to fix an imbalance in our lab leak reporting. I'm rather disappointed they are using CutePeach simply as a resource to achieve the balance they want. Particularly when CutePeach has expressed elsewhere that there are good reasons why in real life they should avoid stress.

For what it is worth, I am in a similar position to DGG wrt the lab leak and the range of reliable sources to use, and am concerned that the extreme positions taken by various sides, coupled with a bizarre love of RFCs, will lead to damage to our guidelines and policy around medical editing. We need editors to moderate their positions and work towards consensus, and cultivate an environment where moderate editors are not totally put off by the hostilities on talk pages. DGG has not explained at all why CutePeach should continue to edit covid conspiracy articles beyond the fact that they edit for the conspiracy side, which they think is being under weighted.

DGG, CutePeach is not here to see that the lab leak is covered "fairly". I think you should stop projecting your intentions onto them.

CutePeach, I have no ill feelings towards you at all and sincerely hope you find another area on Wikipedia where you shine. -- Colin°^Talk 16:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to what DGG has added above). I think "CP does indeed intent to try to cover the issue fairly. She is trying to do so by emphasizing entirely the side that is under-covered here." continues to demonstrate a naivety and projection of one's own aims onto an editor who has with every edit demonstrated nothing of the sort. I have absolutely no doubt that, left to their own devices, CutePeach would write an article explaining that covid was leaked from the Wuhan lab, was the result of GoF research gone wrong, and has been covered up by the Chinese and various American / WHO / mainstream scientists. The idea that this is not currently the consensus opinion of any major government or health body would not get a look-in, except perhaps as a comment about how widespread the cover-up is. CutePeach did not come to Wikipedia and realise that our NPOV policy demands that we give more weight to one side that is currently under-represented per the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. They came here to convince editors and readers about their opinion. I have no doubt that everyone here has the best intentions, but let's not pretend things are how they are not. Anyway, I'm not going to post further here, because it just pings CutePeach about something that someone else wrote, albeit that they wrote it here. -- Colin°^Talk 21:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, your accusations of DGG putting words in my mouth are just nasty. Long before DGG offered me that advice, I observed an editor called Jibal handle himself so incredibly well in an ANI [61], that I considered that approach and read a lot of their other discussions. Of course I understand you don’t have ill-feelings towards me, and I understand also DGG’s position above that everyone wants the best for our project, but you should probably read Robert Fernandez’s Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta [62] to understand why that is meaningless. People will steal from the wonderful uplifting organizations they volunteer for, if they can and its easy. It's the same here on Wikipedia, and admins are making it real easy. CutePeach (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I want you to presume innocence - as you seem to have done so far by reserving judgement in the AE - and judge the case on its merits, and not on what you think may be good for my life right now. Everything you have written about subject matter experts applies also to Shibbolethink, who oft puts his own opinions above those of experts quoted in high quality sources, yet I do not see you offering him an alleviation of stress with a voluntary WP:TBAN. Since the case filing on the 22nd July, five of your administrator colleagues have made presumptions of guilt and proposed to TBAN me before even hearing my side, and this morning a sixth has thrown his hat in the ring based on a reading of my sandbox statement (which I had absolutely no intention of posting to the AE and was only for the eyes of the supposedly "sceptical" people DGG mentioned here [63]). Not a single one of these admins said anything about the three diffs that Bakkster Man cited as violations of WP:ARBCOVIDDS and WP:ARBPS/4A as the basis for the AE case he filed. Early participants in the AE like Mr Ernie and Dervorguilla pointed out that Bakkster Man himself added a secondary source citing a preprint - and Bakkster Man is now seeking consensus on this here [64], which he should have done before filing this frivolous case. The first of the administrator ~~condemnations~~ proposals for TBANing me came on Saturday the 24th of July from HighInBC, just when I was about to post an explanatory but apologetic statement, which I had prepared the night before. This proposal from HighInBC, who I had previously engaged with on a related matter [65], which did not conclude satisfactorily - had an extreme chilling effect on me and made it look like I would lose the case no matter what I said. My husband wisely advised me to hold off on posting my statement and to instead wait and see if any other familiar names crop up, so I slept on it that Saturday night. The next day, Bishonen, who is a personal friend of an involved editor [66] - and who you say was not referring to us in his bastard comment [67], shows up the very next day proposing to TBAN me too - offering to "reconsider" after my statement. We’ll see about that. 😏

For these two admins - out of the 1,088 admins that there are on EN:WP - to show up and propose to TBAN me before even hearing my side, only reinforced my belief that this is just a show trial. I have never made any contentious changes in mainspace without engaging in the consensus building process, yet at the first chance to paint my edits as contentious and "edit warring", an AE case is filed with completely unsubstantiated claims, with a supporting list of diffs so long, that ToBeFree had to lift the 500 word limit to 1500, and now it stands even higher. Even the clerks don’t know how to manage this case and the admins they’re asking advice from don’t know either [68]. Later participants in the AE such as My very best wishes and 力 pointed out that the Shibbolethink’s diffs do not substantiate his claims of violations on my part, but then Hut 8.5 joins, making it three admins proposing to TBAN me with the blanket citation of "Shibbolethink's diffs", without even bothering to take one and provide their own reasoning. On the 26th, ToBeFree became the fourth admin to propose a TBAN but the first to provide reasoning of his own - based on #20 of the "Shibbolethink diffs" - which I countered here [69], to which he has not responded (and he probably feels he doesn’t have to, given the way other admins are behaving, and he even points to them to justify his proposal). On the same day, Johnuniq chimes in, citing ToBeFree’s reasoning 🤯 - making it pretty obvious that he never even read my rebuttal to him (spoiler: diff 20 was a struck comment that I offered an apology for that was accepted!). I could debunk the rest of those 21 diffs in a similar fashion, but we both know that that wouldn’t work, and you even just started telling me that yourself [70] (dhuh!). I would definitely admit to making mistakes, such as telling Shibbolethink to go back to China to learn how the Chinese gov operates - which was actually in reference to a trip to China he details in his paper, and not intended to offend, but definitely still an unkind remark.

I didn’t mention you in my post on Kevin’s wall, as it's not at all clear to me what your involvement is in this topic area, other than this comment you made to PaleoNeonate [71] (which doesn’t age well, as even Fauci is talking about DRASTIC findings in public [72]), and more importantly - what your intentions are. This is perhaps unrelated, but PaleoNeonate notified me of WP:ARBPS on the 21st of this month [73], just a day before Bakkster Man filed his AE case citing WP:ARBPS/4A. PaleoNeonate comes back on the 23rd to explain the notif - which I did not question him on - saying he saw me mention something about the aquatic ape hypothesis on ToBeFree’s talk page [74]. 🙄 I would very much like to believe DGG that this case isn’t the work of some kind of WP:FACTION (kosher word for cabal), or even just some light form of offwiki coordination (like IRC), and that you Valereee are sincere in your advise me. I want to believe that so much, but I wonder also if you are being naive. This is probably the sloppiest case ever put to AE, yet it is coasting through to a victory for concerted parties, without any acknowledgement on behalf of participating admins that something is wrong. DGG says he’d like to help me, and wanting to test his hypothesis, I wrote a really nice apologetic statement that I intended to post before Aug 2, but seeing Colin’s reactions to my sandbox statement above, I think the cat is out the bag. What Colin is advocating above, is to let me hang myself - literally - proving unequivacly what DGG has been saying all along, that senior editors have been doing the dirty to win their content disputes. Wikipedia is the 10th most trafficked site in the world, but as Kevin said in CNET, the core community is really only a few thousand editors, which means there is a huge concentration of power, and there are not enough checks and balances to prevent this abuse. I very much want both your and DGG’s advice on this - and not just for my own sake - but also for the poor fellow who comes along tomorrow to create Hunter Biden laptop controversy, only to be told by editors like Colin to voluntarily step away. Note that Colin didn’t say anything of substance about the arguments in my sandbox statement, and you too have claimed a consensus against my positions, which takes you dangerously into WP:INVOLVED territory. Is there a consensus against my unblanking of COVID-19 lab leak page? The AfD that ProcrastinatingReader went splendidly well, I think. Is there a consensus that the link between GoFR and COVID-19 origins is conspiracy? FeralOink started a conversation on that and despite continued discussion involving others, consensus has yet to be reached, and I am seeing MVBW effect very positive changes there [75]. MVBW is not taking shit from anyone - while also managing to keep his cool - and things are getting done! Are these changes acknowledged in the consens claim you make in your sandbox talk page advice? No. I provided sources in my sandbox statements of Baric, Lipkin and Relman making that link, and even calling it reasonable, which I think will find their way into page. Banning me won’t magically form a consensus to Shibbolethink’s liking on this issue, and I commend junior editor Francesco espo for defending junior editor Nascence411 from the borderline bullying behavior there. CutePeach (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR, done here. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I always intended to follow your advice to the letter, offering up a very sincere apology, as I genuinely believe BM and Shib are good editors and that I have made mistakes in personalising the dispute with Shib - though not to the extent they claim (which of course I would not say, lest it detract from the apology). I still want to take your advice, but as you see from Colin’s comments above, even this approach will be much maligned. Colin claims I am not covering the topic "fairly", but he doesn’t bring any diffs with specific examples, so I can defend myself - and he does this in the AE too - refusing to answer me on Redfield bringin the pre-adaption story above the coverage threshold he talks of. Please read this article about Daniel Pearl’s unfortunate demise [76]. I feel like I’ve been taking Pearl’s approach pleading for admins to "come to their senses" through reason and logic (like my sandbox statement detailing Baric’s position) - which is clearly not going to work -- while your "just apologize" approach is like the "confess to being a Jew" line his executioners demanded of him before slitting his throat, and if I understand her right, Valeree’s advice is for confess to being a Jew and then slit my own throat. Anyway, it's clear as day that I’m getting TBANNED no matter what I say, so the only thing that should matter is what impact my last words have, and proclaim proudly to be a Jew as Pearl did - or a good well meaning Wikipedian in my case. As evidenced by Colin’s comment above, there is a political class of senior editors on this site - including some admins - who are leveraging the system - that they built - to their advantage in content disputes. I have been through (long term) abuse before, so I think I can muster the rigures of a full ArbCom case, if you change your mind about that. In the meantime, I have to post something in the AE before Aug 2, so I’d appreciate your thoughts. CutePeach (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a note from me: it's typical for editors who don't get their way to call normal WP processes (patrolling, ensuring reliable sources are used and properly represented, observing TPG and removing NOTFORUM posts, WP:WARN, etc), bullying but it doesn't make it so... —Paleo Neonate – 17:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate My editing at WP almost always is successful. Changes I make get kept, articles I nominate get deleted, and so on. -- Not 100% of the time because I limit myself to the more debatable cases, leaving the easy ones for those starting out).Yet, to use the examples just above, I certainly call many normal WP processes bullying. I think we often warn too readily and too harshly; we tend to remove the NOTFORUM posts with which we disagree; we sometimes follow the talk page guidelines only if we agree with them; we sometimes use the complications of WP:RS to remove the sources that don't support us; we tend to use deletion and patrolling to preferentially keep articles with which we are in sympathy. (Notice the "we". Everyone I know who has worked here extensively tends to do these things, but I only use myself as an example. Anyone who thinks they are truly completely objective is deluding themselves. I may have thought I was when I came here, but the mutual criticism that -- if done reasonably and quietly and gently-- is a positive part of WP, has caused me to learn more about my imperfections. Everyone working here should keep theirs in mind--not to eliminate them, which is impossible, but to minimize them. I think I do well; I know I could do better. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was unclear, my comment was in relation to Special:Diff/1036448687 that claimed that an editor was bullied for failing to observe TPG/NOTFORUM. —Paleo Neonate – 04:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CP, you ask my advice further. You should not go to arbcom. Those who wish to sanction you will say there what they said here and . I and others who support you will say there what I said here, and it will not help the situation. I respect in general the people at arb com, as I respect in general those judging here, but I see no likelihood of they're judging differently. I think your case has lost. I did not plan to come back here, and I do only because I have been attacked personally.

I advise you to use your expertise to work on other conditions, those without immediate political implications. Our coverage of disease causation, especially for those not much in. the news, is often in need of major expansion, especially the historical aspects. You know the literature: add it. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach I'll be blunt here. IMO it's a very bad idea to bring up a story of real world violence, let alone someone who was murdered for being a Jew, in any discussions about your experience on Wikipedia. While I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, it comes across as a combination of trivialising real world violence and overplaying what's happening to you. I'm not saying stuff here can't be nasty at times and can unfortunately in the worst case lead to significant real world harm but that's very rare. And this isn't to downplay any harm you may feel you have suffered.

Also given your science background, you should know why it's a mistake to make spurious interpretations from statistics. Yes there may be over 1000 admins here. But not all of them are particularly active. More importantly, if you spend enough time here you'll find that plenty of admins are only active in certain areas. For example, there are regulars both admins and non admins you often see at AN//I. I don't spend much time at AE, but I'm certain it's the same there, with some overlap. In fact, I'm fairly certain and I have seen some limited evidence of this that the specific sorts of cases admins will get involved in at AE will also depend on the admins. Some won't touch American Politics ones, some will regularly deal with them.

Your case is I think also somewhat unusual since it's been open for so long, in large part due to time it's taken you to make a statement. This has meant admins who normally may not have gotten involved, have done so. But there have also been a large number of others. This has lead to pings, mentions elsewhere (on Wikipedia) etc. And of course your case deals with something which is highly contentious at the moment, both on Wikipedia and in the real world, so tends to attract a lot of attention.

Finally, while noting I'm someone who implored that you be given time to make a statement, I'm not surprised and don't think there's anything wrong that many may have come to a conclusion before you made a statement. For better or worse, we don't and never function like a court of law. If someone's behaviour is bad enough, we often don't need to hear their side of the story before we decide what action to take simply because there's nothing the editor can say to convince us to just let them be rather than taking action to protect Wikipedia. (I'm not an admin, but this situation can arise in community ban discussions.) As others have explained, the alleged wrong doings of others is not really an excuse for any bad behaviour on your part, at most it may mean sanctioning the others as well. And of course, as a community especially in an active case like this, most of the time if there was any good defence, someone would have already raised it. So at most, in borderline cases perhaps you can convince people to give you a last chance before taking action.

And whatever people have said, I do feel admins will taken on board what you say and considered whether to modify their stance if you post it in a reasonable time frame. But you shouldn't be surprised they already have a stance, since it seems clear on their view based on the evidence they've seen, your behaviour is bad enough that action needs to be taken to protect Wikipedia. You obviously disagree as do others, that's always going to happen given differing interpretations of the various factors involved. (BTW on the time frame note, while I understand very well how this sort of thing can be a useful distraction or way to blow off steam, and I also supported you being able to edit outside the likely topic ban area, and all this discussion is to some extent trying to understand how to edit here and where others feel you went wrong and how to proceed; I do think if you keep posting this sort of stuff people are going to start to feel you should be spending the time finishing your statement not discussing this.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Hey, CutePeach, just FWIW it's common for subject-matter experts, which it sounds like you may be, to have some issues when they first start editing. When the subject area itself is contentious, it compounds that in multiple ways; newer editors and contentious articles are just a bad combination. The experienced editors at contentious articles have so much to deal with already that they don't have much capacity to deal with even the most well-intentioned newer editor climbing the steep learning curve here.

On a semi-related topic, as it sounds like you've got pretty major stress IRL right now, a topic ban for a while from COVID-19 might be a blessing in disguise. It would give you time to get your current life stresses behind you as well as to get some experience editing in less-contentious areas like Filipino music. :) Wikipedia should be a fun hobby, not a source of stress. —valereee (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged, so I'll give my final take here. Yes, there are a few admins who are biased against the lab-leak and would love to see you blocked. No, there aren't so many that you will get banned in a kangaroo court. However, if you ignore legitimate concerns with your editing and focus entirely on complaining about other editors, you are substantially more likely to get sanctioned. My advice is similar to Valereee: make a statement at AE that doesn't mention any editors and is just about your behavior, make a statement here (or an article talk page) about the key problems with COVID articles you think need to be fixed, take a few weeks away from COVID edits, and move on. And don't complain about "off-wiki discussions"; they certainly happen, but all the people you are concerned about read WP:AE regularly, and are sure to follow procedure and make their important comments there. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力's advice is worth heeding, CutePeach. To speak candidly: you risk being perceived as a stereotypical 'injustice collector' and a liability to your supporters here. -Dervorguilla (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, 力 and Dervorguilla I calmed down and posted a trimmed down statement. I was upset the whole of last week because I joined Wikipedia after seeing this post shared on Twitter [77], and it looked like I was getting tripped up in the same way (was I not?). I felt strongly that the outcome of the case was predetermined, and that nothing I say would actually matter. Look now how ToBeFree just reverted edits I made after posting my statement, like this updated edit proposal I worked on for over an hour last night [78]. He asked me not to edit till I post my statement, and when I post my statement and make some edits, then they delete them for "gaming the system". HighinBC also says I'm gaming the system, and obviously they don't know about this edit proposal, even though it was mentioned by the OP of the AE. CutePeach (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: as I tried to explain above, if there is nothing you can say in you defence because there is no defence, then to some extent your case is predetermined but this doesn't mean it's unfair. Maybe I shouldn't do this since I already said it's a bad example for many reasons and it is, but since you brought it up maybe it's the sort of thing which helps you. So let me use the Daniel Peach case. When his murderers came up for trial, there was very little they should have been able to say in their defence except "misidentification, I'm not the guy in the video", since there is very little defence to a cold blooded murder you documented on video. As for the gaming the system thing, well to be blunt it looks to me lot like you were gaming the system. As I said at AE a few days ago, you were very close to a topic ban, based on the evidence presented so far. You continued to edit this area while claiming you needed more time to post a statement. You were warned the situation was untenable and did at least stop. Over a week after the AE you finally posted your statement. 4 minutes later you then edited the area you are likely to be topic banned from. If you spent 1 hour working on something, sorry but touch luck. You shouldn't spend so much time working on something when you already know there is a good chance you won't be allowed to post it. As I said at AE you cannot use the excuse you need time to post your statement to continue to edit an area you are going to be topic banned from. If you feel you've said enough to escape a topic ban, there is zero reason to be so impatient. Just wait until your case is dealt with. I could perhaps understand it it had been 2 week or more, perhaps waiting someone's statement, that you felt it unfair you were in limbo and edited. But 4 minutes? Sorry but you don't get much sympathy from me. I'd note that from what I saw even your supporters have already outlined that they didn't think because your statement would help because it was a terrible statement. So realistically you were going to be topic banned, and the only reason it hasn't happened yet is out of fairness to you, people gave you the chance to explain things from your point of view and then people have to actually assess what you said and see if it changes what they feel should be done. You eventually made your statement, but you also seemed to be using that as an excuse to continue to edit the area as long as you could. BTW, I see from your statement that you say "without checking to see if they are even true". I don't see how you know this. Your case has been open for over a week. Anyone involved has all that time to check the evidence presented. (To be clear, this is not me hence why I've avoided commenting on whether I feel a topic ban is justified, simply that it seemed to be the clear consensus view.) You are responsible for edits from you account, but in any case, if your account was hacked or someone else used it, it's reasonable to think you would have said so long ago. Your statement cannot change what you've actually done. At most it can give an explanation for why you did what you did. But if what you did is wrong and harmful, it may not matter why you did what you did. Frankly, I would call such an accusation a personal attack. And were it not for the fact we generally give a lot of leeway to editors in situations like this, something blockable by itself. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment, I don't understand what you mean by "obviously they don't know about this edit proposal, even though it was mentioned by the OP of the AE." But if you are trying to say User:Bakkster Man told you they wanted an edit proposal from you, then this is further evidence that contrary to what you seem to think there is no big conspiracy here. Bakkster Man was wrong. If you're topic banned, you cannot make edit proposals in the area. You shouldn't be using the last days before your topic banned to post them either, especially not when as I said, the only reason why there's these days is because you took a while to post a statement. A topic ban means you have to edit somewhere else, or not at all. (Although not at all is likely to make it unlikely your topic ban will be lifted.) I should mention for the benefit of topic page watchers that I acknowledge it isn't uncommon that editors continue to edit in the area right up to the time the topic ban is imposed as technically that's allowed, and generally not a problem. But the fact remains, when the editor seems to be excessively using the time awaiting an outcome for a last hurrah, or like in your case when you've delayed a probable topic ban by a week, then it becomes untenable; and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I'd like to add, my note requesting this content proposal was made prior to the AE being filed, and the unwillingness to engage in consensus building either there or on the page that resulted in the AE request was my concern. The seeming stalling seen at that location was then referenced when there were concerns about stalling in AE, to indicate it might indicate a pattern of behavior. I sincerely hoped CutePeach would be wiling to engage in consensus building going forward, and am disappointed that this doesn't appear to be the case. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I explained in my not-a-statement [79], I dragged my feet making that edit proposal, as I thought Bakkster Man would just shoot it down for the "nothingburger" it is. Just like when he was claiming that the WHO DG criticism of the WHO report wasn’t actually criticism [80]. CutePeach (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the below before seeing this. The problem is you may have dragged your feet on the edit proposal but you were still doing other stuff in the topic area including on that talk page. I haven't really looked at what you were doing but it doesn't seem editors felt these other edits while you were dragging your feet were particularly demonstrative of an improvement (especially combined with the fact you kept making them with no sign of a statement). As I said below, if this edit proposal was an improvement from the problems others felt they saw from you earlier and you'd posted it earlier along with a statement, perhaps it would have been a help. But not in these circumstances. BTW, Bakkster Man is also only one editor. That page has quite a few active editors, indeed you pinged some. Even if Bakkster Man is really a problem like you describe, the best solution would have been to just ignore them. If your edit proposal was convincing, then what Bakkster Man thinks is largely irrelevant. Indeed, if you made a superb edit proposal and everyone saw how great it was and Bakkster Man was disruptive about your proposal, perhaps it would have ended up as evidence in an AE against them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I should clarify "isn't the first time something like this has happened" I didn't mean CutePeach did something like this before. Rather I'm fairly sure I recall cases when someone got in trouble before because they seemed to be trying to make use of the time before they were topic banned to get something done, rather than just continuing to edit in the area. In this case, the number and breadth of edits to the area so soon after posting the delayed statement seems to have lead to understandable concerns. In other words, taking an hour to write something is likely to be seen as more of a negative than positive since it seems possible that while you were taking time to write that statement, you were also taking time to come up with stuff to post in the topic area before the ban.

Perhaps this isn't what happened and you just spent the time after you posted your statement as you were finally free due to the weekend. The problem is it's still not a good look to seem so rushed into editing the area which you may soon be topic banned from as if you're trying to get things done before the topic ban takes effect. Notably, it's hard to imagine how you can engage in discussing your proposal given the likelihood of a topic ban combined with the fact you can only substantially edit in the weekends anyway and others will need time to respond. So even if we completely accepted edits from you while waiting a decision, there is simply no time before one is made. If the decision is no topic ban, then as I said before, there's surely no harm in waiting.

The only redeeming thing is from what Bakkster Man said, perhaps you were trying to demonstrate you can collaborate constructively in the area rather than whatever lead to people feeling a topic ban is justified. In that case, while I can understand why you may have felt it a good idea, it was still IMO a clear mistake, unfortunately it's too late. If early on you'd made a statement demonstrating an understanding of where you went wrong and a convincing commitment to do better without any attempts to blame anyone else etc; and while waiting a decision made an edit proposal and did other things in the topic area that people felt was clear constructive and significantly better than most of what you did before, I could see this having helped your case substantially. But not in these circumstances.

One thing I realised I never said is that these sort of cases are always going to be tricky. While parts of your draft statement (this is mostly what I mean above when I referred to your statement, sorry for any confusion) were clearly problematic as even supporters acknowledged, perhaps a bigger issue is that AFAICT you feel your behaviour has had some short comings but has been mostly fine,. However the consensus seems to be against this view. While it's possible for editors to disagree on whether certain behaviours are a problem, but avoid them anyway accepting the consensus view, this still requires editors understand what the problems are. But from what I can tell the gulf is enough that you don't. Note I still make no judgment on whose's right, I'm simply trying to say that as long as this gulf exists, it's very difficult for there to be a way forward that doesn't involve something simple to follow like a topic ban. You can't convincingly promise you'll stop doing something if you don't understand what it is you need to stop doing.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, like you may have read in my long post above, I was actually intending to post a statement last Saturday, but got chilled by admins starting to pass judgement before even hearing my side. You’re on record as saying there is nothing wrong with admins doing that, and I won’t ever agree with that position, so I ask - respectfully - that we end this conversation. As a last word, I actually spent a lot more time writing and rewriting statements for AE than on the few edits I posted this morning. From your comments, I can see you are not really familiar with the content dispute and you are more focused on procedure, and that’s okay - but we don’t agree on what proper procedure should be. If you would like to continue our discussion, please do so only privately by email inbox. Thank you.. CutePeach (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real final comment here since I was reminded of it when re-reading your AE. When comes says "noted", it just means they've read what you've said. It doesn't mean they agree or accept what you said. Unless you have further clarification from them, you shouldn't assume someone is accepting a "rebuke" just because the only thing they say is "noted". They may very well completely reject what you've said, but simply have no desire to engage with you on the issue further. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block

HighinBC, I was asked by ToBeFree to refrain from editing until I post my statement. The edit proposals I posted [81], which was the largest post I made, was prepared long before the AE case was opened, and I only added the NYTimes article to it last night. In the AE case, Bakkster Man even mentioned these edit proposals he was waiting for [82]. How was making this post and the others "gaming"? This is just bizarre. CutePeach (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A late block notification

Hi CutePeach, sorry for the late notification. As now described in Special:Diff/1036795369 quoting your own words, you expected a topic ban to happen, and your approach to this situation seems to have been editing in the area as much as possible before being banned. This is gaming the system, as such bans apply to all editing, good or bad, so you have been blocked while you did it, to prevent it from continuing. I'm relatively certain that the main aspect of any resulting surprise is about the timing, not the action itself. Keeping the AE discussion open to wait for your appeal was not an invitation to continue editing in the area while the process is ongoing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this statement that it is does not seem that you wrote the 16k of text in the 44 minutes it took you to post it. It looks more like you used the extra time you asked for to write these statements and saved them up to post all at once after you posted your statement. Quickly getting it all out before the ban went into place. This is what I refer to as gaming.

Your delay was meant to give you time to prepare, not to give you extra time to edit in the topic that you yourself felt you would be topic banned from. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighinBC and ToBeFree I prepared those edit proposals before the AE case, updating only the NYTimes part. Yes I believe you are biased and enforcing policy unequally - giving me no hope in the AE process - but that doesn’t mean I made what a "last hurrah" with my edits. You make a majestic leap in your assumptions. Please undo your actions, as they are not based on policy. CutePeach (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 608: / Line 608: @@
 :Your delay was meant to give you time to prepare, not to give you extra time to edit in the topic that you yourself felt you would be topic banned from. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 22:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 {{u|HighinBC}} and {{u|ToBeFree}} I prepared those edit proposals before the AE case, updating only the NYTimes part. Yes I believe you are biased and enforcing policy unequally - giving me no hope in the AE process - but that doesn’t mean I made what a "last hurrah" with my edits. You make a majestic leap in your assumptions. Please undo your actions, as they are not based on policy. [[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]] ([[User talk:CutePeach#top|talk]]) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
+==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction==
+{{Ivmbox
+|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
+|imagesize=50px
+|1=The following sanction now applies to you:
+{{Talkquote|1=indefinite topic ban from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.}}
+You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CutePeach
+|oldid=1036844191}} this arbitration enforcement request].
+This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2021|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
+You may appeal this sanction using the process described [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.&nbsp;Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.-->&nbsp;[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 01:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
+}}