Jump to content

User talk:ScrupulousScribe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: COVID-19 lab leak theory (December 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at COVID-19. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
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.
I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, ScrupulousScribe! 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! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: COVID-19 lab leak theory (December 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
This submission appears to be taken from http://www.thebulletin.org/2020/05/natural-spillover-or-research-lab-leak-why-a-credible-investigation-in-needed-to-determine-the-origin-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic,. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Curbon7 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.

Control copyright icon Hello ScrupulousScribe, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory 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 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. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

[edit]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it seems that your reversion deleted some updates I made to the article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: COVID-19 lab leak theory (December 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tagishsimon was:
declined as copyvio
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.
Tagishsimon (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: COVID-19 lab leak theory (December 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19 pandemic#Accidental leakage theories. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
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.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: COVID-19 lab leak theory (December 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This is still covered by the accidental leak section. It should be discussed on the talk page there if that needs to be split into its own article.
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.
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

[edit]

Hello, I'm Eyebeller. I noticed that in this edit to Wuhan Institute of Virology, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eyebeller 19:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 sanctions

[edit]
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.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://asiatimes.com/2020/02/coronavirus-lab-leakage-rumors-spreading/, https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4068627, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for reverting the deletion of some changes that I made, which cites a number of recent articles in sources that more than satisfy WP:RS, including articles from the BBC, The Times, the National Review and the New Yorker , all of which indicate that scientists are considering an accidental lab leak as a plausible origin theory of the virus. There are other reputable sources citing studies by scientists taking this position, but instead of discussing my contributions and the reliablity of the sources, I have simply been met with a block. This same issue has been brought up by other users on this same page, some of which are archived, with no consensus. Is the job of Wikipedians to decide what a conspiracy theory and what is not? Why were my edits reverted and my account blocked without the subject matter being discussed? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your source for medical content is a magazine article in New York (not The New Yorker), written by the guy who wrote the erotic novel House of Holes? I am honestly surprised that you're not topic banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

A couple of comments for User:NinjaRobotPirate and for this user from an observer. It is far from clear that the origin of Covid-19 is Wikipedia:Biomedical information. See The linked page. That said, the above decline is likely correct. Users are expected to refrain from edit warring. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that, in other words, maybe WP:V applies, not MEDRS? I said so earlier; agree. Using it to censor content sourced to fact-checked articles in reliable sources meets V, which is policy, but admins are willing to block contrary to policy. Fucked up.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft on leakage

[edit]

Nice draft, why don't you go ahead and create the entry? By the way, I got a notification that you emailed me, but I had an old account registered, so maybe you can try again to resend it, please. Forich (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.581569/full, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55364445, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop copy/pasting your old copyvio article into new places on Wikipedia. You're just creating more work for admins who will probably have to go WP:REVDEL all the edits containing copyrighted text. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you need temporary access, just use archive.fo/qlG0vANDarchive.fo/fU4Tz instead of putting allegedly copyvio stuff back here?

Sad the way they're (I feel) stonewalling any and all attempts to present the evidence provided in reliable sources regarding the source of the virus, as if MEDRS applies to a political discussion. You make good point after good point, but I don't sense good faith when they repeatedly resort to threats and blocks and WP:IDHT when the facts don't support their argument. The situation is so untenable I do hope someone takes the legal action I described as justified, because it should lead to good precedent and/or policy. I wonder if you too are disheartened re. arguing when they hold the cards and can and do cheat regularly and will block one for making a particularly good argument, or still have optimism. I'm pretty fed up.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

takes the legal action. Legal action against whom? Wikipedia? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp/Temp

[edit]

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 talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp/Temp 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://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft+talk%3ACOVID-19+lab+leak+theory%2FTemp%2FTemp&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0. 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. Moxy 🍁 17:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have been repeating copyright violations multiple times, despite multiple warnings. This must stop, as it can cause legal problems for Wikipedia. You can be unblocked if you make an unblock request in which you make it clear that you understand Wikipedia's copyright policy and convince a reviewing admin that you will not break it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I worked for a over an hour together with a helpful user on Wikipedia's IRC channel to address copyvio issues with my second draft. When I created my third draft, it was immediately tagged for speedy deletion, and before I had finished browsing through the copyright concerns on the ToolForge page, I was already blocked. How exactly are my supposed to be able to fix copyright issues without a discussion on the exact copyright violations that were flagged? Most of the duplicated content was paraphrased. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

There's enough uncertainty here for me to unblock, and the discussion below makes it clear you have been trying to avoid copyright violation. I'll comment on the undeletion below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not supposed to create copyright violations in the first place, which means *never* copying content from other places into any Wikipedia page, temporary or otherwise. And if you are having trouble paraphrasing content, the best way to avoid that is to write it in your own words. If you need to make copies of copyrighted content to work on, you must do that elsewhere and not on Wikipedia, and not place any content anywhere on Wikipedia until *after* you are certain it does not violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So should I have placed the new version of the text in the second draft? I was under impression that the article was under "investigation" and that the investigator was to approve/disapprove the changes. How do I talk to the "reviewing admin" mentioned in the above block notice? I went over the text with a user in the IRC channel and we made some significant changes. The duplication tool shows me only paraphrased content and a few three word phrases. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not really about where you placed it - copyright violations must not be placed anywhere on Wikipedia. The problem is that the copyright detector tool reports matches of greater than 50% similarity with three sources, and matches of lesser degree with a larger number of others. We would usually expect far less similarity with the sources used for an article. Saying that, and having re-examined the copyright detector report again, I can see that some of the matches are direct quotations, which is not really a problem. I'd like to get a second opinion, so I'd prefer to wait for the next reviewing admin (which is just whoever decides to review your request - we don't know who that will be in advance, but they will read any messages left here for them). If they think the similarity is sufficiently low, I will not object to an unblock and the restore of the draft - if it is undeleted, it (or any new version) should probably go directly in Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory and not in these /temp/temp pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user on the Wikipedia channel pointed out the most problematic parts of the second draft, and said that quoting "titles" is problematic, as the duplication detectors pick up on them, even when they're paraphrased, and admins don't always have the time to sort through everything. I did try remove a few titles and just write about their contents instead, but it's not possible for every media source cited. I'd appreciate if you can undelete it into Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, and if there are any outstanding copyright issues, I will try to resolve them. Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've unblocked as above, with apologies if I've fallen for reported close matches that were actually not a problem. I'd still like another admin to check Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp/Temp, and see if they're happy before I restore it. Or anyone else can restore it if I'm not around, as I'll probably be heading off to sleep soon. (Note to self: It's probably better not to engage in things like this when you're not feeling well). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel better, thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The help message below should attract an admin for a second opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like another admin to review the alleged copyright violation discussed above, at Draft talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Temp/Temp, and see if they're happy for it to be restored (to Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory). If so, please feel free to do the restore as I might be offline soon, or else I'll check back tomorrow morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you let me know about this. Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only see original writing. AGK ■ 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Thanks for that. @ScrupulousScribe: I have restored it to Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory, apologies for the error. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Cambridge Working Group for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Cambridge Working Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cambridge Working Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about RmYN02

[edit]

Sorry, I'm not an expert in this field. The previous RaTG13 is also translated from zhwiki.--Htmlzycq (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Cambridge Working Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDC. 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) 06:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft of the theory

[edit]

I would advise you to make page Origins of Covid-19 instead. This is a more general and perfectly legitimate subject where everything can be described. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I don't think it will be possible to create Origins of Covid-19, we'd have to provide sources for different origin scenarios more definitely, and in accords to WP:MEDRS. Whereas, in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, we can cite sources relating to different investigations into different origin scenarios, which don't necessarily need to meet the criteria in WP:MEDRS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I checked this, but there is a lot more. So, for example, David Relman who is definitely an expert (his opinion was published in PNAS, here) describes three possible scenario of COVID-19 origin, "There are several potential origin scenarios":
  1. "First, SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in bats..."
  2. "Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally."
  3. "Alternatively, the complete SARS-CoV-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus resurrected from a synthetic genome to study it, before that virus accidentally escaped from the laboratory. The third scenario, seemingly much less likely..."
He provides some details and arguments, and tells: "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts. Just because there are no public reports of more immediate, proximal ancestors in natural hosts, doesn’t mean that these ancestors don’t exist in natural hosts or that COVID-19 didn’t began as a spillover event. Nor does it mean that they have not been recovered and studied, or deliberately recombined in a laboratory." And so on. And this is just one of the RS.
Given that, I am not sure how some people on ANI can call scenario #2 and #3 "conspiracy theories", although they are probably not experts in this area (like David Relman). I think this is a very common situation in WP when people think they know something just because they read about it in newspapers. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the Relman article and its provided as a reference in my draft.
The Problem is that some editors are insisting that MEDRS apply to every single aspect of the lab leak theory, which is now the topic of discussion on the RS noticeboard. I believe MEDRS sources should only be required for substantiating claims like the purported medical benefits of THC, and a MEDRS source should not be required as a reference for how it was first isolated by Raphael Mechoulam in 1964. One is a medical claim, and one is not, and it does not even make sense to say that MEDRS source for the second claim should come before a regular RS source.
The problem that we have is that there are certain zealous editors who either haven't read anything about the lab leak theory, or they have and favour a contrarian POV, which they are pushing with sources which they claim MEDRS, which upon analysis, are very weak. Most of the established MEDRS sources taking the contraian view (such as Anderson et al and Baric et al), state quite clearly that it is impossible to disprove the notion. Yet these MEDRS sources are conveniently discarded as not WP:BESTSOURCES. It is clear that some editors are very strongly biased on the issue and will go to any length to bend WP policy to support their view.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is mostly a political controversy including denials, information blackout and sanctions by China, claims by US State department, etc. I wonder how anyone can require WP:MEDRS to source claims by politicians or even claims/views by experts who talked a lot about it to journalists. This is absolutely ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been exploring the option of requesting a dispute resolution, as I believe there are certain editors who are not acting in good faith. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a dispute resolution or starting an WP:RFC is a possibility, but you should never accuse others of bad faith or of anything at all - WP:NPA (that will only get you blocked). My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it extremally difficult to believe that certain editors are acting in good faith when they rubbish the lab leak theory with derisive language, claim I am just fishing for sources to support my "fringe" POV, and insinuate that other editors sharing my POV must be socks of mine. They have chased off numerous other editors who have brought up NPOV issues on the two pages, going all the way back to February. Now that the USDOS made a statement, they simply put it down to Trumpism. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there is no any real evidence that the virus was leaked from the lab. This is only a possibility. i.e. pure speculation (if there were multiple RS, such as books, which positively claim it was leaked, that would be a different story). Therefore, a number of contributors say what they say on the ANI, and you are likely to be topic banned. I voted "oppose" on the ANI because this is a notable controversy that deserves a separate page or pages (ones that you created), and I think your "opponents" are clearly acting against WP:NPOV by excluding views by academics and others that should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following this too closely, but from what I've seen, there's something very interesting going on with this topic. At this rate a Streisand effect could kick in.Park3r (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't let the 1% effect kick in, and please do make your views known, also here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best, but I suspect we'll get an "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" rewriting of history if the political winds make the lab escape hypothesis more palatable (a similar thing happened with masks, where "experts" did a 180 without blinking), and the controversy will disappear. For now, I'll stay away from Covid-related topics, where policies have seemingly been stretched and twisted in unrecognisable ways.Park3r (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of nomination for speedy deletion - January 2021

[edit]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and has unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. Thucydides411 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why think it is written in a negative tone? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about tone. It's about creating a page devoted to an evidence-free conspiracy theory targeting a private living person. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Huang Yanling for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Huang Yanling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Yanling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to a community sanction

[edit]

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

You are now banned from writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, on any Wikipedia page (with the exceptions outlined below) for three months from the date of this message.

I've been trying to hold off from this for some time, but unfortunately I think we really do need to take some firm action now. Since you registered your account, you have done nothing other than write about the Covid-19 lab leak theory. You have done so in great volume and great detail, to the extent of creating articles putting great emphasis on relatively minor details. That is increasingly violating Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE policy.

Further, you have not been trying to treat the subject according to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies. Instead, you appear to have been seeking out and using sources that explicitly support the lab leak theory, no matter how low quality they are, and not seeking to present the required balance of reliable sources. In short, rather than trying to present an encyclopedic treatment of the origin of Covid-19, you have been incessantly trying to promote the lab leak theory.

Your creation of the Huang Yanling article is the last straw. It is based, as far as I and those commenting at the AFD can see, on no reliable sources testifying to notability. Instead, it is using a host of unreliable sources, including rumours and blogging claims, to pin a theory on a named individual with no evidence whatsoever that they are involved. Your arguments at the AFD for that article show that you still fail to understand the problems with your contributions and the community's objections.

Discussions of your contributions have also ended up consuming large amounts of other editors' time, which is a precious resource that they voluntarily contribute. These levels of disruption need to stop.

I think I have no option but to impose a topic ban, but I am going to make it very specific. I will not ban you from writing about Covid-19 in general, and I will not make the ban indefinite (both of which I think are where the ANI discussion is trending). Instead, you are now banned specifically from writing about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute. The ban extends to all pages on Wikipedia, with the exception of any discussion about your editing on the WP:AN and WP:ANI boards, and the Huang Yanling AFD that is currently in progress.

The ban is for three months from today. This will hopefully give you time to take note of what experienced editors and administrators have been saying, and to get a proper feel for the way Wikipedia editors should approach this subject area.

You can still contribute to other areas of Wikipedia's Covid-19 coverage (unless the current ANI discussion should result in any further restrictions), but I would urge you to take some lessons from your experiences so far and apply them carefully if you decide to do that. And when the current ban expires, please be very careful of your approach to coverage of the lab leak theory particularly.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. 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 at the administrators' 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for the thoughtful note. I understand that I may have made mistakes, and creating the article on Huang Yanling may have been one of those mistakes, however, I object to the wording of "no reliable sources" in your note above, as I was very careful to curate a number of articles from what I thought were reliable sources, including NZ Herald, Deutsche Welle, The Jerusalem Post, United Press International, and Forbes, as well as an official counter statement by Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of the PRC. The section of the article that cited these sources was deleted by RexxS in a move that was puzzling to me, as he also nominated the article for deletion based on a lack of reliable sources, and there is an ongoing discussion on that in my talk. In case you didn't see it, you can find my comment and the reliable sources provided on AFD discussion page which I struck out (perhaps using the wrong strikethrough script), as I was initially persuaded by RexxS that they aren't sufficient for WP:BLP.
I would like to appeal the topic ban, as the discussion on the exact applicability of WP:MEDRS to this issue has yet to reach a consensus, and I feel that there are a select number of editors who (as DGG and Atsme noted in the ANI) may be emboldened by a topic ban on me to continue skirting the issue, and spur them on to accuse other editors of "conspiracy theory" mongering as they have with me, and persist to push their POV, just as they accused me of doing. I first started the conversation on spinning off the lab leak theory from the "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic" page so that it can be treated from a neutral point of view on Jan 5th, where some editors agreed with me, but in response to opposing editors who objected to it on grounds of WP:MEDRS, I pointed out that the unknown origins of virus does not constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and this discussion was escalated to the WP:RS noticeboard (presented in a misleading way, citing only one of the many RSs that I had provided), where a number of previously uninvolved editors including Park3r, JPxG, Geogene, My very best wishes, Guest2625, and Normchou agreed with my position that MEDRS should not apply here. I would like to point out to you that editors Thucydides411, Alexbrn, XOR'easter and Hemiauchenia, who have been pushing hard for the lab leak to be labeled as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia, have all completely ignored Forich's summary of the debate that has been going on for the past few weeks across numerous pages, and now Alexbrn is saying (in the ANI) that he is "losing interest" in the topic.
Furthermore, I outright object to the accusation that I have been "seeking out" low-quality sources and misrepresenting them to support the POV that the lab leak cannot be considered misinformation and a conspiracy theory (unless that was in reference to the Huang Yanling article), and for the relevant content changes to be made accordingly (that is based on an accusation first made by Alex of "fringe types" and "possible socks" who are "casting around" for sources, which was an entirely unfounded allegation and which was picked up by other editors). When I first started the discussion on the Talk page of the Wuhan Insititute of Technology, seeking to make content pages to better reflect NPOV, you replied saying I should provide sources, and I provided numerous sources in that thread, including The BBC, The Times, Le Monde, Presadiretta, Bloomberg, The Telegraph, and The Washington Post, among others. The discussion of a lab leak as a possible origin scenario of Covid-19 on Wikipedia goes all the way back to February, and possibly earlier, and users Thucydides411, Alexbrn and Hemiauchenia have always been at the forefront of quelling the inclusion of such a notion on Wikipedia, and XOR'easter gives very odd reasoning for his views as to why MEDRS applies, which are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Forich, started an FRC on the matter back in May, which resulted in the consensus that until new RSs are produced to indicate that the lab leak is being considered as a plausible possibility, there was nothing more to discuss. The new RSs that I provided, starting with the Boston Magazine from September, and the flurry of media reports from November and December (such as the BBC, etc), brought up new information that mandated further discussion, and for a new consensus to be reached. While I may have come across to some as "overzealous" in my approach (which may very well be true), Forich has been anything but patient and understanding, and while I very much admire his diplomatic approach, I think that in the face of such unrelenting opposition from editors like Hemiauchenia (who first dropped in the conversation only to discount my sources for no good reason, and then again to announce that he has slain others with my POV, and subsequently proposed to topic ban me and Dinglelingy), I don't think he is going to get very far. I also made a personal appeal to Alex to do away with the snide remarks and consider my POV, and my argument against MEDRS applying here, but his intransigence has remained a problem, even after the US government made an official statement on its view on the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario. The USDOS statement on its own doesn't reveal any new information, and the Telegraph article that constitutes a secondary source on the statement, represented just one of numerous reliable sources indicating that there is a controversy surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a possible site of a laboratory accident.
While I understand that you are not involved in the subject of our discussion, I would like for you as an admin, or another impartial admin to look at the conversations that have been taking place on this issue in their entirety, and investigate the conduct of the abovementioned editors as per WP:GAME. The MEDRS source that Alexbrn has found (which in my view was selected to support his POV) and "benevolently interpreted" (Forich's words) is absolutely unacceptable in the context of claiming that the lab leak theory can be considered as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" in the "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology articles, and it is equally unacceptable to support the POV that there is a scientific consensus on the "mechanism of transmission" as preseented in the "Origins" section of the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article (and conradicts the scientific consensus that no origin scenario has been determined). There is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as to what sources may be considered MEDRS, and there is no clear consensus in that discussion as to whether that MEDRS source can support such a claim, even though we don't beleive MEDRS sources are required in the wider discussion of Covid-19 origins. While I may be a new user here, I have edited Wikipedia extensively over many years, and I have faith in the project to upholds its core principles and I have faith in you as admin to implement its policies effectively. I am also willing to confide that I may have made mistakes and correct my own behavior and conduct.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I was tagged, I'll add my two cents. I would recommend disengaging. In its current state, a fair-minded reader is unlikely to regard Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology as encyclopedic, given its strident tone, and there has been very little editing activity to actually improve the article itself. There's also an NPOV tag on the most controversial section to alert readers. In my mind, the biggest risk posed by potentially misleading content on Wikipedia is when it is the only source of aggregated or summarised information on a topic. In the case of Covid-19, that's plainly not the case (it is unfortunate the Google uses the Wikipedia excerpt though). Therefore temporarily abandoning this particular corner of Wikipedia and moving on to other topic areas is probably more useful than fighting this battle. But that's just my opinion.Park3r (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and given that I also have been mentioned above, I give the same advice. In my opinion your view of the underlying matter is not necessarily incorrect. There is however nothing to be gained at this point by your continuing it. If the matter is to be continued it should be with others. I may take an unusually cautious view of this, but I do not not edit here persistently on any thing pertaining to an article to the point where I become emotionally involved, or think that the expression of the true state of affairs depends on me personally. (That even does imply that in some topics about which I very deeply care, I do not edit at all except on technical matters or on isolated issues. I think in such matters that while I have the ability to edit NPOV, trying to do so against opposition would be too emotionally taxing. I prefer to work where my work is appreciated. Even on matters not concerning an article topic directly but about Wikipedia , a project about which I have certainly become emotionally involved, I limit my participation in any one question, though I may come back to it later. The truth does not depend on me. Neither does WP . In particular, if I had been in a situation where a sanction such as this would have been applied to me, I would have waited at least a few days before appealing or replying. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the above: I rarely edit articles in relation to computer science (my field; when I redid my user page I also deleted some related text that I later evaluated to be rants). But in this case, more importantly, except as part of the appeal itself (that should also use another approach than insisting that the problem are other editors), the topic should really be dropped, or eventual sanctions for violating the topic ban are possible. —PaleoNeonate – 01:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Are these violations of ScrupulousScribe's topic ban? [1] (adding primary-sourced info about the US investigation into the lab-leak hypothesis) [2] (adding a link to an article that discusses the lab-leak hypothesis). In addition to these article-space edits, ScrupulousScribe continues to edit talk pages of Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory and Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411 You removed an important statement from a US government office about an investigation in a section named "US government investigations", which makes no mention of the lab leak theory. You also removed other contents which has been restored by Normchou, despite repeated requests not to do so. My edits to the talk page in my draft was to ask Boing! said Zebedee to delete the article, which like the edits mentioned above were not made with the intention of contravening my topic ban. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The material you added was about "US government investigations" into the lab-leak hypothesis. That's also largely what the article, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, is about. Additionally, the source you added to the article with this diff discusses the lab-leak hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you disagree with my edits and think they should be reverted. You shouldn't be editing anything closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 lab-leak hypothesis at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee will read the material you removed which I restored, and determine whether it does indeed relate to the "lab-leak hypethesis", as you claim. The article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is not supposed to be about the lab leak hypothesis, and it is you that turned it into that, dedicating the first paragraph of a section about "US government investigations" to the topic, instead of actual US government investigations. The OST letter to NASEM, which you removed and I restored, is the first US gov statement on a US government investigation, and should be the first item in the list. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it is you that turned it into that: How on Earth can you possibly claim that I turned the article into one about the lab-leak hypothesis? This is what the article looked like before I made a single edit to it: [3]. I've been arguing that the article should instead focus on the scientific investigations into the origins, rather than the conspiracy theories. You're continuing to edit an article that is largely focused on the lab-leak hypothesis, which is why I'm asking Boing to weigh in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Normchou told you, you can add content to better reflect NPOV, but not delete content, and certainly not content as important as the US Government's first official communique on conducting an investigation (in a section titled "US government investigations"). If you are concerned with the primary source, you can find a secondary source to add, of which there are plenty. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, I'm having a weak health day today so I'm not able to really do anything right now. But I will get back to this quickly. In the meantime, ScrupulousScribe, I can see how the material being questioned here might be ambiguous regarding the topic ban. I can't really examine it in any detail right now, but I'd recommend you keep away from anything relating to the origins of Covid-19 at least until I'm able to review this appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take DGG's advice and just take a break from editing anything remotely related to the subject of the topic ban. I wanted to type up a "yes, but" reply to DGG about how compelled I feel to uphold the neutrality of the subject on various article, but then I read Heimstern's essay on how Wikipedia sucks sometimes, and some of his other posts also provided me with some insights into the admin perspective on if/how to adjudicate content disputes (here]). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the best way to handle a topic ban. Pretend it is broader than it actually is. Avoid areas of conflict that are related to the ban, and even users you repeatedly tangled with. Just find something completely different. Good luck. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

If it's any help, ScrupulousScribe, the job of a Wikipedia editor is determine the quality of a source, but not to analyse its conclusions. No source is reliable, per se, but is either reliable or not for supporting particular content in a particular article. I recommend the strategies outlined at WP:MEDASSESS, which are aimed at medical information, but expound principles that are applicable to any considerations for sourcing in our articles. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the note. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RexxS, is there a provision in WP:RS applying especially to WP:BLP a to how reliable sources can be discounted based on their sourcing? In the particular case we dealt with yesterday, the subject lived in a country without much of a free press, so in reporting on the subject, the foreign press (such as UPI) obviously had to report on it as a "rumor". Why should this disqualify the notability of the subject? I have looked at Category Chinese:prisoners and detainees and I found this reporting style to be very common. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It all ends up as a matter of judgement whether a particular source is reliable, and then whether or not a much higher quality source is available. Notability in a BLP is a fairly high bar, and we tend to err on the side of not having an article when the subject is an otherwise unremarkable person, apart from one event. Usually we would follow WP:BLP1E and perhaps use the sources (if they are found reliable) to expand an article on the event for which the individual received press coverage. Using Chinese sources is not easy, partly because of inexact translations, but mainly because of the censorship and influence of the authorities, as you observed. Generally, a clearly notable subject will have coverage in Western sources as well as Chinese sources, and that means we don't have to use the Chinese ones. The effect of that is to skew our coverage towards Western subjects – that is recognised – but that is always going to be a consequence of working with Asian sources. If you think Chinese coverage causes difficulties, you should see the problems we get with Indian caste articles. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on a way forward

[edit]

I've been intending to try to help you with a way forward, but it's been difficult for me to work out how to explain the problems without exaggerating the issues and without making it sound like I'm making unfair accusations. So let me talk in hypotheticals instead...

In real life, there's a common way in which people approach discussions of controversial claims. Someone who supports the claim will say so and present their evidence. Then someone who opposes it will provide their evidence. And the argument will go back and forth. If you're inexperienced on Wikipedia, it might seem intuitive that that's an appropriate way to approach controversial topics here. So you might, for example, gather sources that support something you believe (or suspect) is true and add it all to a Wikipedia article (or create a new article). Then you might expect those who disagree with you to add their own content and their own sources supporting the opposite view. And so, the article develops through a back-and-forth process in the same way arguments play out in real life. In other words, an editor might think "I believe X is true, so I'll add the case for it to a Wikipedia article, and we can take it from there". But that is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. The ideal Wikipedia approach is to start with an open mind and think "This is an interesting controversy, so I'll see what sources I can find, and I'll present a balanced treatment of those sources".

In my long-winded way, I'm getting to the concept of reliable sources (in the way Wikipedia defines it) and how to use them. It's explained at WP:RS, which you can read for yourself. But there's a point I want to make specifically about Covid-19. There's a huge amount of writing about Covid-19 out there that is simply not appropriate as sources for Wikipedia. That includes a lot of social media, blogs, opinion pieces, editorials, etc. It also includes primary sources, which are also inapplicable (see WP:PRIMARY for more). A Wikipedia editor is expected to evaluate the sources they use in accordance with WP:RS and determine their suitability. Though, as RexxS says above, an editor must not do their own analysis of the actual content and use their own conclusions - that's explained at WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which are policy pages every new editor should read. And then, having identified reliable sources, an editor is expected to present a balanced view of those sources. Now, here's where people often fall down. Wikipedia does not carry equal coverage of both sides of a controversy and does not give both sides equal say. No, Wikipedia strives to reflect the balance that already exists in reliable sources. So, for example, if the balance of reliable sources says the Earth is round (well, an oblate spheroid), we don't give flat-Earthers equal say. Sure, we carry content about flat Earth claims, but we make it clear that it is scientifically rejected. (I know the lab leak controversy is nowhere near as clear cut, I'm just using something extreme as an example).

Before I move on further, I'll also point out that reliable sourcing is especially important when writing about living persons, and WP:BLP is essential reading. The key is that we're writing about actual people living real lives, who could come to actual harm should Wikipedia carry controversial claims about them based on less than impeccable sources.

Right, where do we go from here? Firstly, I'm not trying to assume any of the above thinking lay behind your edits here - it's just a generalisation from many similar problems I've seen over the years. But I do have to say that, to me and to a good few other editors, you appeared to be trying to push the lab leak theory rather than provide a balanced presentation of what reliable sources say about it. And that led to all sorts of arguments, admittedly with some pushback that might well have been excessive.

In setting your topic ban, I did not specify any minimum time to wait before you can appeal it (as often happens). In fact, I'm open to an appeal any time you believe you understand the problems and can make a convincing case that you understand how to go forward in line with Wikipedia policies. You could appeal directly to me - you're welcome to do so here on this talk page, as I will keep it watched. You could also appeal at WP:AN and the community would make a decision by consensus. If you appeal to me, I'd need to be convinced that you understand what I've been saying here. Ideally, I'd also like to see you do some work in less controversial topics so I can see how you can handle reliable sources - it's rarely a good idea for a newcomer to dive right into controversial topics. (As an aside, I know there has been some disagreement regarding plain RS sources, scientific sources, and MEDRS sources - in my experience, RexxS always seems to have the best advice on that, and I'm sure he would help.)

Anyway, I'll stop there for now (for fear of wearing out my keyboard and your patience). I'd love to hear what you think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this till after I wrote a reply to your previous note, as I stepped away from the computer for an errand and posted it when I come back. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts. As someone who has "lurked" a lot on Wikipedia and observed disputes around controversial issues, relating to climate warming, Israel/Palestine and the Xinjiang re-education camps, I've read up a lot on Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Since I created this account to take up the issue of the lab leak, I've read up again on a lot of these policies and guidelines, so I have a good basic understanding of, but I agree that I need to read up on them more in order to become a better contributor and avoid any disputes.
Without denying my own shortcoming, I believe that there is a problem with a small number of editors with a certain POV relating to the lab leak theory, who have pushed their POV on related Wikipedia pages which isn't consistent with the new information that has arisen. Without boring you with too many details, an addendum made on the 17th of November 2020 by Shi Zhengli to a paper she had sent to Nature earlier in February, relating to the timing and sequencing of RaTG13, confirming that it was one and the same with a virus known as BtCoV/4991, which places the nearest relative of COVID-SARS-2 at a mineshaft in Mojiang where miners were known to have died from a SARS-like coronavirus in 2013. The addendum was made after many months of increasing calls from scientists for her to clarify details of the paper relating to RaTG13 (which you can read about here), and some scientists even called on her to retract her paper, or have Nature magazine append a cautionary note to it. This was a big deal in the scientific community, which was covered in the BBC and Le Monde in December (and other later sources), which seriously called into question the provenance of RaTG13, and the possibility of an accidental leak of a SARS-like coronavirus undergoing gain of function studies at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) (which is legitimate research they were known to be doing and is even reflected accordingly in the Wikipedia article on the WIV).
When I brought up these new reliable sources which reported this new information, I was expecting for there to be some pushback from editors with contrarian views, but I did not quite expect editors to game Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Like I said above, I believe there are a select number of editors with a POV, who have engaged in a process of selectively sourcing MEDRS that supports their POV, while attacking the credibility of the authors of the sources I provided, and even my credibility as an editor. What ensued was a discussion across a number of pages that lacked the congeniality that this discussion deserves, and it is possible that I may have made mistakes too, in my choice of words, or how many words I wrote. But like JPxG pointed out in the ANI, it is to be expected that I argued "repeatedly" in the face of contrarian editors making "broadly similar points". If you look through the conversation on the WIV talk page, you will see a contrarian editor called CowHouse who agreed with me and Dinglelingy that there was in uneven application of the MEDRS policy and that without MEDRS sources clearly indicating that the lab leak is considered a conspiracy theory, the claims should be removed from the page. Were the discussion to have ended there and focused instead on making the necessary content changes, all would have been good, but instead, the discussion continued and got derailed with several trivial matters (accusations of sockpuppetry and the such), but also the important discussion on whether MEDRS is applicable as a policy (which has been given serious consideration by those contrarian editors). Throughout this time, despite no consensus on the matter, the claims remain in the page. It's no surprise CowHouse and Dinglelingy disengaged from the conversation.
Going forward, I would like to appeal directly to you fo the removal of the topic ban, and I will also commit to changing my conduct anyhow needed, but I would also like to ask you to give attention to the concerns that I and now others have brought up with contrarian editors claiming to represent a neutral point of view, when they clearly do not. More importantly, I would like to be able to discuss with you, or another uninvolved admin as to the exact content changes that need to be made to Wikipedia, until the discussion on applicability of policies such as MEDRS reaches a consensus.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it is worth, I would like the topic ban to remain in place. The mission of Wikipedia's community is to write a neutral, impartial encyclopedia. From decades of experience, we know that mission breaks down after giving free rein to contributors who are not able to write from a neutral perspective. Topic bans rarely have the effect of equipping somebody to write in such a way, and I see no evidence that the lesson has been learned here either. ScrupulousScrib has not spent very long at all under the topic ban and has gained no experience in unrelated parts of the encyclopedia. In my view, unbanning will lead to more of the same. Boing, this was a good ban. AGK ■ 10:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the real way forward

[edit]

As advice, the topic ban is much more likely to be removed if it's clear that you will disengage from the subject by yourself. I think it possible that you still do not realize that being in the right in an issue is not relevant to consensus about the issue at Wikipedia. We are not able to judge the truth of something, and we should not try (we do not try even when some of us happen to have relevant expertise). Trying to get an article right by discussing at the talk page is sometimes helpful , but it tends to become arguments of limited usefulness when there are knowledgable opponents who also think they are also right.

My personal rule is to make 2 or at the most 3 tries, and then leave it to others, for if I have not convinced people by then, I am not likely to. But even so, I don't aim at convincing my opponents, which is rarely successful, but at trying to convince people new to the topic. This requires a certain degree of detachment in making the argument so it will seem reasonable to them, instead of being an extended back-and-forth that gets more and more difficult for newcomers to follow. Viewed a little more cynically, it is necessary to be very careful that your opponents, not yourself, willl appear to be the less reasonable and the more dogmatic. The more one concentrates on an issue, the harder this is to do.

Always remember two things: you are unlikely to be the only one who cares, and, on topics like this, knowledge is not complete, and will almost certainly be clearer later. If one's position is indeed correct, it will sooner or later be realized more generally. At least, that's what people believe who trust in the superiority of discussion and argument and logic and knowledge.

The real rationale of topic bans like this is not so you can return to the argument in three months, but that the separation will be long enough that you will turn permanently to other issues. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice on this matter. I read it twice, and it rang very true, not only pertaining to the issues at hand, but on managing relationships and sharing knowledge in the general. I have a more Talmudic background in debate, which seems to run quite contrary to how discourse works on Wikipedia, for the better or worse. I will read your advice again over the weekend. Thanks again. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you sense me smiling, ScurpulousScribe? DGG has given you good advice. He is an excellent mentor and a highly respected/trusted admin on WP (former arbitrator). I was also happy to see Boing take an interest in guiding you toward the right path with your future editing, (I hope Boing will feel better soon). You're in good hands, SS - take advantage of it, and above all, remember not to mention or even think about anything related to your t-ban. I speak from experience, having had an indef AP2 t-ban (my very first t-ban with no logged warnings prior to the action), long since successfully appealed, but I am now under another t-ban which I will not/cannot discuss because I'm t-banned from that topic - the point being to help you be more aware of the limitations while you're subject to a t-ban. When tensions rise, I resort to humor, so if you'll look in the right margin of my user page, you'll see an image related to t-bans...all in fun. On my talk page it's all fun, but it can't hold a candle to The Museum. Enjoy! There are lots of projects that need good editors - especially copy editors. Our community is actually quite fun and welcoming for the most part. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 20:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

Hallo, I've just Stub-sorted Martin Kulldorff. Thanks for this contribution, but there are a few little points to make

  • {{stub}} goes at the bottom not the top (per WP:ORDER). Putting it in the right place saves work for a stub-sorting editor, especially if they're working on a mobile phone and can only edit one section at a time so have to first remove the tag from the wrong place, then in another edit put the detailed stub tag in the right place.
  • Wikipedia doesn't use slanted quote marks as you did in " “focused protection” " - I've changed them to straight quotes
  • Please expand refs rather than leaving bare URLs
  • You added Category:Living people: for a few more keystrokes you could also add the sort key which makes him file under "K" rather than "M": Standard boilerplate message coming up ...
There is a very easy way to add the DEFAULTSORT (so the article files by surname in lists), and Category:Living people where appropriate, and any birth or death date category: {{subst:L|1882|1984|Brown, Annie}} would create {{DEFAULTSORT:Brown, Annie}}, Category:1882 births and Category:1984 deaths, while {{subst:L|||Smith, Jane}} would create {{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Jane}}, Category:Living people and Category:Date of birth missing (living people). Lack of death date implies "living" (or you can add "unknown" or "missing" as the death date to suppress this). You get a lot done for a few keystrokes: I think it's a great little template.
(In short, {{subst:L|||Kulldorf, Martin}} would have worked well here.)

There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. Happy Editing. PamD 08:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. What is the syntax for expanding refs? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are several templates: {{Cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} etc. In the editing interface I use, there's a "cite" button in the edit bar which leads to a dropdown menu "templates" from which I can pick one, and if I then input the doi, URL or, for a book, the ISBN and click the little magnifying-glass icon alongside it usually makes a good stab at expanding the ref, though needs to be checked (especially for web or book). See Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/3. If you use Visual Editor ... I can't help, as I tried it and gave up years ago. PamD 09:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

[edit]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 03:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ScrupulousScribe - a bit of friendly advice that I hope you will consider: do not respond to any of this, and that includes the AE filing, the allegations that you violated your t-ban, and don't even mention the subject of your t-ban or you will surely be headed for a wider-ranging indef t-ban. Say nothing until Boing is able to research the concerns and addresses you directly. Do not let temptation get the better of you. The sound of crickets is the best sound in situations like this. Nothing you can say or do is going to change anything anyway and will only make things worse. Move on to a completely different topic for a while. Atsme 💬 📧 10:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Government Disinformation on Covid-19

[edit]

Please take the trouble to use proper references and not just bare URLs. Thank you. PamD 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI - and PamD, if you're not aware of reFill2, you might want to consider it - see User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill#reFill 2. Also, another handy script is User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen which lets editors know the rating of a source via a graphic that prepends the citation, visible in Preview prior to saving the article. Atsme 💬 📧 10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: I'm aware of Refill2 and have seen a lot of dreadfully badly formatted references produced using it. It seems to be an abomination. PamD 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - first I've heard it called an "abomination". When I read your opening comment above, I used reFill 2(New!) to fix all the bare URLs you mentioned. I didn't see any issues in preview. Are you seeing issues now? I've been using on and off for a while now, and have yet to encounter a problem. The script allows you to review the changes before saving, so it seems pretty safe to me. There were a few problems with the first reFill0 but #2 has been improved upon. I say go with whatever you're comfortable with, and Happy Editing!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great tool. I am still quite new to filling regs and I found it to be quite tedious. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should only be used after the fact (like when an IP or new editor uses bare urls ^_^). I agree in part with what PamD stated because reFill script does have its flaws. In fact, just this morning, I had to go back and add the "access-date" to your citations. I also went ahead and completed "refname=[subst name]" for all of them - it makes it easier in the event an article is expanded. An even better tool for you is Citer. Copy the url of the article you're citing, paste it in the Submit bar of Citer, and it will complete the citation for you. Copy the citation in one of the two formats (shortened or named), paste it where it belongs in the article, and voila!! You're done! It's a must have tool. I keep a link to Citer in my top menu bar. Atsme 💬 📧 13:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

Hi SS, you're probably already aware of this, but if not, you should know that Novem Linguae has filed a sockpuppet investigation against you. He's not obliged to inform you of this, but it would have been reasonable to expect that he would. Arcturus (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arcturus. Sorry for not informing, this is my first SPI. Sounds like it's an unwritten rule around here to heavily inform people of things? Noted, I will do so in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser came back as unrelated. –Novem Linguae
Novem Linguae, no problem. Arcturus (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae I'm flattered that you thought I was Dinglelingy. His English is far better than mine, and the way he would call other editors "reviewers" seems to indicate he/she is a professional academic of some sort. The truth is that I have no idea who he/she is and I've never had any direct communication with him/her and your investigation request only belies your prejudice (especially in the way you call us both conspiracy theorists, when the BBC just last night published a piece calling it not a conspiracy theory, but "one of the biggest scientific controversies of all time"). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 16:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS should not respond there - it's too risky because of his t-ban...especially if the evidence used includes any part of it. Atsme 💬 📧 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Koltsovo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban appeal

[edit]

@ScrupulousScribe: I must start with a apology. I was feeling really good today after a couple of bad days, but I've been hit by an intense tiredness in the past couple of hours. I have some comments and suggestions, which will probably take quite a few words, though I just can't manage it now. But it's not fair to keep you waiting any longer. So I'm going to lift the topic ban, essentially for the following reasons:

  • There's been some heated discussion, but the sub-optimal behaviour was not one-sided. I think both sides of the disagreement should have been more willing to listen to the other side.
  • I'm convinced you understand the importance of WP:BLP policy now and the importance of being strict regarding sourcing and notability. This was the trigger for the ban, and I see that problem as resolved.
  • You have told me in our email chat today that you're going to take the good advice offered by DGG and Atsme. And I think that will go a long way to resolving any problems.

I do intend to post the other comments that are in my mind, essentially some thoughts on avoiding conflict in controversial areas like this, but I'll have to hold off until I'm clearer. Anyway, for now, I've logged the lifting of the ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban proposal has been reopened, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_a_topic_ban_for_ScrupulousScribe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have just removed, so please feel free to safely ignore, for now, ScrupulousScribe. Hemiauchenia, that is not how a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is supposed to work. Please don't do that again. El_C 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD protocol

[edit]

Hi, SS - just a bit of info relative to protocol at WP:AfD. Cast your iVote, and make it a bold Keep or Delete, or Delete and merge, or Merge. Be succinct with the explanation that follows your iVote. Do your best to refrain from responding to the iVotes that oppose your position (and that protocol applies across the board at all the drama boards and at AfD). I see that you responded to the nom's comment but it's reallly better if you don't. Just add your iVote after the last iVote, and let the chips fall where they may. Atsme 💬 📧 00:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

[edit]

You sent me an email asking whether I was willing to mediate a content dispute. I asked via reply email whether this had to do with the Covid-19 lab leak theory, and you said that it does. Here is my answer. I am willing to attempt to mediate a dispute if the other parties are willing to attempt mediation. Mediation in Wikipedia is voluntary. It appears that you were topic-banned from posting about the Covid-19 lab leak theory, so I want to verify either that the ban has been lifted or eased, or that mediation is permitted, or that there is an exception to the ban for mediated discussion. Also, it should be understood that the Covid-19 lab leak theory is a fringe theory, and should be discussed on Wikipedia as a fringe theory. It isn't a crackpot fringe theory like many of the other fringe theories, but it is a fringe theory. The usual rules will apply. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Discuss edits, not editors. I am ready if the other parties are ready. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tban was lifted. I would like to consider going ahead with the process. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thoughts about DRN so I'm pinging Robert McClenon - SS, leave the lab leak stuff alone for now, and let's work on getting the misinformation article right, first. I just replaced all the text that I worked so hard on yesterday in order to expand that article and give it some substance, and now I've started a discussion on the TP there. What do you say? We may need to go to DRN with that article first. My instincts tell me you should not be pushing the lab leak theory right now, but rather get some experience with the misinformation article so you can see how the process works. The lab leak is a high fringe area, and I don't think you are not ready for that, yet. First things first. Atsme 💬 📧 20:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I will leave this for now. From what I read, the DRN process doesn't work when there are a multitude of editors in the mix. Thanks anyway Robert McClenon. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to a sanction

[edit]

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

indefinite topic ban from the COVID19 topic area, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned due to having repeatedly speculated on editors' nationality and related language-proficiency in connection with a dispute involving the COVID19 topic area (permanent link). That is not okay! It now looks like the previous (narrow) COVID19 sanction was lifted prematurely, so not only restoring it, but a wider, all-encompassing prohibition is due, as well. I would be open to considering an appeal in no less than 6 months, contingent on productive editing elsewhere.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. 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 at the administrators' 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. El_C 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you don't think its strange that an editor who is heavily involved in China-related pages over fourteen years, suddenly appears to speak fluent Mandarin after assuring other editors otherwise? This editor is known to remove content unflattering to the Chinese Communist Party, and has been subject of multiple ANIs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe, what I find strange is you being here for less than 2 months, yet repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing in and about this fraught topic area. Anyway, if you think there's something shady going on, I dunno, maybe email the Arbitration Committee to investigate...? But making note of it on-wiki (especially on an article talk page) is grossly inappropriate. El_C 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CGTW#3 comes to mind. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, that isn't something to establish or argue on an article talk page, in the midst of a content dispute. Again, it's grossly inappropriate. El_C 15:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. It reminds me a bit of the arbcom case around GMOs, where some editors had started believing that their opponent editors were agents acting for malign forces, and started openly treating then as such. This is always a bad path to go down. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, this editor has been passively active across a large number of China-related pages (including actionable pages on noticeboards like this), and has only recently came out of talkspace to become active on a number of China-related pages covering topic areas where the Chinese Government is concerned and in relation to COVID-19 in specific (which was the subject of multiple SPIs), and his account history shows that he/she/they focus on removing content that is unflattering to the Chinese Communist Party, and/or engaging in talk page with circular reasoning in such a way that is consistent with WP:SEALIONING. He/she/they have also exhibited longstanding behaviours consistent with WP:HUNT.
It is no small matter that he/she/they has suddenly become fluent in Mandarin, after denying it in conversations with other Chinese editors whom he/she/they tangled with on other China-related page, and I brought it up on the talk page of an article where he had removed large chunks of well-sourced content without explanation, where they were engaging in circular reasoning to justify. Perhaps that was a mistake, but to go all the way to ArbCom is a big step, and addressing it there is something I felt appropriate at the time. How would other Wikipedians feel if I suddenly exhibited fluency in Burmese language after denying it to other editors, and being passively active as a pro-military junta editor for 14 years and suddenly to become very active? The issue of COVID-19 origins is highly contentious, which has brought out all sorts of Wikipedians, including hobbyist debunkers of GMO fads like Alexbrn, and it is not entirely unprecedented for the Government of China or Chinese Nationalists to create accounts on Wikipedia to form unholy coalitions with them as useful idiots.
As for myself, the fact that I am making edits on an epidemic during an epidemic, in a specific topic area that collides with the Chinese Communist Party's interests should not be grounds for a ban and instead amounts to censorship. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe Pretty much everyone on Wikipedia is a "hobbyist" (except for the paid editors of course), though I was not really involved in the GMO stramash, just an observer. My advice is to drop this: trying to take down an editor based on suppositions about their real-life identity is getting into WP:OUTING territory, and if this gets to arbcom this is a super-sensitive area at the moment so heavy hammers are likely to come down on anybody straying there. If you have real evidence about an editor that is pertinent, email it to arbcom (I have in the past, to good effect I might add). Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I pounted out to admin below, the only allegation I made is that the editor is proficient in Chinese, after denying it other editors, and after 14 years of activity on China-related pages, where their edits were clearly sympathetic to the government of China. That doesn't get anywhere near close to WP:OUTING. I have no evidence of the editor being connected to the Chinese government, and it's entirely possible that the editor is just a Chinese nationalist, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it should be noted in any future scrutiny by admins into their activities, on both mainspace and talkspace. Furthermore, this incident won't help you in your cause to conflate between the different lab origin scenarios of COVID-19 that have been reported and will continue to be reported on by multiple reliable sources, for whenever that issue finds its way to ArbCom, which I'm sure it will. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I disagree that your only take on this was interest in another editor's language abilities. As for arbcom, they have no jurisdiction in matters of content, and only look at behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My interest was more than that, but of that I did not say anything. Rather, I asked them if there was anything more that they would like to say. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, ScrupulousScribe, but I don't feel your comment directly above is really that responsive to my salient point (about a time and place and method to make such allegations or request an investigation regarding these). If anything, you are basically repeating the same violation again here (as before, I note, with zero actual proof), so please refrain. You are welcome to appeal, of course, if you still feel this sanction to be in error. El_C 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only allegation I made is that the editor is proficient in Chinese, after denying it other editors, and after 14 years of activity on China-related pages, where their edits were clearly sympathetic to the government of China. That allegation does not contravene WP:PAG, and while I may very well repeal the ban, I may very well leave the topic of COVID-19 where the Chinese government is concerned to other editors. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't recall ever having claimed on Wikipedia not to know any Mandarin. I'm happy to be reminded though, if you have a diff. If not, you're just making more unfounded accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I wonder what the editor meant with what they said about that on this noticeboard. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411, can you comment on why other editors were under a strong impression that you were not proficient in Mandarin? Were those communications offwiki? What was the nature of those offwiki communications? Do you understand the implications of these questions, given your sympathetic disposition towards the Chinese Communist Party? I'd like to know your answers so that I can prepare my case for ArbCom. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • El_C, note that ScrupulousScribe is continuing meta-discussion of the lab leak at User talk:Feynstein#Welcome back in a way which looks likely to stoke up further disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • El_C note that the other editor was also WP:STONEWALL'ed by Alexbrn on the same issue a year ago, demonstrating that his WP:BITE behavior is long-standing and wide-ranging. Wikipedia should not allow experienced editors like Alexbrn to act as gatekeepers on controversial topics and goad in newer editors with illegitimate discussions (like this) which completely obfuscate the rightful undoing of wrongful removals of content (like this). Another such example of illegitimate content removal is this, which should have been kept (especially as it completed Ebright's view on the issue), and could have easily been fixed by adding a source (as per WP:PRESERVE). As I explained in the "meta-discussion" with the other editor, experienced editors like Alex should not be allowed to Wikipedia:BLUDGEON conversations, as he has done all along. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: This looks to me like a violation of ScrupulousScribe's topic ban: [4]. This is at the talk page of Gain of function research, where ScrupulousScribe is proposing to include the claim that the PREDICT program funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. See the article that ScrupulousScribe linked to, which accuses a member of the WHO team investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2 of having a conflict of interest: [5]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The provided source confirms what I said before, which is that the PREDICT program funded gain-of-function research. I created the gain of function research entry and you didn't make any contributions to it other than to remove content that you can now restore, with this new source. So far, the entry doesn't make any mention of the Wuhan Institute of Virology or COVID-19, though you are free to add it ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discussing content with you here, except to point out that any claims about SARS-CoV-2 are covered by your topic ban: "indefinite topic ban from the COVID19 topic area, broadly construed". I think claims about the PREDICT program and the Wuhan Institute of Virology are clearly within "the COVID19 topic area, broadly construed", especially since the source you linked to is about accusations that one of the WHO investigators has a conflict of interest. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any claims about the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The content you removed [6] links PREDICT to gain of function research, which the source provided confirms. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C:, I have decided that I want to appeal this topic ban. It seems that I was deliberately baited into my topic ban in a process described here. In order to appeal my topic ban to ArbCom, I must assure that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried, so can you explain how my question addressed to Thucydides411 on an important matter discussed off-wiki constitutes a personal attack? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Effects of COVID-19 lockdowns

[edit]

Hi SS, I notice you've created the above draft. Are you okay with me editing this article, in its draft form, in due course? Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. There is a lot that can go in there, from the replenishment of fish stocks, to declines in pollution levels, and an overall decrease in CO2 emissions. There are also the effects on human health, culture and the economy. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the primary effect of course, is bringing the spread of the virus under control. Don't forget that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SS, I'll do some stuff on the lab leak theory draft, if you're okay with that? Arcturus (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again SS. I'll assume you are okay with it, so I renamed the draft as a start, replacing "theory" with "hypothesis". I've also mentioned this to User:Feynstein to see if he's interested. Arcturus (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing everything on this talk page I think it would be better if you guys take it slow for a while. It looks like a battlefield in here tbh. I still have issues sometimes with my pace and emotion ridden comments so I get it but I learned that the long game is better and earns you more respect. I'm just writing that because I sympathize with you and I know how frustrating it can be. But you got to play the long game and come back once in a while with new sources to poke around. In hoping to discuss with you soon SS. Feynstein (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS block

[edit]
To enforce community-authorised general sanctions, and for the conversation at User talk:Feynstein#Welcome back clearly being in contravention of your ban,
you have been blocked from editing for 60 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

El_C 07:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles nominated for deletion

[edit]

Hi ScrupulousScribe, I've nominated two articles that you created for deletion: [7] and [8]. I used a nomination format that will require a discussion, so the articles will not be deleted immediately. Leaving a note here I can see that you're blocked: I hope you will please comment on the discussions once your block has expired. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS block, again

[edit]
To enforce community-authorised general sanctions, and for adding a link whose title reads: "WHO inspector has conflict of interest in Wuhan COVID probe: Prominent biologist",
you have been blocked from editing for 10 days. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

ScrupulousScribe, please note that the block length for any further violations will start to become prohibitive from this point on. El_C 13:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Despite what the title of that link read, the topic of discussion was not the Wuhan Institute or COVID-19, but USAID PREDICT in relation to GoF Research. In specific, the source confirms that the PREDICT program funded GoF Research, and any mention of the Wuhan Institute of Research isn't relevant to the conversation. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(edit conflict, the unblock request may have been modified slightly while I reviewed it) This seems to be about this edit. Next time, please note the specific edit to save unblock reviewers spending time tracking down what you are talking about, and in case we get it wrong. This appears to be a clear and straight-forward violation of your topic ban. The article directly discusses a conflict of interest in a member of a team investigating the source of the COVID-19 outbreak. I don't even need to fall back to the "broadly construed" part of your topic ban, here. Yamla (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

ScrupulousScribe, do you understand the scope of the topic ban? Have you read WP:BROADLY? El_C 14:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I hadn't gotten around to reading that page, as I was busy reading up on how to appeal the topic ban altogether. I have been making useful contributions, with collaboration from other editors, while Thucydides411 account activity demonstrates a penchant for making wholesale deletions. The link I sent him, on a talk page, will enable him to restore content he deleted [9] from the Gain of Function Research page in relation to PREDICT funding. The fact that the source also covers the subject of my topic ban couldn't be helped, and I think WP:PRESERVE should outweigh that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe, WP:BROADLY is quite brief. I'm not sure why you couldn't find the 2-minutes to review it. Anyway, if it can't be helped, then it isn't permitted, and that's that. Otherwise, short of an appeal, you need to adhere to the conditions set by the ban. That you keep failing to do so is becoming a problem. El_C 15:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access in jeopardy

[edit]

ScrupulousScribe, please stop poking Thucydides411 about their purported CCP sympathies and language proficiency allegations. If you have something to submit to the Committee, just go ahead and do so. But short of that, you are placing your talk page access in jeopardy with what effectively amounts to borderline harassment. El_C 15:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C (CC: Newslinger), please note that following my submission of Taiwan News as a source [10] for Thucydides411 to reinstate content he wrongfully deleted [11], an IP from an open proxy filed an RfC on RS/N on Taiwan News here (and which has been reported here). It should be noted that Thucydides411 is the only editor to vote Option 2, claiming that citizen journalism in China should be considered as "conspiratorial", while also claiming further up the page that Chinese state media should be considered as having a "good record of factual accuracy". ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe, having this discussion is not recommended at this time. When an editor is blocked, the user talk page is intended solely for appeals. Please refrain from discussing anything other than appeals until you are unblocked, or an administrator may revoke your talk page access, which would require future appeals to be made through the UTRS website until the block expires. — Newslinger talk 04:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, it's normally fairly dumb to ask person A in an accusatory tone 'why did person or people B think X about you?'. The most common entirely reasonable answer is 'I don't know, ask them' especially when the other person or people are readily accessible. Even if someone can think of reasons, many are not going to bother answering since it's such a silly question. Why on earth are you asking person A why person B thought something when you could just ask person B? (There are some scenarios where it might be a reasonable question like where person B is not readily available, where it's a friendly conversation between friends, or perhaps as a tactic by some law enforcement investigation; none of which apply here.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This was a draft WP:POVFORK of a title that already exists as a proper redirect in mainspace (as such its a clear violation of our policies on NPOV etc...); I realised this after removing the former content and redirecting.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 - ANI notice

[edit]

Information icon 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) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS block, yet again

[edit]
To enforce community-authorised general sanctions, and for yet another topic ban violation, which, this time, attempted to circumvent the ban by sending unwanted emails (access to the Wikipedia email interface has been disabled, just to remove any temptation),
you have been blocked from editing for 2 months. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

El_C 17:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C this block is unjustified as TacticalTweaker is not a sock of mine. He is in fact a RL friend of mine, and at worst, a meatpuppet. However, he was not involved in any dispute resolution process, so neither he (or I) should have been blocked without proper pocedure. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe, you are free to seek to alter the block, including lifting it outright, by using the unblock procedure specified in the block template above. I'll leave all of that to any prospective reviewing admins to address. But I will not that WP:MEAT is covered under WP:SOCK, so "abusing multiple accounts" piped to WP:SOCK, seems perfectly appropriate to me, still. El_C 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I did re-enable talk page and email access to TT, so they may launch an unblock request as well now, though again, I'll leave all of that to other admins. El_C 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thanks, and I would also appreciate if you can answer the specific question I asked you earlier today above (here). Since Boing! said Zebedee removed a mistaken ban on me for a copyvio, and also removed the hasty topic ban that was imposed on me, the optics on my account didn't look good when you came around, so you simply reinstated the topic ban without giving much reason (other than to say Boing's move was premature). I would like to understand your reasoning for reinstating the topic ban, based on my conduct (which I ask about above) and if you would still hold by it with the new facts that have come to light (Hemiauchenia's post in WP:FRINGE).

The post from Hemiauchenia that I also linked to in my question above where he advocates stonewalling is quite telling of his misconduct (and Alexbrn's too) towards me, especially considering that he was the one who first proposed the topic ban on me, and he also abused the edit summary field to taunt Arcturus with taunts and jibes to provoke an uncivil reaction (which he got and sure enough reported here). I was actually going to stay away from the lab leak topic after Boing lift the topic ban, and I created a bunch of pages on related topics that have done really well, but I was baited back into a lengthy debate by Alexbrn here), when he could have very well corrected whatever I allegedly "spliced" (obvious baiting tactic). I was actually warned about behavior, in this post from DGG, which I didn't quite understand at first (I for sure understand it now but I am disappointed at how low the level of discourse has sunk here). In my ANI, admins were also asked to consider that imposing a topic ban on me only emboldens contrarian editors, which is exactly what came about (to the extent that).

Emboldened by your unexplained topic ban on me, Alexbrn is still employing the same baiting and stonewalling tactics he learned from Jytdogian on other editors. Look how he just accused Guest2625 of making a personal attack for calling him out on disruptive editing [12], after he himself accused DeFacto of disruptive editing [13] a few hours before. This is exactly the type of stonewalling behavior Hemiauchenia talked about, designed only to frustrate other editors (especially new ones), to get them to slip up, and to then get them topic banned (so that they can WP:OWN the topic). Besides for Feynstein, Guest2625 and DeFacto, there are many other editors who are being stonewalled by the trio of Alexbrn, Hemiauchenia and your buddy ProcrastinatingReader on the topic of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, which is an extremely well covered and notable topic that wouldn't otherwise be kiboshed in this fashion. Alexbrn's entire argument for censoring the topic for the past few months is based on WP:MEDRS sourcing criteria, which was completely demolished by Rich Farmbrough, a highly experienced editor by any account. Other highly experienced editors have invalidated the use of MEDRS sources on this topic for other reasons [14], yet admins have never stepped in to mediate (and its been going on for months now). I think it's important for Arbcom to hear my case and understand to what extent these nefarious tactics are employed to deter new editors from joining Wikipedia, for which they need to understand your reasoning for reinstating the topic ban me (other than the poor look of my account at the time). I see that L235 is investigating Billybostickson who fell for the same baiting tactics I did, even after he self-corrected his (supposedly) uncivil conduct.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScrupulousScribe, I don't really have anything further to add at this time, and I also don't intend on investigating any of the above, at least not for the immediate moment. El_C 16:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, thanks, but in the meantime, please try to refrain from this kind of conduct. Normchou got topic banned from Covid-19 for using the exact same language, here. There is nothing quack about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, and even the WHO's investigations team has said it is possible (which is a step up from what they said about it before). As an uninvolved admin, you are not supposed to get involved in content, and calling me and TacticalTweaker "quacks" is a violation of that rule. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are misconstruing. See WP:DUCK. Mojoworker (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mojoworker, thanks, I wasn't aware of WP:DUCK. I hereby withdraw my comment and I apologize to El_C for the misunderstanding. Are you another of the one thousand Wikipedia admins joining this conversation to supervise conduct issues without weighing in on a content dispute that has been going on for months? Do you think El_C can afford me an explanation for my topic ban other than WP:ROPE (new thing I learned)? Do you think it's okay for experienced Wikipedia editors to be openly boasting on noticeboards about baiting and stonewalling new users to frustrate themselves into getting topic banned? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that talk page access is only to allow to file an unblock request, it will be revoked otherwise. As for the accusations above, they appear to appeal to some mislead comment by an editor who likely made it out of frustration. But that doesn't matter, if the goal is to eventually appeal the topic ban as well, it can be done in due time, the evidence that it was necessary will be presented then (and what I'm thinking of is not related to purported baiting or comments made out of frustration that may have happened). —PaleoNeonate – 09:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: "Please note that talk page access is only to allow to file an unblock request" is not true. A blocked editor has traditionally been allowed to use their talk page to work towards an unblock in ways other than just posting an unblock request. Even then, restrictions on talk page use seem very uncertain to me. Can you identify any policy that specifically restricts what a blocked editor can use their talk page for? (Genuine question, as I can't find it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment on "Wikipedia admins joining this conversation to supervise conduct issues without weighing in on a content dispute". Admins have no powers to resolve content disputes. And we are forbidden from taking part in both a content dispute and admin action on the same subject - it's admin action (as an admin) or engaging in content (as an editor), not both. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee, I do understand that you as an admin can't get involved in a content dispute and also act as an admin at the same time, but given the number of admins that have observed the lab leak hypothesis discussion, can none of you look at this and see there is a real conduct issue that has prevented editors like myself from being able to reach a consensus with contrarian editors in good faith? Feynstein opened an ANI on it here. We are now also bringing this to ArbCom.
From very early on in the discussion, there were contrarian editors (such as CowHouse) who did not believe that the lab leak hypothesis is likely, but who agreed it shouldn't be considered a conspiracy theory, and agreed that content changes should be made. One contrarian editor, namely WhatamIdoing, haven't engaged in any stonewalling tactics, and have stepped in to make content changes to address concerns of all parties. However, other contrarian editors chose more nefarious means of dealing with us, and that is the issue here.
Is stonewalling not a policy admins are willing to investigate and enforce? See here for another example of a stonewalling tactic, which in this case crosses into ad hominem territory. DeFacto is an experienced editor and knows not to fall for such cheap tricks, but you can't expect the same from new and returning editors. Since El_C has said he doesn't want to investigate this conduct, can you do so? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that this RFC hasn't attracted any responses from the Maths, science, and technology board it was posted to, demonstrating that it is just one small set of editors from the WP:FRINGE noticeboard stonewalling this issue (joined by one or two outliers with questionable motives). For the investigating admin, they all self-identify in the RFC, and not surprisingly, they all voted for my topic ban, and then they tried going after Arcturus in the same fashion, and now Dinglelingy too. They also voted to delete my long abandoned draft on the topic, just to have something to point to for future discussions on the topic, just like some of them tried to delete my article on The Cambridge Working Group. Its like they are on a crusade. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just clarifying a policy point, in case you didn't understand it. I don't do proactive investigations (and I doubt many other admins will do either). We generally respond reactively, to cases brought at the appropriate noticeboards by involved editors. You can't bring such a case now, obviously, but you should not be pursuing it here. You should really only be addressing the reasons for your own block here. (And while written policy does not say that the only thing you can use your talk page for is to make a formal unblock request, there are admins who will remove your ability to edit this page if they see too much pursuit of grievances against others.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: I tried to stay uninvolved here because it is none of my business. That being said, I was tagged because of the WP:ANI case I opened. I wanted to add a bit of attenuating circumstances testimony on his block, if that's of any value. I opened the case on ANI because of this quote from an editor: "The best tactic, as is usual on Wikipedia, is to stonewall them until either they get frustrated and either get bored and stop editing or engage in personal attacks which get them topic banned.". From an uninvolved eye about Scribe's behaviour I can see how a new editor could be WP:BAITed into doing what he did. That doesn't excuse the behaviour though, that's for sure, but his case basically gives at least a bit of evidence for my post on ANI. I kinda learned how to deal in the kind of veiled rethoric editors tend to use. But I think it was very pernicious in his case. And yes, I can see how facing this kind of unwaranted pushback could seem like going against an organized propaganda machine [15]. I don't believe it is helpful for us to believe this though because ultimately it undermines confidence between editors. That's why I started my WP:ANI, I found evidence of a concerted effort and I wanted to adress it, whatever the reason behind it, using WP's "legal" tools. Feynstein (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you definitely need to know the accepted way to handle Wikipedia's arcane rules relating to blocks, especially in relation to the behaviours of others. Although there is usually some overlap, a blocked editor really does need to focus on their own actions leading to the block and try to keep away from the actions of others as much as possible, until unblocked - and then use the appropriate processes, if warranted. At least, my experience tells me that's the best route to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee, I hope you are well while you take time off. I would love to be able to focus on my own actions, but apparently I'm indef blocked because a RL friend of mine (TacticalTweaker) who weighed into the conversation is considered WP:MEAT, even though I never instructed them to join the conversation (and even though I notified El_C in good faith that I knew them in RL). Now anyone and everyone who signs up for an account to weigh in on the topic that continues to be reported on in numerous reliable sources (here is a WashPo piece and USA Today piece from today) is immediately accused of being a SOCK or MEAT of mine, by the same cabal of editors who openly admited to stonewalling me and others on the topic. I just noticed that they continue to throw rotten tomatoes at me while I'm blocked, such as this comment from Novem Linguae, who says the original writer of Gain of Function Research seemed to have a POV in how I structured the article, when in fact it was Magnovvig who wrote that part of the article, and did so in good faith. The article wouldn't look front-loaded if I was able to continue writing up on the actual GoFR research methods, which remain missing from the lead of the article. Apparently, some editors would rather just delete content than adding content to improve the encyclopedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe, you're right, Magnovvig wrote that part of the article. I've struck out my comment. Sorry for any inconvenience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, thanks, and please improve the article because it is getting a lot of traffic and readers are going to expect more from us as editors. Gain of Function Research is a scientific neologism which was settled upon for the lack of a better word, but serial passaging is not a new thing. What is new is the discussion on the risks posed by the dual use of such research, should it fall in the hands of nefarious state actors, or Elliot Rodger types. Darouet was right that the article was too front-loaded, but the conversation on the risks of such research, be it for military or civilian purposes has been going on from before the time "gain of function" was the term of choice. There were sessions on both Biosafety and Biosecurity in the last Gain of Function symposium [16] because regardless of who is doing the research and why, the risks are the same. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have been accused of being master of a sock (TacticalTweaker) that is actually a RL friend. The admin who blocked me and the admin who blocked my friend assume that I recruited him (WP:MEAT) to support my talking points, when in fact he did so of his own volition. I have made positive contributions to Wikipedia and would like to continue doing so. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good work

[edit]

Just went through the archive pages for the Covid-19 misinformation page. Just wanted to drop by and thank you for your efforts. The whole article is infested with ideologically motivated and entrenched senior editors who think they own the place. It was a futile effort but if it means anything to you, I appreciate it. Vitkogames (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser information

[edit]

Checkuser information cannot, obviously, firmly prove anything. In particular, we should be cautious about relying on checkuser evidence to determine whether or not this is a straight-forward case of one person controlling two accounts. The claim is that there are two people, each in control of one of the accounts, with the implication that they live close together but not in the same home. The checkuser evidence is consistent with this claim and not generally consistent with the alternate claim, that one person is controlling both accounts. This, obviously, does not rule out WP:MEAT; that must be determined by behavioural evidence alone. --Yamla (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I openly disclosed to admin El_C that TacticalTweaker is a RL friend, so the offense would be WP:MEAT and not WP:SOCK, but I did not say that I directed TacticalTweaker to contribute to the conversation, and I did not mean to say that, if it was insinuated. Any normal person who reads this conversation where one Wikipedia lays out a plan on how to get other editors banned would feel compelled to join the conversation and reject their arguments. That thread was reported to ANI and the same editors ganged up on the OP to get him topic banned, resulting in the OP (who disclosed on-wiki that he suffers mental health problems) asking for a voluntary topic ban, which El_C happily dealt out (ever the obliging admin). The way Feynstein was treated is a disgrace and I have reported it to Arbcom. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ScrupulousScribe, there is no need to keep pinging me to your talk page (twice today). To repeat: I'll leave the review of your (or TT's) unblock request to another admin. I have no further comment, and may be seen to be perfectly agnostic on the matter. No objection to my previous 2-month block that was later converted to an indef to be lifted early, either. Whatever action is taken, I need not be consulted or even notified. But less agnostically, I do think we'll end up back here again, anyway, like all the times before. But maybe not...? Who knows.
Also, above you write that: Do you think El_C can afford me an explanation for my topic ban other than WP:ROPE (new thing I learned)? Uh, that isn't what ROPE is about, which I never mentioned once (to the best of my recollection). Because why would I? ROPE isn't grounds for sanctions, it's grounds toward lifting them (like throwing someone a rope when they're in a hole). So, unless I'm missing something there, this cited-but-didn't-corectly-absorb error does not inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. Oh well. El_C 21:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, if I used the WP:ROPE locution mistakenly (noob mistake), could it be that I used WP:MEAT wrongly too, and that it may have been worth you clarifying with me before jumping the gun? And obliging Feynstein to place a topic ban on him, while ignoring the flagrant violation of behavioral conduct by a select number of editors working against him (and I) was perhaps the right thing for you to do from a completely technical point of view (since he asked for it), but the trust placed in you by the community as an administrator will sometimes also require you to draw on your emotion and not just intellect. If the Wikipedia community is to grow its base of contributors to maintain a bigger and better encyclopedia, it will need administrators to be more fair and inclusive, and mental health is one of those areas in life where some people are challenged. See Sanism.
To give you the benefit of the doubt; you may not have been aware of Feynstein's condition, but you were aware of the now infamous post on WP:FRINGE [17] and the ANI that followed it [18], and I expected more from you given your record of fairness and honesty. Were it not for Boing! said Zebedee falling ill, he could have continued working with Feynstein, and I am sure he would have been more empathetic towards him in the face of the boomerang attempt made in an ANI he posted in the administrator noticeboard for administrators (like yourself) to look into a serious issue of misconduct in COVID-19 pages relating to WP:Stonewalling (a pertinent essay authored by Born2cycle). For an administrator like yourself to completely ignore the issue of select editors openly advocating WP:Stonewalling as a tactic to frustrate new users (like myself and Feynstein) into getting banned - and to then to ban the targeted new users (like myself and Feynstein), is discriminatory, regardless of intention. I see that you're also over on Drmies talk page claiming that you're almost sure CutePeach is a sock of mine, based on a report made by RandomCanadian, circumventing the SPI process. Please don't pretend to be agnostic if you're going to make comments like that, and instead please make sure that editors engage in the proper procedure before making such accusations (I myself was accused of being a sock when I first signed up to Wikipedia). This saga got picked up on Twitter and there are tens of new users that have signed up to fix what is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, without any invisible hand directing them. Even without Twitter, there are sure to be more editors joining the discussion, both new and old, and I assure you none of them will be my socks, as I intend to work on this account.
If Drmies and CutePeach are reading this, they should read the now infamous post [19] on WP:FRINGE, and the ANI that followed it [20], so as to understand how to deal with the constant stonewalling that is going on in the form of WP:MEDRS sourcing restrictions on the topic of COVID-19 origins. Drmies and CutePeach should also be aware that there was an RFC on what kind of sources are required for covering the lab leak hypothesis on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [21], which resulted in no consensus on whether MEDRS applies. Therefore, it remains unclear as to whether MEDRS even applies to the issue of the lab leak hypothesis, as the virus's origin is not WP:Biomedical information. Even WhatamIdoing, who is the original author of Wikipedia:Biomedical information and who is no believer™ of the lab leak hypothesis seems to agree with my longstanding position that MEDRS does not apply to this issue in these most extraordinary of circumstances. Thus, any statements made by editors (especially to new users) claiming that only MEDRS can be used and that the current MEDRS sources used in the COVID-19 misinformation page covering the lab leak story are WP:BESTSOURCES, and that they are being presented accurately, is Wikipedia:False_consensus#Harassment. According to The Independent, which just published this a few hours ago, even the WHO understands the problems with its own report on the origins of COVID-19. The Hakim paper that is currently being used as a MEDRS source in the COVID-19 misinformation article does not clearly state that the hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or "misinformation", and I even emailed the author of the paper who replied saying he agrees it is a reasonable hypothesis, and he does not agree with the way his paper his being cited as a reference in that way. Alexbrn, My very best wishes, Guest2625, DeFacto and Eccekevin, if any of you would like to email me, I will share Dr Hakim's reply to me with you, so that we can agree that there is a scientific controversy around COVID-19 origins and make sure it is covered adequately in this encyclopedia.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to ping me what you did, and I am going to do what I think any sensible admin would do here: revoke your talk page access, because you turned this into a forum. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS, you have misunderstood my comment. I stand by my recommendation that we should "just not write anything about which no information is available". NB "just not write anything" means "just not write anything", not "write whatever you want with lousy sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, ScrupulousScribe, I guess one final ping (number 3 today), after all, despite my request against you doing so. No, I don't recall being made aware of that FTN post. I certainly did not comment there. Same with that ANI thread that prompted Feynstein to come to my talk page asking that I close it with a voluntary restriction. I did not comment there and I'm not sure why you'd think that I ought to have otherwise engaged it with some sort of rescue effort (when I knew nothing about it), instead, but I guess no good deed... Anyway, that is some strange logic right there.

Further, it's weird to me, that you cite so, so many policy pages and essays, but still thought the ban was about ROPE, somehow...? Like, getting wrong the most important thing preventing you from engaging in what appears to be your raison d'être on the project. Super weird. In any case, agnostic about not wanting to become involved further in the unblock request (still) doesn't mean I'm agnostic about you violating the terms of your ban, over and over and over again, including in the wall of text directly above. Rather than you appealing it, too, in the normal way. Oh well++ El_C 07:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 44115

[edit]

UTRS appeal #44115 is now open. Interested parties are asked to draw nigh that they may be heard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that the editor gives any justification for the reason given for an unblock. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to think the original GS is obsoleted. I could carry that part to the community, were it not for the socking, which moots the GS part. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the request is worth carrying over, it'd likely be WP:SNOW closed due to recent sockpuppetry. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, though. --Yamla (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, El C, and Boing! said Zebedee:. I could restore TPA and carry there request to WP:AN. Please see the UTRS ticket. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My UTRS comment reads: Major timesink. Aggressive advocacy and stark misrepresentation of events. I'm against. El_C 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting--that I can read UTRS comments! Maybe the Scribe, who admitted to multiple accounts, can give full disclosure of what all accounts there are, in that thread. I'll confirm, out of charity, that there is no recent socking related to the IP used to access this account, so I guess that's something. For the record, my block, the last one cited of course, pertains really to their incessant talk page abuse, not to all the stuff that preceded it. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: They've answered your questions. ScrupulousScribe , I withdraw my offer to carry your request to WP:AN. I cannot see any hope of you convincing the community to unblock you. I find your responses combative and I see you justifying your actions. There is no hint that you will edit constructively. So, I withdraw. Perhaps someone with a fresh perspective will see things differently. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, User:Deepfriedokra, they didn't--I asked for full disclosure, and they didn't provide that; I'm not really interested in the "post" accounts. To summarize their last two responses in that thread (to you and to me): their only mistake in creating the SS account was saying someone spoke Mandarin, and that person and RandomCanadian are socks from the same master, and the socks were created because someone else did something wrong. It's the most ridiculous set of claims I've ever seen. I don't even find it combative--just dense. Let's close that thread, and this thread, because this is a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've recused. I'll leave it for another to close that ticket. I won't look at it anymore. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Evistones

[edit]

Information icon Hello, ScrupulousScribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Evistones, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Effects of COVID-19 lockdowns

[edit]

Information icon Hello, ScrupulousScribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Effects of COVID-19 lockdowns, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Evistones

[edit]

Hello, ScrupulousScribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Evistones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScrupulousScribe&oldid=1048428808"