User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

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

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

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

Grievances and questions

In accordance with WP:ADMINABUSE, I would like to put my grievances to you about some of your decisions and to ask you a few questions.

My main grievances are in your unequal enforcement of WP:PAGs in the topic area of COVID-19 origins. Topic banning that German guy ES for what was essentially just poor English was bad form on your part. Your reasons based on policy were not sound as per my feedback [1], and besides for it being unjust towards ES, it hangs as a dark cloud for other editors trying to contribute positively in the topic area. There has been a huge amount of progress in the topic area, answering many of the NPOV concerns that editors have expressed for a long time, vindicating ES. If you are not going to respond to my feedback on ES, I would like to hear what DGG thinks of that tban. Maybe Barkeep49 can look at this too, since this is inevitably headed to ArbCom.

For my first question: were you contacted off-wiki by about Gimiv posting that list on my and Jtbobwaysf’s talk page before you banned them? You sure got there super fast and I am aware that certain members of the NOLABLEAK cabal are active offwiki.

Second question: is your level of confidence in your tban of Empiricus-sextus and the subsequent BE ban of Gimiv really so high to justify your and Hut 8.5’s decision not to share the list of sources? [2]

Third question: do you believe RC that every new user who signs up to complain about the WP:NPOV issues with our coverage of COVID-19 origins is a sock or meat? [3] Tinybubi (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tinybubi when things seem like they are "invariably headed to ArbCom" I tend to not comment. During cases concerns about being involved than can then be raised even if my participation doesn't match WP:INVOLVED. So I'm going to sit this conversation out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tinybubi, the topic ban of Empiricus-sextus needs to be re-considered when the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. (current permanent link) has been closed, as my understanding that MEDRS applies to claims about the origin of the pandemic does not seem to have the clear community consensus that I expected it to have. I'm waiting for the closure of that RfC before looking into this, though, as this is an ongoing community decision with potentially severe implications.

Regarding #1: No, there was no off-wiki contact, and I avoid taking intransparent action based on off-wiki reports. I have explicitly announced this principle during my RfA (Q8 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ToBeFree) with WP:BLOCKREQUESTS in mind and adhere to it. See User_talk:ToBeFree/A/3#User:FDW777 for a recent example of me rejecting an attempt to avoid transparency. There was no conspiracy behind the scenes: Gimiv has publicly triggered Special:Diff/1023501256, an automated AIV notification about their user talk page spam. The block didn't happen immediately; it took me a while to clear the noticeboard and to notice the report near the end of my session: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

There is also no off-wiki evidence involved in the Gimiv block either; this was a behavioral concern with WP:SPI/AI#Non-CheckUser_cases (the "duck test") in mind. I wouldn't have acted on off-wiki evidence even if I had privately received such evidence, per my (potentially overly) strict interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. The ArbCom block of Billybostickson themselves, however, is the result of an e-mail forwarded by me to ArbCom because I refused to deal with off-wiki accusations myself. All I saw of ArbCom's discussion process about this matter are the following two public actions: A request for contact and the block.

Regarding #2: I had included Empiricus-sextus's username in the block summary because Empiricus-sextus was one of the two banned editors that came into my mind when wondering "Cui bono?". I personally find it much more likely that Billybostickson is behind this, as Empiricus-sextus has demonstrated a calm, reasonable response to the ban and would probably appeal it at least once before even thinking about evading it. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Empiricus-sextus at all when blocking Gimiv.

Regarding #3: That's a bit of a straw man question, as noone has ever stated that "every new user who signs up to complain about the WP:NPOV issues with our coverage of COVID-19 origins is a sock or meat". There may have been a considerable amount of off-wiki canvassing, and if a blocked or banned user has invited others to join the discussion on their behalf, that would be a case of meatpuppetry. To me personally, in this heated debate that involves a high-profile deletion discussion, an ArbCom block and the community-authorized semi-protection of a talk page, it is likely that meatpuppets appear on the scenes all the time. Regarding the specific linked situation, assuming that RC refers to RandomCanadian, the concern has been described as follows: "The article creator has an undisclosed COI (per information which I will shortly provide to ArbCom) - redirect to the relevant page" (currently Special:Diff/1025159317 of Drastic Team, which replaced the article content by a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story). If I correctly understand your question and the situation, your question does not properly summarize what has actually happened.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There does seem to be another interesting point here: from what you say, ToBeFree, you have a POV on the subject at issue, ("does not seem to have the clear community consensus that I expected it to have"); I have not looked at the details of the block or the history of the article, but I hope you have not been using admin powers in that subject area. WP:INVOLVED is the relevant policy. This isn't a warning, just a friendly reminder. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"My understanding that MEDRS applies to claims about the origin of the pandemic", DGG, is simply what I thought to be the uncontroversial meaning of WP:MEDRS. An RfC currently held at Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. questions this understanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

DGG has participated in the RfC, as have I, so I'm just going to give my two cents that all available guidelines on reliable sources, including the preference of scholarship in relevant fields (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), particularly when having to deal with controversial claims (WP:FRINGE), and the preference for secondary sources, lead us to use MEDRS or similar (SCIRS) anyways. As for that list of sources posted by Gimiv, without having seen it, I'm quite sure it likely is the same as that pushed by other sock/meatpuppets on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, and suffers from already identified problems (why that page hasn't been redirected to the same page as the main redirect escapes me). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Medical subjecta often have social or political aspects, which need RS , but not MEDRS quality sources. This particualr pandemic is a extraordinarily clear example of that. The controversy overmany aspects of it, including the origin, became a political one to degreet hat even surpasses the strictly medical aspects. We all know why--in the US, the entanglement with partisan politics; in the world more generally, with nationalism and xenophobia and, currently, economic imperialism. If it were just the dispassionate epidemiological search conducted by scientists to find the exact origins, the situation would be much more straightforward and medical. But the attempts to find the origins and assign responsibility is political. And in general I am indeed of the opinion that a great many questions in medicine have social and economic aspects, that can both in acurrent basis and historically most of the world be mores ignificant that the actual science. To the extent such factors promote and hinder proper medical approaches, the public discussion becomes much more general, and its that we have to cover also. (I recognize that medical sources nowadays often do cover such aspects, but to a certain extent it can be argued that they tend to support their own view of a question which has wider implications. Scientists and physicians do have a bias, and although I largely share i, we have to admit that unfortunately the rest of the world does not regard our views as definitive. In the real world the social/political/economic implications can be even more important. These factors have to be discussed on their own basis. Scientific and medical and environmental policy is not primarily made by scientists. That we may wish it were doesn't change the actual situation. WP covers the whole world, not just the science. And to the extent that we're scientists, and want to promote science, I think we needto recognize that what the politicians and the public think of us and our opinions is something that must be dealt with. If we define the Wikipedia rules to ignore it, the anti-scientific forces will succeed in their goals. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The "problem", as I see it, is that there are two, different, but related, topics. One (A) is a purely scientific one: the origin of a virus, for which we are bound by our best sources (which, either way, also happen to be pretty much the same as MEDRS, whether the requirement is explicit or not - scientists with relevant expertise publishing secondary, review papers in quality journals: [17]). The other (B) is a mostly political question, which has received support from scientists: calls for further investigations (from politicians, from scientists wanting more thorough investigations into biosafety, into the virus' links with wild animals (zoonotic origin), ...). Both of these are different questions, which require different sources and different approaches on many aspects. Which brings me back to the "problem", which is that some (ignoring of course all dubious meatpuppets and the like, which transparently engage in original research and arguments which I can at best compare with those listed at WP:FLAT) conflate A and B together, and then we have a hard time covering both the science and the politics accurately... Which already isn't made any easier by these two being on rather opposed ends of the spectrum as far as the topic in dispute is concerned. The most comprehensive article on the matter, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, strikes a balanced approach, covering both aspects in separate sections, although there is of course some minor, inevitable overlap between the two. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think they could indeed be separated into different articles, but each article would still be a mix of science and politics. The biological investigation into the actual nature of the epidemic has been affected by politics; the political questions that have been raised will be in large part clarified by the eventual science. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, thanks for responding but I do wish you would have responded more seriously in the ANI [18] and user talk page [19], given the gravity of the situation. I see that Jimbo Wales has now weighed in on this as well [20].

I do understand why you thought MEDRS applied to pandemic origins, as it normally would, but you I think you should have cited this May 2020 RFC [21] and not just your own POV as DGG noted, as both the RFC and your view have been challenged, and there should have been a WP:CCC on this much earlier. In the months since the aforementioned RFC, a number of editors who have challenged MEDRS's application on the topic of COVID-19 origins, including Park3r [22], Arcturus [23], Normchou [24], The Four Deuces [25], Adoring nanny [26], ScrupulousScribe [27], Rich Farmbrough [28], Weburbia [29], GKFX [30], Aquillion [31], Alexander_Davronov [32], Forich [33] and JPxG [34].

The reasons these editors give vary, but the most compelling reason by far is the one presented by Rich, making it clear that this policy has been abused. Like Alexander, who I am pinging here; I believe that the MEDRS policy is often subject to abuse, and I would say that there is probably no greater example of that than the disruption that the WP:NOLABLEAK cabal have succeeded in causing over the past year or so. The rift that they created in the community and the administrative actions they have influenced is a saga that will almost surely be covered in RSs and featured in Criticism of Wikipedia, and it is incumbent on good administrators like to assure it stops here and now. The votes in the RFC are so unanimous that it could be snow closed, so I ask you to consider lifting the topic ban on ES already now, and also reverse the sanctions wrongfully placed on other involved editors such as Normchou, ScrupulousScribe and Feynstein.

I would like to respond to you further privately. Please can you email me or provide your email address here?

Tinybubi (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Tiny's comment above is so out of order (not only for the partisan pinging and the baseless accusations) that I'm left speechless, and if anything again shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues which I point at... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tobias You'll excuse me for removing a personal attack aimed at me, that was egregious... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tinybubi: I'm not sure what's going on here but concerning WP:MEDRS I can only say that there is a long history and evidence demonstrating that application of the said guideline is questionable. It's often misinterpreted in a way prohibiting other policies, which cannot be the case because guideline doesn't overrule the latter. To say nothing of the fact that important rules such as WP:RSCONTEXT are ignored. I personally would like to see that 'WP:MEDANIMAL' provision is amended or dropped at all. I once was trying to contribute to Malassezia but was overwhelmed by canvassing of MEDRS folks.... (I made ANI complain by eventually dropped it). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Great to see this thread, Tinybubi. Personally, I think the abuse of MEDRS by the NOLABLEAK cabal is mostly a means, not an end in itself. A major underlying issue, IMHO, is an "economic" one. This may be a special case of WP:COI editing, though I am not sure if/how our community policies and procedures are equipped to handle it. Normchou ^💬 00:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The current lack of an "email this user" link is caused by a "Prohibit these users from emailing me" entry that is meant to ensure transparency in a case that is "inevitably headed to ArbCom" with accusations of off-wiki cabal-forming.

I can only easily take back sanctions that I have unilaterally imposed. I lack details about the cases of Normchou, ScrupulousScribe and Feynstein, and I'd like to avoid dealing with them at the moment. I guess that any concerns about these editors' sanctions, if they're sanctioned at all, should be voiced on the sanctioning administrator's talk page or WP:AN, or both – but not here on my talk page.

Regarding Empiricus-sextus's topic ban: It is removed per Special:Permalink/1026738150#Topic_ban_removed, with apologies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

One person using two accounts and disrupting Wikipedia

Hi User:ToBeFree I wanted to tell you that there is one person who is using two accounts at the same time doing the same to same similar edits User:Cactinites and User:Zekewoks look at these first as they are only editing mainl Bigg Boss 13 & 14 contestants and adding this [35] and Zake here [36] also in Bigg boss look [37] [38] also adding blue links to India in many actors [39] [40] also they are doing a lot of disruption on Wikipedia so please block them as it’s not allowed. Please do something and block both. If you need more proof look in both accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.138.152 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi 165.120.138.152, please click the "show" link in the green box at WP:SPI labeled "If you are an anonymous (IP address) editor", then enter one of the usernames in the appearing text box, and click "Create". Afterwards, please fill the form that opens, to create an SPI page. Feel free to notify me after creating an investigation. Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion via new account

Compare Special:Contributions/Emperor_Theodosius with Special:Contributions/Empiricus-sextus. The names are quacking. The account creation date is quacking. The edits in the same area aren't quite as quacking, but hey, that's what you'd call evolution, something which ban/block evaders seem able to do just as much as pesky pandemic-causing viruses... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi RandomCanadian, thanks for noticing and reporting this. Could you create an SPI? We may need checkuser assistance as the result could be a block of a presently only topic-banned account, and I don't want to do this without technical evidence in this specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Erledigt at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Empiricus-sextus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, RandomCanadian. I'm relieved to see that my interpretation of Empiricus-sextus's behavior above ("would probably appeal [the topic ban] at least once before even thinking about evading it") has not been disproved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Alea iacta est

Given that an absolutely egregious post on your talk page (by another editor) is what finally proved to be the last straw, and your previous involvement in this, it is only natural that I would inform you that, sadly, there is now an ArbCom case request. Mit freundlichem Grüsse, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)