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.

Help with heavy POV pushing

Hello, ToBeFree. You were of great assistance to me on the dispute that arose on Aromanians and other pages and I need help again with another user and page. On Bukovina (a region divided between Ukraine and Romania), a user has completely rewrote a page, giving it an evident Ukrainian POV. User has added undue information on the Ukrainians on history sections about Romanian states, continously accused the Romanians of Romanianization and even questioned the censuses of the country with completely exaggerated estimates (although the region, divided in a northern a southern part, is ethnically mixed, user claims that the north is "solidly Ukrainian" while claiming that half of the people on the Romanian southern part are Ukrainians). User sticks to one of the several viewpoints that exist on the origin of Romanians (and justifies this action becuase "the info is sourced") and has reverted my edits which were mostly simple wording changes and the adding of NPOV templates for being "vandalism". I've given examples at Talk:Bukovina#Some edits. The worst thing is that, even after this huge rewrite, the user rejects my NPOV templates and has added another one still accusing the article of being pro-Romanian. I am not asking for you to deal with this case but to take a quick look at it and tell me if I can take it to ANI or any other place or if I am just wrong. Thank you in advance. Super Ψ Dro 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Super when you accuse people, it's nice to let them know. In response to your accusations, I want to point out that I just had to add again the NPOV template you just deleted. As for your "simple wording changes", I thought you had removed 3/4 of lead, but I now see you just moved the paragraph, so I apologize. I see this is very important to you, but you criticized the way I edit, and accused me, among other things, of "demonizing" Romanians. You even made accusations in the edit summaries. What I did was expanding the article on Bukovina, which I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, completely neglecting the history of Ukrainians in Bukovina and even making dangerous claims such as that "[Northern Bukovina] currently is part of Ukraine." I also found that the article made dubious--at the vary least-- claims and lacked sources; so I used the apt templates; without, that is, deleting such parts. I disagree with you when you say that all the additions that talk about Ukrainians and the sources I provided should be deleted. Instead, I invite you to use templates, so I can solve your doubts. I also invite you to expand the article with the Romanians' history, if you think it's being neglected. Just please remember to use sources. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I will reply to this comment on the same talk page we were talking to not annoy external parties with this dispute. If ToBeFree wishes to be a third party observer into this, I'll be thankful, but if not, there's no need to extend this into here. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You posted on their talk page and now you don't want to annoy them? Anyway, I totally agree.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus and Haldir Marchwarden,

Thank you very much for the invitation. I have removed the POV template for now, as the discussion has stalled in the meantime, and as it is unlikely to have an effect on resolving the dispute. There have been accusations of vandalism from both parties, while there has been actual vandalism from no party. I'm certain noone has intentionally damaged the encyclopedia, so even if there has been disruptive editing from anyone, there was clearly no vandalism involved. If the situation still needs dispute resolution, I'd usually recommend WP:3O to request a third opinion, as I've had a positive experience when using that process in the past (at Talk:Valora Noland). Before a third opinion can be requested, both editors should ideally agree that a third opinion would be helpful, and you should attempt to summarize the specific points of the dispute as concisely and clearly as possible: A summary that you both can agree on, at the bottom of the talk page, would be great.

The disputed edits contain a lot of changes in one single diff, which makes it harder to find a consensus ("all or nothing" approach). Perhaps you can find a subset of changes that are agreeable, and a subset of changes that need specific discussion. I do however understand that when the neutrality of the entire article is being disputed, this may be hard or impossible to do. This makes dispute resolution similarly hard or impossible, however. Please do give it a try.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, I appreciate that you remembered this after almost one month later, but the truth is that I no longer want to continue this dispute. If anyone wants to fix the problems, they are more than welcome, but I don't have the will to put the effort needed to keep contesting such huge changes. I'll leave the article as it is. Maybe at some point in the future I decide to use the dispute resolution processes you mentioned, but it won't be anytime soon. Thanks for your help. Super Ψ Dro 07:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the best possible approach to pretty much all drama. No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit

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

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

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

Rewriting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nizami Ganjavi International Center

The center is an international organization in Azerbaijan and Nizami Ganjavi is a Persian-speaking Azerbaijani poet, it is not correct to refer to him as a Persian poet. The Correction by Armenian(Kevo327) and Persian (LouisAragon) editors is clearly against the interests and is real vandalism. Also, as someone who works at the center, I definitely note that this is unacceptable. The unexplained deletion of 14,710 characters by Kevo327 is beyond Wikipedia's rules--85.132.36.182 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 85.132.36.182, thank you very much for your feedback. Your edit request has now been answered at Talk:Nizami Ganjavi International Center; please address any concerns there instead of here. You can use the following code to notify the reviewer: {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} your message here ~~~~ The four tildes at the end are important; the notification will not work without them. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's a long-term campaign going on in the Republic of Azerbaijan in order to Turkify/Azerbaijanify Nizami Ganjavi, one of the greatest Persian poets in history. A lot of IPs and drive-by accounts geolocating to the Republic of Azerbaijan try to import this piece of historic negationism into Wikipedia. For more information, please refer to a) Nizami Ganjavi; b) Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan; c) Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan; and d) Media freedom in Azerbaijan. Thought you might be interested, ToBeFree, in case you encounter these type of edits again. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Kevo327:, who was mentioned by said IP. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh my. Well, thank you for the context, LouisAragon; please notify me if the disruption continues after the protection expires. I'll happily re-protect for a longer duration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)