User talk:ToBeFree: Difference between revisions

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)

Unprotecting COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

ToBeFree, i'm so sorry about Germany's performance in the European cup. But please, can you unprotect the lab leak page so that anyone can edit it? It is missing a lot of information about the hypothesis itself and most of the edits now are about negative coverage contributed by editors who don’t even want that this necessary page exists. Francesco espo (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

No comment... And, Francesco, you're well aware of the COVID DS, so I suggest you go back to citing proper sources, instead of accusing editors of "negative coverage". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Francesco espo, most editors affected by discretionary sanction-based protection will probably benefit from making long-term contributions outside of highly controversial areas before jumping into heated conflicts. The Task Center and the community portal contain helpful ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As a heads-up, I had missed that the page was protected. I added the E-C protect tag to the page so it shows up prior to clicking the edit button. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the lack of that icon was a remnant of the redirect, I guess. The {{rcat shell}} contained the protection template before. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I have seen you on multiple occasions, you're very civil and kind. Ratnahastin(t.c) 06:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ratnahastin, thank you very much for the heart-warming feedback and your contributions! I hope you enjoy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting protection

May I ask for protection on the article Miss Universe Philippines 2021 as many unregistered users and IP addresses are editing it without following the Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much. King Archer (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, some unregistered users and IP users are vandalizing the page. King Archer (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi King Archer, thanks for asking: I have semi-protected the page for three months now. However, I can't apply the usual indefinite semi-protection per WP:GS/PAGEANTS, as I can't yet see evidence for sockpuppetry happening on the page. As soon as that happens (and I somehow expect it to happen), please notify me and I'll apply the usual protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 20 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)

I have read these messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)