User talk:CutePeach/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Accusing me of actions or POV

Hi CutePeach, please do not continue to accuse me of malfeasance, incompetence, or POV in article talk space [1] [2] [3][4]. That page is for discussions of content, not conduct. If you have concerns about such things, the appropriate place to raise them would be (in order) A) my talk page, B) the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN, WP:DRN), or C) the appropriate admin intervention mechanism (WP:ANI, WP:ARBE). But, more than anything, I would tell you that you should have evidence for such accusations. Accusing editors of malfeasance repeatedly without evidence could run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

Important message

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

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

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

—PaleoNeonate – 22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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

ARBPS

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

What can I say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfC notification: Draft:Gabriella Stern has a new comment

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

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

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

AfC notification: Draft:Catharina Boehme has a new comment

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

AfC notification: Draft:Alina Chan has a new comment

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

email

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participation request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this comment in the WP:ARE [5] you say that the evidence presented by Bakkster Man seems to show a case edit warring disputed content back into the article without having gained consensus for doing so on the talk page, as would have been required per WP:ONUS. However, as I told Bakkster Man; deleting WP:DUE content is at odds with the WP:POVDELETION, and his response only was that I "do not understand WP:DUE thoroughly enough", then opening the WP:ARE case. Since they premise their case on WP:ONUS, and since I have yet to provide my statement, I ask you not to make assessments of the case from within the docket section until you have heard evidence from all parties. Mr Ernie’s Atsme’s and Dervorguilla’s statements support my position.

It should be noted that in this 15,000 word discussion between myself and Bakkster Man and others [6], a number of edit proposals were put forward, none of which were accepted. In another discussion [7], which got forked into this [8], you see another 10k+ word exchange, where Colin calls Bakkster Man’s objection to covering preprints based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP a red-herring [9], and I am now expected to put forward edit proposals, which I can only presume will be rejected - which is why I have let it slip up till now, but will get on tomorrow. This is why I made this complaint on your talk page, which you did not respond to. Your silence could be interpreted by some as sympathy. Or perhaps you were not aware of these two previous conversations as context to my complaint? Please comment. Tagging: DGG. CutePeach (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I did respond, in Special:Diff/1034798681, but I took no action at that time. As there is now an AE request, it seems to have been the right decision to wait. And at the moment, I'm waiting for further AE statements... even the main named party hasn't responded yet. They seem to be actively editing other pages, though, which is perhaps a bit unconventional when exactly this area of editing is currently under discussion. I first thought it's about one article, but that has changed, so I continue waiting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Colin, the apparent pre-adaptation claim rationale for the COVID-19 lab leak theory hypothesis, was not made only by Chan, Petrovkey and Sorensen in preprints, but also by Robert Redfield in his widely covered interview with Sanjay Gupta on CNN, albeit in a somewhat crude - and even unscientific - way [10]. In a later interview with CNN [11], Marc Lipsitch said of Reford’s comments with all due respect, I think that's nonsense, giving reasons which I am sure you would agree we could should provide for WP:BALANCE. In the MIT Tech Review piece on Chan's paper [12], Jonathan Eisen is quoted as saying he doesn’t think we’ve traced enough outbreaks in enough molecular detail to really know what's normal, which we can provide for BALANCE there too. Chalst mentions the need for this above #Your submission at Articles for creation: Alina Chan (July 21).

In the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 the apparent pre-adaption in also mentioned - in more scientific terms. However, this document is a WP:PRIMARY source, and it isn't offered as a rationale for the lab leak hypothesis, so it would be WP:SYNTH for us to use it in that way. I was planning on asking you and DGG for an expert opinion on how we can use the WHO document as a reference, if at all - and I now also want to ask you to reconsider your current position in the WP:ARE case. Shibbolethink promoted their 34 page WP:SELFPUB diatribe in multiple talk page discussions [13] [14] [15], but I made the apparent mistake of being WP:KIND to him and not dismissing his paper out of hand, which I believed was the right thing to do at the time [16] [17]. I actually read his paper and let him know I agreed with most of it - especially on GoFR versions of the lab leak hypothesis - but I asked him to read one paper of a version of he hadn't considered [18], which he evidently did not do [19], and the conversations went downhill from there. It's telling that he advised Bakkster Man to close the case and wait for me to open one, which in his mind would give them the advantage [20].

You may ask why I didn’t start with Redfield for the apparent pre-adaptation section I rewrote. The answer to that is that I was being asked to rewrite an entire article from scratch, so I started with the publications in chronological order, and Sorensen et all was first. The later papers from Chan and Petrovskey were considered more credible, and were very neutral. Compared to Chan's paper, Petrovskey et al is actually more suggestive of lab origins than natural origins, and it has passed peer review in a prestigious journal [21] [22]. The pushback Chan and Petrovskey received is itself worthy of inclusion, with these sources [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. If you got this far, can you now agree this apparent pre-adaptation thing is potentially bigger than the Bloom et al story, and that WP:SCHOLARSHIP argument is indeed a red-herring? CutePeach (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is also helpful to know that I am not even the one who brought up my reddit post [30], KristinaLu brought it up: [31] [32] [33]. I brought up the userspace essay WP:NOLABLEAK, where Novem Linguae repeats many of the same points I made in that post.

I also added this disclaimer [34]: "all of the above is original research, but this seems a good time to remind everyone that WP:OR does not apply to talk space. I'm not arguing any of the above belongs in article space. not only because it's OR, like the rest of this thread (including most of the other comments in this section), but also because it's WP:UNDUE."

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

Shibbolethink you seem to have your dates mixed up, as you first brought up your Reddit post with me in this dif [35], and you did so to counter a point made by Ralph Baric in his paper WRT speculation about possible laboratory manipulation [36] and a further point made in his RAI interview WRT to his comment you can do it without leaving a signature yes, using three or four different approach for coronaviruses, which were developed by different researchers, you can leave no trace that it was made in a laboratory [37] (27:15), both of which are WP:RSs. You did so without providing any expert opinions quoted in reliable sources to support your POV, which we could then provide for WP:BALANCE in our articles. We have both agreed not to put the POV of one group of scientists to the exclusion of another [38].

In your conversation with KristinaLu, you again get the dates mixed up, and conveniently leave out of the diff where you first brought up your Reddit post here [39], linking to a section of WP:NOLABLEAK which references your paper, again countering the point Baric makes WRT signatures. This is the shameless plugging of a WP:SELFPUB paper in the form an WP:ESSAY, which we should probably nominate for deletion for this very reason. I first published my WP:YESLABLEAK essay in mainspace, to welcome you to contribute to the Counterpoints, since I was asked by the original author of WP:NOLABLEAK not to post there anymore, after I called you out for lack of WP:COMPETENCE for mixing up papers [40]. For some reason ToBeFree moved my essay to userspace, but I would like for it to be moved back to mainspace, as policy guidence for this topic area. Ideally, it should be renamed to WP:LABLEAK for neutrality sake. DGG, do you think this would be possible?

Shibbolethink in the face of the accusations you are making against me at the WP:AE, your disclaimer is moot, as with the diffs I provided here, you are clearly arguing for people to read your Reddit post in article talkspace to effect editorial decisions in article mainspace. Your argumentation has even persuaded Colin, the original author of WP:MEDRS that there is somehow a scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 can’t possibly have been subjected to GoFR [41], when we have a paper and an interview with the most-eminent and most-cited coronavirologist in the world who has clearly been saying otherwise - from early 2020. There are even more stunning comments from Baric in this MIT Technology Review from Rowan Jacobsen [42]. I strongly urge you withdraw your participation in WP:AE before I get around to making my statement, otherwise it may result in a WP:BOOMERANG for you, which is not what I want. I didn’t participate in the WP:AE against you, and you will see from my upcoming statement that I have only good good things to say about you, besides for the fact that you have find it difficult to keep your personal POVs out of our editorial decision making process. CutePeach (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

CutePeach, here are some responses:

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

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

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

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

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

Don't

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

Block

HighinBC, I was asked by ToBeFree to refrain from editing until I post my statement. The edit proposals I posted [43], which was the largest post I made, was prepared long before the AE case was opened, and I only added the NYTimes article to it last night. In the AE case, Bakkster Man even mentioned these edit proposals he was waiting for [44]. How was making this post and the others "gaming"? This is just bizarre. CutePeach (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A late block notification

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

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

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

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

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

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

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

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

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

I gave you the narrowest possible topic ban that I saw a consensus for. This, however, is not a free pass to move to other areas around the edge of your topic ban such as Chinese biological weapons program, but an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area. Acting in a disruptive or tentious fashion in other parts of the COVID-19 topic area or in other topics will lead to additional sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. I hope you take this opportunity to show the community that in 6 months that we can lift this topic ban. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Party line

Hi Cutepeach, as far as I can tell, no editor is pushing the "party line" argument for describing the Biden-Ukraine controversy as a conspiracy theory. At least to me, it's coming off as a "political affiliations" variety of personal attack described at WP:WIAPA. I am watching the discussion at the conspiracy theory article, your laptop article, RSN, and the deletion discussion, and to me the "party line" argument seems like a straw man, in that no one is proposing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, this comment [45] looked like a rebuttal based on the Dem's party line. I will read WP:WIAPA tomorrow. Thanks for stopping by CutePeach (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The AGF reading to me comes fairly easily: that user is suggesting that a neutral article would include the well-covered responses to the corruption/misconduct allegations. They also don't say that's their reason for supporting the current name of the conspiracy theory article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, CutePeach, your statement [46] According to some editors, this video and all other laptop related material should be considered "conspiracy theory" because the 2020 Biden campaign said so... is baseless. You defend it by linking to a post that you say looked like a rebuttal based on the Dem's party line, but in reality it simply points out that denials aren't included. As Firefangledfeathers said, WP:Assume good faith. starship.paint (exalt) 07:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

AP discretionary sanctions alert

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Note: Johnuniq issued the alert. Now, CutePeach, you've jumped from one contentious area to another. Tread carefully, alright? Adhere to WP:RSP. starship.paint (exalt) 06:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This is very good advice. This is another very contentious area where sourcing policies will be closely applied, as well as conduct policies. CutePeach, if you manage to get a second topic-ban in quick succession then it's entirely possible you could end up with a long block or even ban from the entire project. I don't see anything to justify that at present, but I am concerned it could happen if you grow more frustrated in editing this very contentious area. The Land (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Hunter Biden laptop controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy 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/Hunter Biden laptop controversy 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.

soibangla (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

CP, I'm a little surprised that, after getting into a lot of hot water at a contentious area and getting advice that newer editors should edit somewhere non-contentious, you create an article about something incredibly contentious. And not only that, but another area contentious because of conspiracy theories surrounding it. This one isn't even in your wheelhouse, which at least the other one was. I feel like you could very easily end up t-banned from AP2; there's extremely little tolerance for anything that could possibly be characterized as disruptive editing there, and doing anything that wastes other people's time is considered disruptive. What happened to the idea of editing at Filipino musicians? —valereee (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

IP block

Oshwah why block all accounts from a mobile IP just because another editor from the same mobile internet provider used it? These kinds of blocks are extreme, for a country where most people use mobile. CutePeach (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This may violate your WP:TBAN on covid origins

Diff @ 06:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Recall that your TBAN is on covid origins, broadly construed. I would advise you to tread more carefully... Even if this is just "viral origins, broadly construed" it gets right to the heart of what Guerillero said above in the notice of your TBAN: This, however, is not a free pass to move to other areas around the edge of your topic ban such as Chinese biological weapons program, but an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area.

Some of this edit appears to me (as an involved editor) as Just barely avoiding the topic area. Especially:

• This requires that key stakeholders, such as researchers and health workers on the ground pass data to international agencies such as the WHO or the MSF, as free of restrictions as possible, within the constraints of medical privacy laws
• In an interview with Discover Magazine, Ian Lipkin said of virus hunting "Initially the evidence is circumstantial", likening it to Criminology where a motive and opportunity need to be established.

Tagging admins: @Guerillero @ToBeFree @HighInBC — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm out; enforcement attempts against CutePeach just lead to headaches and spoilt weekends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Understood, sorry to drag you back in. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the ping :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My reading is that it is close but not a violation. Someone who is more suspicious than me however may think you are trying to make a point about the topic you are banned from by talking about something adjacent to it. Good thing I am not that suspicious. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Global Virome Project

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Global Virome Project, 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 occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I have kept the article from eletion, but it will have to be improved by more extensive information and additional substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

DGG it will be difficult for me to work on this draft, and also the ITPPR draft, with my COVID-19 origins topic ban still in place. Do you think it is worth me requesting an appeal or full ARBCOM case to review administrator actions in this topic area? The COVID-19 investigations page still hasn't been updated with WHO's disbanding of its investigation team. The media has corrected its editorial coverage, but Wikipedia has not. CutePeach (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

stay tuned. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach and DGG, I can finish this off. I will also finish off Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Criticism of the World Health Organization (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization

A tag has been placed on Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

per G10, as entirely a criticism page with no NPOV version in history, and per G13, as 6 months stale.

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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, so out of the six million plus articles and the many thousands of drafts on Wikipedia, this is the subject you want to work on now and this is the way you want to broach it? This, and the post below looks like WP:HOUNDING. CutePeach (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As you are well aware, we have very similar academic interests. This extends to interest in the WHO and pandemic planning in general. Always has. This CSD was a procedural error. The below post is an extension of being involved in your ArbE. That’s the extent of it, and I have never been particularly interested in your edits outside of this very narrow topic area. Good luck, and I hope you find somewhere to edit productively and constructively. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

---

It was submitted, and, while I am not checking through to see what was intended, I can say regardless of where I stand on any issue, that the current version has no actual content. So I declined it, without making any judgment about what should be done with it. It's no longer a g13, in any case. As a draft, it can't be deleted for lacking content or context, but it can't be accepted into mainspace without it.

I want to say also, without caring what side anyone is on about anything, that I don't like methods that might conceivably be though to verge on evasion, such as mis-titling an article to use it as a WP:COATRACK for some other specific subject., or using draft space to work around a decision made about content in article space. I work mainly at AfC these days, and I see this several times a day, generally from coi editors, but also from fans, or from editors with a determination to see their view of something get in WP.

I don't like it, regardless of what I think of the merits or whether I agree with the prior decisions. Everyone experienced who works with new articles at AfC NPP or AFD feels similarly regardless of how we may stand on anything else. We all try to stop people we agree with from doing this as people we don't agree with. I try to get as many professor articles included as possible, but I will try to get rid of an article where the editor plays games like this just as if they violate copyvio . We have a difficult enough time making decisions without these complications.

I also don't like it when people use questionable deletion reasons for such purposes. Calling something G10 is a serious business. I've used it, I've deleted such content as an admin and blocked people who do it; I've suppressed such content as an oversighter. It should not be used as part of a content disagreement any more than a personal disagreement. I don't know any admin who would ever feel otherwise.

WP can be thought of a game where one tries to outargue one's opponents. It shouldn't be. It's certainly not a game where the goal is out maneuver one's opponent. In a sense it might instead be a game where one tries to find more good references than an opponent, or write better articles, or write articles so strong that nobody who might dislike them could possibly remove them. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Would love to contact you in real life

For professional reasons that will quickly become obvious. I've enabled email on my account. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Gabriella Stern

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gabriella Stern, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Philippine Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Catharina Boehme

Hello, CutePeach. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Catharina Boehme, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)