Hi Gimiv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for meatpuppetry or block evasion by a user banned from the COVID-19 topic area or the entire community (Billybostickson, Empiricus-sextus).
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is a mistake. I am not a banned user and did not break any rules. I simply provided a list of sources to better inform the editors on the subject matter. ~~
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was blocked by ToBeFree based on the unfounded claim that I am a meat or sock puppet of two editors with whom I have NEVER had any contact or association! I am a regular donor to WIKIPEDIA which you can check in your records with my email. Please unblock my account.
As an editor, I thank you for donating, but we editors have nothing to do with requesting or collecting donations, that's all done by the Foundation and we do not have access to those records. It's not relevant anyway. To be unblocked, you will need to do more than just deny sockpuppetry, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so(since that is the whole point). If you aren't a sock, you will need to address why we think you are if you aren't. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative, because you can't. I said that if you are not a sock, you will need to address why we might think that you are, if you aren't. It isn't just made up out of thin air. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unfair for me to review another request by you, but you may make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am requesting an unblock, I made a list of sources and shared with other editors to provide support on a notable topic after seeing the list in the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis talk page which was mentioned on Bret Weinstein's YouTube channel. Here is the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5LdiLV0BZI. I do not understand why I'm being blocked simply for sharing valuable information which serve as the basis for what Wikipedia is supposed to stands for: "To empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and disseminate it effectively and globally" ~~
Decline reason:
Procedural decline - user hasn't replied to the questions below in three weeks. Should they come back and make a reasonable go at answering them - at least enough to indicate good faith engagement in the process, they're welcome to resubmit an appeal application. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi Gimiv, this does seem plausible. A few questions remain.
Please detailedly describe what you have exactly done, technically, to create the table and to publish it on Wikipedia.
Which criteria did you use for selecting a group of users to message about your creation?
After reading WP:Meatpuppetry, a section of the sockpuppetry policy, please describe why editing Wikipedia after watching the video was possibly a problematic idea.
In which areas, and how exactly, would you like to continue editing when unblocked?
Would you agree, as a voluntary unblock condition, to a topic ban from pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until you have made at least 50 contributions to unrelated Wikipedia articles to demonstrate that you're actually interested in building an encyclopedia, and not just in joining a battle? If not, why is this not an option?
Hi ToBeFree, sorry I forgot about this. I just came back from holiday!
To describe the technical creation of the table I published, I started with the template I told you about and deleted the unnecessary GoF and Mojiang columns and created a Dates column, which IMO is more important to chronicle the sources.
The users I selected were those sympathetic to covering the story in Wikipedia
I read this policy and I must say I understand your concern but I don’t think Brett and Heather’s commentary was intended to enlist listeners into editing Wikipedia. I definitely created my account on my own volition. I no longer listen to their show.
I work in equities and travel industry (sob) and I’m interested in everything coffee, running and hi-fidelity audio, so I can make useful edits in these areas.
Welcome back, Gimiv. I'm sorry, I must have missed this ping, or the ping has failed for whatever reason – usually a lack of a signature in the same edit, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. I didn't intend to let you wait either.
There has been a long discussion at WP:AE and WT:AE regarding my actions in this topic area, and I have decided to take a kind of vacation from it. Too much drama, and I can't even rule out having been a source of it.
You are unblocked unconditionally and with apologies; I'm not sure if the block was ever needed. I'll restore the deleted page as well. I'm sorry that this took so long, and that you had to argue your way through this instead of receiving a fair treatment from the very beginning – which would have been letting you edit without such hindrance, and welcoming you to the encyclopedia.
I am not a meat or sock puppet. I am a regular donor to Wikipedia and wish to share my knowledge with the community. Please unblock my account. Gimiv (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gimiv! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
This has been a hot topic in the last year, resulting in a special situation in the area (you have received a tag with more related information above by Novem Linguae). You were previously blocked as a swarm of activists and sockpuppets were flooding WP. Since after your block you decided to still edit in the area when close to a topic ban, I thought this might be useful.
I noticed that you called editors "anti-leak", which is never a good idea, since the scientific consensus is that it simply originates from nature (something WP has to reflect by policy). Categorizing editors in two camps is divisive and unnecessary. Building sources lists and citing the best recent sources at relevant talk pages is consistent with policy and collaborative editing and I suggest to do that instead. Article talk pages are also not general forums to discuss the topic, so I also suggest focusing comments directly in relation to the article and sources (WP:NOTFORUM, WP:FOC).
For medicine related topics, a higher standard also exists for sources (WP:MEDRS) and when such are available, if they also contradict non-official or non-expert sources (news articles, blogs, etc), the latter are unlikely to be considered credible to counter them. Also important are WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV (i.e. unlike in journalism, WP articles are not in the style: "foo says this but according to bar" or "proponents believe: <long list without analysis>"). When a position has strong consensus it is rarely "balanced" with "but" claims. Journalistic statements like "cannot be ruled out" and "more research is needed" are also not considered very meaningful. It is of course possible to document beliefs and notable opinions, when reliable sources put them in context and that context/analysis should be the focus, instead of the claims. Since you have been working on a list of sources, I also suggest looking at another collection at WP:NOLEAK.
Finally, since user talk pages are allowed more freedom than article talk pages to chat, I'll add that while lab leaks sometimes occur around the world, they don't result in pandemics, partly because of their standard procedures like tracing and records. In the event where a confirmed leak happened and is widely reported by the best sources, we could expect an article of the style: "<year> <location> laboratory leak incident" and we'd have enough details for an article, instead of reporting about the speculation of some people in more general articles. It is also well understood how pathogens from nature constantly enter populations sometimes resulting in epidemics or pandemics. Even if years are needed to fully understand the exact history of this particular virus (and it may never be satisfactory), it doesn't automatically validate extraordinary claims.
Hello, I'm RandomCanadian. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WP:TPO explicitly allows removing obvious attacks like yoursRandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." from WP:TPO. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)05:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned you before about WP:FOC. Considering that your sole activity on WP has been to promote (since May), you are close to being reported as not being here to build an encyclopedia (WP:HERE). Please carefully read your talk page again, it has tips on why the hypothesis is considered unlikely by the scientific community, as well as how to behave on Wikipedia, that is not your personal blog. —PaleoNeonate – 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 lab leak theory
I see there is a bit of a battle at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory concerning your comment which pinged me. That comment is not a personal attack but listing what another editor has done on article talk is not good procedure. That's because article talk pages should focus on actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources—if people start exchanging opinions on each other, discussions rapidly go off track. For example, if a previous RfC related to the current discussion had a problem, you might mention that problem (although you would want more than an assertion of a problem). However, I can't see an immediate purpose of pointing to an RfC closed as no consensus apart from expressing irritation about another editor. Of course everyone in a contentious topic is irritated about other editors, but that has to be suppressed. I'm not going to be drawn into the topic at the moment but please try to focus on a concrete proposal and its sources. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Standard 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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
I wouldn't. You appear to be new around here. ANI is for spanking people when they've been bad. One problem with that is that it can backfire. There are ways to review bad decisions without trying to spank anyone. That's what we need here. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine, the boards can be a bit Byzantine. ANI is not the place to review a move outcome, regardless off what may appear to be the case by reading and attempting to understand what is written. As you're new, I assume you just didn't realize that. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify Adoring nanny's warning, whether you requested sanctions or not doesn't change whether admin attention might be drawn your direction. From WP:BOOMERANG: Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Not intending to discourage you from an earnest attempt to make things better, just urging caution lest you come across as engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior instead of getting the improvements you're hoping for. I've found it best to err on the side of WP:AGF, even when you think it shouldn't be necessary. It helps avoid being misinterpreted. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walk away?
Are you willing to walk away from the topic of COVID-19 and China? There have been frequent problems with your edits in that venue and if agree to do something else that is productive, it would probably save you from being blocked. JehochmanTalk02:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Try working in some less heated pages of the encyclopedia. As you get more experience you’ll be better able to wade into the hot zones. Happy editing. JehochmanTalk04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, I sent you something by email. Please can you reread my request in AN and answer it properly. I have donated significant sums of money to the project over the years because I believe in the cause but I do not agree with the way administrators have acted in this topic area.Gimiv (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have a base understanding that we can’t verify your donations nor can we even take them into consideration. Every editor is treated the same way, based upon their editing history only, without regard to financial contributions. JehochmanTalk13:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this as a warning. I've noted your activism in this area since you started and an AE report may be close, to request a topic ban. Your very first edits also consisted of canvassing and considering the few other edits a WP:NOTHERE ban is also a possibility. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Donations are not bribes and do not end up in the pockets of other editors. The foundation does not decide the content of articles, except if there is a pressing legal reason to revert some material, like for copyright reasons. —PaleoNeonate – 18:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, in your experience as an admin, is it normal for a cloer to close an RM with a WP:SUPERVOTE, nominate the article for deletion with its improper title, and then try to stymie efforts for a WP:MR? This is exactly what is happening. LondonIP (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I never got any meaningful response from Jehochman. I think they don't really understand the problem or know of any solution. If the MR is stymied, then I can open an ArbCom case but I'm not sure exactly how. Gimiv (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What problem or question are you talking about? You sent me a meaningless email and you’ve been talking about your irrelevant financial contributions. What help are you seeking that is germane? JehochmanTalk00:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to emphasize -- it is always best to take everything calmly. Just slow down. Multiple users have been topic banned from this area for failing to do that, i.e. Normchou, ScrupulousScribe, and CutePeach. I am deliberately not pinging the users here, as that would be rude. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adoring nanny I agree it should be taken calmly, but the way this went from an RM to an AfD overnight is beyond the pale, and the way BradV voted in the AfD is just bewildering. LondonIP, this is what I shared with Jehochman, but obviously he didn't understand it, or anything else. Gimiv (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, AIDS Garden Chicago, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969TT me22:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AIDS Garden Chicago, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
