User talk:Genome42

Non-coding DNA edit warring standard warning - please familiarize with how wikipedia works

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are new so please familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works Help:Introduction.

Here is the policy on what constitutes a reliable source WP:RS.

Here is the policy on edit warring WP:EDITWAR. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to have a discussion about making a version that represents a consensus. Feel free to explain why you disagree with the reasons that I have stated for my edits instead of just rejecting them out-of-hand.

Let's begin by discussing whether we should have a separate page for junk DNA instead of dumping some of that debate into an article on noncoding DNA. We can continue the discussion by you explaining what kind of scientific references are appropriate in this article. Why do you think Carey's book should be referenced and why do you think Pennisi's article should be referenced?

Waiting .... Genome42 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

There already is a consensus on that page which is why multiple editors reverted your edit. Use the talk page in that article to discuss your edit or proposal. But I will say this, both Pennisi and Carey are both reliable sources per wikipedia guidelines because they published their content in academic publishers - "Science" is a scientific journal and "Columbia University Press" is an academic publisher. The marker for "reliable" sources is publication process (e.g. peer review), not what the author says per se. Perhaps that is what is causing confusion. Wikipedia is a collection of views from reliable sources, not a source for seeking truth. It is summary of the different views that exist in the academic literature. Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You refer to "multiple editors". Who are the others, apart from you, Qzd and Trappist the Monk? OK, there are a couple of others, but the main person pursuing an edit war seems to be you. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Splitting non-coding vs Junk DNA

In case you'd not seen it, I've added some notes at the end of this section: Talk:Non-coding_DNA#Splitting_proposal. No worries if you'd already seen it, but I thought I'd ping you since there's been so much activity on that talkpage you might've missed it! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Bleeding edge

Wikipedia sides with mainstream science and mainstream history, but not with the bleeding edge. Wikipedia is academically conservative, i.e. it renders viewpoints which are broadly accepted by the scientific community. See WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with articles in my area of expertise (molecular biology, genetics, evolution) so my comments are restricted to those articles.

It's not true that Wikipedia editors avoid recent scientific reports. The articles I monitor are full of the latest reports of scientific "breakthroughs" as reported in the popular press and poplar science magazines. The current crop of editors makes no attempt to remove those sentences as long as they don't appear to conflict with the main parts of the article. I have been removing them from a number of articles.

It's also not true that Wikipedia articles are "conservative" in that they only post viewpoints that are "broadly accepted by the scientific community." It would be more accurate to say that Wikipedia strongly supports the viewpoints of the general public as promoted in literature that's aimed at them. In that sense, the "conservative" point of view often conflicts with the views of the scientific experts like me because the popular science articles are not accurate. Thus, we end up with a situation where uninformed Wikipedia editors are censuring legitimate scientists who are trying to correct Wikipedia posts.

A more serious problem arises when there is no universal scientific consensus. The Wikipedia editors tend to rely on popular press reports that play down or ignore legitimate scientific controversies. In this case, the Wikipedia editors censure any attempt to introduce the legitimate scientific controversy because they don't know about it. They are not familiar with the scientific literature. This is what happened with junk DNA, molecular evolution, and alternative splicing to name just a few.

The main problem here is that it is a group of non-experts with no legitimate scientific credentials who are defending the "scientific consensus" against expert scientists who are trying to correct Wikipedia. The irony is that these non-expert Wikipedia experts are blocking any attempt to improve Wikipedia on the grounds that what has been posted over the past decade is so accurate that any attempt to change it must violate some Wikipedia rules.

I have been trying to open a dialogue on some of those articles by posting my reasons for wanting to make a change and then waiting a few weeks before making a change. Usually there's no objection to my announcement but as soon as I post my edits they are reverted by someone who I've never heard of who doesn't appear to be knowledgeable about the topic. Is there a better way to correct Wikipedia?

It would be really helpful if Wikipedia editors were forced to publicize their academic credentials and areas of expertise so that we can judge whether they are knowledgeable about a subject or are merely acting as Wikipedia police enforcing the policy of resisting change. For example, there's a lot of information on your homepage but I can't tell whether you are an experts in alleles, non-coding DNA, junk DNA, evolution, or any of the other topics that concern me. Genome42 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're using Wikipedia to advance science. That's wrong. First gain recognition, since all mainstream science makes its way to Wikipedia. To give an example, I respect Nicole Prause as scientist, but she is not a good Wikipedia editor. I mean: she knows the consensus on porn addiction long before it is formalized by the American Psychiatric Association, but since she cannot cite mainstream sources telling what she knows, she often loses the disputes. Being true is not enough for adding it to Wikipedia, but it has to be written in a mainstream scientific treatise. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't understand. I'm trying to correct Wikipedia so that it reflects mainstream science. I've been teaching this stuff at university for 50 years so I think I know what the scientific consensus is.

Take the definition of 'allele,' for example. The old version of the Wikipedia entry restricted alleles to genes but there isn't a single knowledgeable expert who would agree with that definition. Alleles can be present at any locus not just genes. Even junk DNA has alleles. Just because you can find popular references and dictionary definitions that give an incomplete definition does not make it mainstream science and my attempt to correct Wikipedia is not an attempt to "advance" science. I've been using the correct definition of 'allele' since I was a graduate student in 1968.

The same thing applies to the definition of 'gene' and 'junk DNA,' which I've been trying to fix in the 'Non-coding DNA' article, the 'Intergenic region' article, and the 'Human genome' article. I'm using the mainstream science definition where 'mainstream science' refers to the views of knowledgeable experts in the field and not to other scientists who don't have a firm grasp of the material. Non-expert Wikipedia editors can't tell the difference so it's up to people like me to fix things. I've been using the correct definition of 'gene' since I learned it in Watson's textbook in 1965 and I've been using the mainstream (i.e. expert) view of junk DNA since 1972.

I can, and do, cite mainstream science sources to back up my claims. The people who are reverting my edits are citing non-experts or popular science articles (or dictionaries) and confusing them with the true scientific consensus.

If you really think that any of my posts are promoting views that are outside of mainstream science then feel free to engage in the discussion I've started on all the relevant talk pages. Generic complaints that I'm "using Wikipedia to advance science" are not helpful. Give me a specific example. Genome42 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote on Quora:

Friend, Wikipedians aren’t interested in what you know.

They are interested in what you can cite, i.e. reliable sources.

According to Wikipedia etiquette, expressing personal opinions is for losers.

Citing myself. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you decide which sources are "reliable" if you don't know anything about the topic? Genome42 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Like by Googling the journal, publishing house, whether the authors are full professors at a mainstream university, etc. MDPI and Hindawi are to be avoided. For WP:MEDRS subjects, indexed for MEDLINE is required in 90% of the cases, and WP:PRIMARY studies are not acceptable.

E.g. Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, etc., are highly reputable. Ivy League full professors are highly reputable. Nature (journal), PNAS and The Lancet are highly reputable. And so on. You have to objectively show that it is reliable for the claim made. In doubt, take it to WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I taught a course on critical thinking for many years. One of the important issues is reliable sources and there's an extensive literature on the subject. The criteria you quote are reasonable starting points, or pointers, but they are not definitive. As you surely know, there are Ivy League scientists publishing in high impact journals who disagree so there has to be some other way of judging a reliable source. Also, the scientific literature is full of old papers that have been shown to be wrong. There has to be some way of keeping those papers off Wikipedia and presenting the current scientific consensus on a subject.

You and the other Wikipedia editors are charged with the responsibility of preventing false information from being posted on Wikipedia. That's a laudable goal but when enforcing that objective you tend to make two common errors.

The first is that you are being too lax, and hypocritical. I've been trying to remove incorrect material that is not sourced in any way, reliable or not. Praxidicae is blocking me and that's just wrong.

The second is that you are being too rigid. You won't listen to reasonable arguments against a view expressed in whatever you think is a "reliable source." In this case, you are falling back on some, rather arbitrary, Wikipedia rules instead of thinking critically about the issue. That's not how science works.

There's another issue that's just as important and that's the issue of relevance. Most Wikipedia articles are full of irrelevant information that somebody has inserted to push their favorite agenda. They've stumbled across some obscure reference and feel the need to insert it immediately into one of the Wikipedia articles. This makes many of the science articles choppy and misleading. Most non-science articles are better because there's clearly someone who has taken change and presents the topic in a coherent manner.

I think you know as well as I do that the way to fix those articles is for some well-informed, critical-thinking, expert to re-write the article. I know many other scientists who have attempted to do this in order to advance the goals of Wikipedia and make it a valuable resource of information. They quickly give up when they run into Wikipedia editors who have little or no knowledge of the subject matter but are intent on enforcing rigid rules and blocking edits that are made in good faith.

Not only that, these scientific experts often encounter Wikipedia editors who denigrate and dismiss their expertise. This is bad and I urge you to engage in a little self-reflection to make sure you aren't one of those people. That does not mean that you should immediately trust anyone who claims to be an expert. That would be silly. But there are ways to judge whether you should pay attention and the most important is to examine their arguments as expressed in the Talk sections. If those arguments are rational and show a certain level of critical thinking and skepticism, then you would be justified in believing them. (What's the alternative? To mistrust them just because they are a professor from a top-tier university?)

If those scientists are also receiving support from other credible scientists then that's another way of judging a reliable source. If all of the opposition comes from anonymous editors who cannot carry on a reasonable scientific discussion then that should raise red flags, right? Genome42 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intergenic region. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk page for this article to see how I have attempted to collaborate with Praxidicae to resolve the issue. It seems clear to me that one of us is engaging in an edit war for no scientifically justifiable reason.

Please give me some reasonable advice on how to resolve this issue. From my perspective, it's a conflict between someone who is very knowledgeable about the subject (me) and someone who admits to knowing very little about the subject (Praxidicae). Genome42 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been reading it. This wholesale removal of content is disruptive — if it is wrong, you must provide reliable sources to prove it. Surely you can provide some peer-reviewed journal articles on this? You are entirely correct that the age of a source matters, but to ensure we don't engage in recentism, we must insist on high quality, reliable sources — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You do realize, don't you, that much of the material I deleted is either unsourced or incorrectly sourced? The rest is irrelevant in an article such as this one.

For example, look at the first sentence of the 'Functions' section where it says, "Historically intergenic regions have sometimes been called junk DNA suggesting that they have no function." There is no source for this statement but that's not surprising since it is wrong. No reasonable scientist ever said that all intergenic regions were junk DNA. Ever.

Why haven't Wikipedia editors objected to putting such nonsense in a scientific article? Why are you defending it now that you know that it's not supported by any citation? I graduated from university in 1964 and I knew back then that regulatory regions were located in the sequences between genes (intergenic DNA). It's been in all the textbooks (including my own) since 1965. This is not news. It doesn't need citations from 2015 and 2017 implying that this is a recent development.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Genome42 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

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).

Genome42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been unfairly accused. I have attempted to debate and discuss the reasons for my edits but the Wikipedia editors refuse to discuss the scientific issues and, instead, make false accusations about a lack of sources and unjustified reasons for removing false and misleading statements from the Wikipedia articles. Check out the Talk section on Non-coding DNA for a good example of other scientists trying to convince Praxidicae to back off. Genome42 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you see nothing wrong with your edits, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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).

Genome42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm confused about the process. Is there no way to have a reasonable discussion about this? It seems like the only way to get unblocked is to admit guilt and apologize. Is that correct?

Decline reason:

Declining since this isn't making an argument for being unblocked.

I think the best thing you could do for yourself right is back off and cool down. I do see where you might have had a point, but you insisted on edit warring when you should have been discussing, and your blog isn't a reliable source unless, say, enough other scientists accept it as one. I admit that it seems Praxdicidae was getting a little too dogmatic, but I haven't had the time to look at the whole argument. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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).

Genome42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The argument I'm making is that I have been unfairly treated. PRAXDICIDAE started, and continued, the edit war, not me. Almost all of my science-based edits to scientific articles over the past four months have been announced, discussed, and (usually) approved by other knowledgeable editors. PRAXIDICIDAE reverted scientifically correct edits and refused to engage in a discussion about the scientific validity of my edits. I discussed, she warred. I, personally, have never, ever, proposed quoting my own blog as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article but several other users have referenced it over the past 12 years or so. I am not responsible for their actions.

How long do I have to "back off and cool down" since I have been blocked indefinitely? Can this be converted to days, weeks, or months?

Can I please have a discussion with an editor who has the time and expertise to look at the whole argument before making a judgement? (BTW, this is the only place where I can access Wikipedia because I'm blocked.) Genome42 (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declining since you want to talk about the actions of someone else- you were blocked for your actions, not those of others. If you haven't already, please read WP:EXPERT. It's not required that one be an expert in the topic that they wish to edit about. There are encyclopedia projects with such a requirement, but not this one. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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).

Genome42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has now been more than six months since I was blocked on Wikipedia. I now have a much better understanding of the rules and regulations and I apologize for not following them last summer. If I am unblocked, I will make a sincere effort to follow the rules and to only make edits that are properly sourced and that don't conflict with current sourced content.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) Have you made contributions to other projects during the six-month period? If not, your request is unlikely to succeed, as per The standard offer, you need to provide a clear reason as to why you should be unblocked, and not just purely because you avoided Wikipedia for six months. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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).

Genome42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank-you for reviewing my unblock request so quickly. I'm writing an article on the problems with Wikipedia, especially with respect to articles in the biological sciences. I call attention to the well-known fact that Wikipedia editors with no science background are defending misinformation and preventing corrections to those articles by well-informed and knowledgeable users. As far as I can tell, neither StaryNightSky11 or Yamla have any scientific background yet both of them felt qualified to weigh in on my blockage and to continue to prevent me from correcting those articles. Please let me know whether my assumptions about Yamla and StarryNightSky11 are correct before I publish the article.

Decline reason:

I think you are working under a misconception on how Wikipedia works. Anyone can edit any article on any subject and comment on unblock requests, even if they are not experts in the field concerned. We don't ask for editors' credentials, instead we ask them that they provide reliable sources that justify their edits. And if there is disagreement on whether a source justifies a given edit, we hash it out by discussion, not by continually readding the contested edit. This is the main thing at issue here, along with the fact that you haven't given a source that justifies your changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

category:requests for unblock

I am still blocked for: "Disruptive editing, including edit-warring, refusal to collaborate with other editors, claiming that scientific articles can only be edited by experts, e.g., the user" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4F60:F340:E8B3:F617:5346:2B62 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The last reason is a flat-out lie so I can't apologize for that. The other reasons are obviously a matter of interpretation, e.g. which editors are refusing to collaborate, and which edits are "disruptive." I definitely CAN apologize for not realizing what the rules for editing are and how they are enforced and I can assure everybody that I now know how to correct scientific articles without running afoul of the standards of other editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Genome42 (talk • contribs)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus

I DO understand Wikipedia’s policy. As you note, I thought the dispute was over the scientific accuracy of my edits and after discussion with, and support from, other scientists I made the edits. My mistake, which I now apologize for, was in not realizing that I needed to convince those with no scientific expertise that my edits were justified. That’s hard to do, so the standard advice given to most scientists is to abandon any changes that are challenged by an administrator. I should have followed that advice and I promise to do so in the future if reinstated.

It is not quite accurate to say that I did not provide a source that justified my changes. In fact, I was often trying to remove inaccurate statements that were not reliably sourced.

The main issue with most science articles in the biological sciences is that they are very badly written and full of misinformation and inconsistencies. Knowledgeable people have been trying to fix them for two decades without much success. It would be great if Wikipedia editors and administrators could turn their attention to this problem and try to help fix it. Genome42 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Maybe we can unblock this person, IF they clearly promise not to edit war and cite academic works (not blogs) when they make mainspace edits? Would this be a good compromise? They seem to have "cooled down" so to speak, and in general, having a professor (expert) editing Wikipedia is better than having them not editing it...

@Genome42 Please read, if you haven't yet, our policies on WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

PS. Reviewing this a bit more, I don't think this was handled ideally. The user got an indef without a history of previous blocks, I see an edit warring warning, but then indef. Didn't we skip steps such as a one day block, other escalating block, article topic ban, etc.? Jumping from an edit warring to an indef block for an editor who even discloses his real life identity on their user page and seems to be a topic expert is exactly what creates the streotype in the academia that "Wikipedia hates experts". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see these unblocking options described above. I'll ask TheresNoTime for input before, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No objection to an unblock here — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Ping - no objecton from TNT above, so... can we grant that request? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Genome42 From what I see, JJE has been inactive for the last two days, so you can either wait a bit more for them to come back and catch up or post another unblock request, which should catch up the attention of a random active admin shortly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Thank-you very much for taking a look at the circumstances that led to my indefinite blockage. If I am unblocked, I promise to abide by Wikipedia's policies for citations and I promise not to engage in edit wars.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus @TheresNoTime What happens now? Am I supposed to post another unblock request or can one of you just lift the block? Genome42

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome back! Have a wiki cup of coffee and enjoy editing again! If you run into any troubles, feel free to ask me for help! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Talkpage misunderstandings and cross-cultural miscommunication

I've finally gone through the archived discussions at Talk:Non-coding DNA/Archive 1 to understand some more of the background to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Molecular Biology.

I think the key to resolving the clashes on the talk page focus (almost solely) on the references to cite, and summarising what those references say. A lot of friction on talk:Noncoding DNA looks like it came from early misunderstandings and cross-cultural miscommunication. Editors there may have been better swayed with a collection of published sources that explicitly and clearly contradicted the material being removed along with one-sentence summaries of how each is relevant. Similarly, I realise you were mentioning your blog on the talkpage to demonstrate that you know about the topic, but some thought that you were proposing your blog as the source to cite and others thought it was an appeal to authority. You have to remember that WP gets a lot of fringe scientists and outright cranks trying to edit it, so the community tends to rely very heavily on the sources cited and very little on the authority of the editor. In the extreme case, we get people pointing to their own websites like this! I think most of the editors do not have a strong anti-junk DNA POV (they likely have little off-wiki opinion on the matter) but that they a lot of the content there was written in the years after ENCODE and no-one had articulated the extent to which the marketing around that skewed the way the topic was discussed.

Obviously editors are still human, so I'm not saying that de-escalation is trivial, but I think that focusing on the references to cite (i.e. wp:RS and wp:V) and summarising their relevant points will help. WP's community norms are rarely obvious to newcomers but hopefully some of this helps. contemporary review articles ( and similar) and to some extent the more primary research articles (like ). You'll likely know of other good publications, these were just the ones I pulled out the page's current refs.

References

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 07:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you for your advice. I've been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2007 so I'm quite familiar with the culture. You have repeated the common warning about experts and re-iterated the point that Wikipedians mistrust experts. You seem to think this is a feature but it's not a feature - it's a problem.

Among other things, critical thinking involves making decisions about which sources are reliable and which ones aren't. Like it or not, that requires a deep understanding of the subject material. In other words, it requires experts. Wikipedia should be welcoming expert scientists instead of denigrating them and throwing up roadblocks to prevent them from correcting misleading articles.

I'd like to recruit people like you to help in changing the culture on Wikipedia so that amateurs can work together with experts instead of dismissing them based on a few isolated instances where a kook posed as an expert. The science pages on Wikipedia need a lot of work and there are scientists who are willing to help as long as they aren't subjected to harassment. Genome42 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

...

Your list of references gives me an opportunity to point out some of the issues regarding experts.

First, I have a deep knowledge of the issue so I'm very familiar with the scientific literature. In fact, I have published a book on the subject that's going to be available on May 16th.

Let's look at one of the references you quote in order to see the problems with identifying good sources of information of Wikipedia. I doubt that you have read Nessay Carey's book (ref. 6) because if you had you would see this in the very front of the book in a section called "Notes on Nomenclature."

"Anything that doesn't code for proteins will be described as junk, as it originally was in the old days (second half of the twentieth century)."

If you were an expert on the subject, you would also be familiar with the reviews of her book; for example, check out Georgi Marinov's review "A deeper confusion" . Do you really think Nessa Carey's book is a reliable source? How do we deal with amateurs who refer to this book to support their misunderstandings about junk DNA? (Note that Georgi Marinov was an ENCODE worker and he's one of the authors on the Kellis et al. (2014) paper that you quoted above.)

Here's another example. You refer to the Graur (2017) paper as though it were support for the concept of junk DNA but if you were an expert on this subject you would know that the conclusions of that paper have been successfully challenged and Dan Graur no longer stands by them. Only an expert would know this.

How do we deal with people like you who use the Graur (2017) paper to support their position? (See Non-coding DNA.) Do I just delete the reference or do I have to go into a lengthy discussion like this one every time it gets inserted into a Wikipedia article?

Now let's look at the Palazzo and Kejiou (2022) paper that's ref #1 in your list. Alex and his student are colleagues in my department and if you look at the end of the paper you'll see that I am acknowledged as a contributor (full disclosure). This paper is a lengthy editorial criticizing molecular biologists for not understanding basic concepts in their discipline and for not understanding evolution. Would it be okay to use it like this?

"Some scientists think that the opposition to junk DNA is largely based on a lack of knowledge of molecular biology and molecular evolution (Palazzo and Kejiou, 2017)."

If so, what's to prevent amateurs from using quotes from Nessa Carey's book to refute those claims? Who's going to decide what should go in Wikipedia article?

And what about the Scientific American article (your ref #3) whose senior author, Wojciech Makałowski, is a well-known and vocal opponent of junk DNA? (He organized the symposium on junk DNA at the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution meeting in Chicago (2013) where Dan Graur and I presented the case for junk DNA.) The quote in the reference is "The term 'junk DNA' repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years." That's a ridiculous and untrue statement. Do you think it belongs in a Wikipedia article?

I hope these examples will help you to see that scientific experts can make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia as long as they are supported by Wikipedians like you who are capable of skeptical and critical thinking and able to act as neutral referees in disputes with amateurs. Genome42 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Re: Wikipedia-expert relations goals: I'm 100% on board with the idea that wikipedia benefits from more subject expert editors. I also agree that hostile interactions within the wiki community are commonly a problem, an ideal world would focus less on roadblocks, gatekeeping, bans etc, and more on constructive feedback, mentoring, and training (though such productive activities take many orders of magnitude more time and often yield no reward the payoff in successful cases is large). There is currently nowhere near capacity for established editors to identify new editors with subject expertise and assist them in these ways. It probably can only be achieved via a slow and delicate virtuous cycle of attracting and retaining new contributors. Ideally, I'd love to see the average researcher devote even 0.1% of their work hours to contributing to Wikipedia by writing, reviewing and discussing content. However, in addition to the active roadblocks, contribution is not incentivised, and what career rewards do exist are not well known.

Re: relating goals to mid- and short-term actions: Culture change is difficult and slow, even for incumbent editors. It will take the activities of dozens of editors with deep knowledge of wikipedia's history as well as academic norms across multiple countries. In the mid-term, examples of forwarding these larger goals are in training academics as they start editing on how to mesh into Wikipedia's ways of working to avoid problems (I'm always looking for opportunities to give workshops!) and providing a pipeline for academics where they can draft material in a sheltered harbour and going through a more familiar review procedure before material is let loose into the stormier seas of Wikipedia (hence my activities with PLOS and the WikiJournals). In the short-term, I think the necessary first step is for new editors first learning to translate into the wikipedian sources-focused register, and I'll focus on those short-term practicalities within the constraints of what is achievable below.

Re: Distrust as a feature or problem: It's unfortunate that the community on average actively mistrusts experts, the ideal to push for is for the community to be neutral. Active mistrust comes from a range of historical incidents. A reasonable current goal is for an expertise-neutral reaction. This enables the encyclopedia to benefit from expertise and knowledge, without having to assess credentials or mediate between experts arguing on-wiki. This can align with Wikipedia's current ideal of essentially making generalists able to emulate experts by paraphrasing sources at each other (a bit like a Chinese room). In the extreme, you can see this consensus building at "requests for comment" like this one about a single paragraph of the GMO article - only a small minority of discussion participants were topic experts, but the rules of the process aimed to get them to emulate experts by the way sources were centred in the discussions. In reality, the sway of each community member is weighted by their on-wiki experience, activity and reputation. I'll try to give examples below on how to interact without hitting brick walls.

Re: making decisions about which sources are reliable and which ones aren't: The standard Wikipedia way of doing this is to outsource that deep understanding and critical thinking to published sources commenting on other sources. I realise that doing this can sound like 'laundering' your assessment/expertise through the mouth of a source, however it's also demonstrates that it's not just your assessment. For example - "Do you really think Nessa Carey's book is a reliable source?" Realistically it's less important whether I or even you do, the important thing is whether other published sources do. This is a useful example, since there are other sources commenting directly on int (like that review) and indirectly by simply using alternative definitions of junk DNA. An example talkpage comment might be something like: The source [ref] has been criticised by [ref][ref][ref] as using a definition of junk ("Anything that doesn’t code for protein") that is too narrow and excludes. It is more common for the mainstream literature to focus on individual elements . I suggest we move the statement supported by that ref to the History/Terminology section as "More narrow definitions of 'junk' as "not protein coding" have been used in science journalism.[ref] However, definitions such as XYZ are more common in the scientific community [ref][ref] [OR] However mainstream research focuses on study of the diverse types of DNA sequence that fall outside that definition such as A, B, C.[ref]

Re: author changes positions example: It somewhat depends on whether the statement was: correct at the time but overturned by other evidence / based on faulty assumptions / only true in certain circumstances. This is also broadly true for removing any statement. Possible talkpage phrasing would be: [ref A]'s conclusion that [conclusion A] was subsequently show to be [only true in circumstance A / based on incorrect assumption A / contradicted by other evidence B].[ref][ref][ref] The author of [ref A] subsequently agreed [quote / summary / paraphrase].[ref]. I suggest [removing the sentence with "XYZ" / moving it to the History section and replacing with "XYZ"]

Re: Palazzo and Kejiou example: I think that sentence is pretty good. A few possible improvements: including an extra independent reference saying something similar to show it's not just he opinion of the two authors; maybe more specific than "opposition to junk DNA" (depending on paragraph context); whole paragraph probably moved to a 'History or Terminology section that focuses on how the discourse and understanding in specialist and generalist communities evolved. ps. good practice on the disclosure!

Re: Refs getting re-inserted into a Wikipedia article: After consensus can be demonstrated (the hard part) and recorded on a talkpage, the issue of old refs being reinserted is less of a problem. Hypothetical scenario: ref is reinserted in 2 years time, another editor removes it with edit summary removed ref per consensus at [[talk:Talk:Non-coding_DNA#sectionXYZ]]. If added again, raised on the talkpage {{re|Username}}: There was a discussion about this ref in an earlier discussion at[[talk:Talk:Non-coding_DNA#sectionXYZ]] where consensus was that [ref][ref][ref] sufficiently demonstrated that [consensus reason for its omission]. If you have sources to overturn this consensus, please present them here.. Again the focus is on representing consensus support from external sources.

Re: For/against and pro/anti: I still think it's more useful to focus on why the disagreements / what's the steel-man version of their position? If Wojciech Makałowski had happened to sign up as a user instead of you, how would we get him to represent your position as fairly as possible, and what article could both he and you write that both would 'sign off' on? That's why I'm trying to focus on the different definitions of what falls under junk and how these have been presented to a general audience.

So overall, I'm happy to try to help referee this processes, with the proviso, that it has to be within the constraints of WP's current processes. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pseudogenes

Hi, please don't take my reversion of your reversion wrongly; I feel that Quercus solaris' version allows inclusion of a wiki-link to non-coding DNA which was previously absent, and is a genuinely useful link for the non-specialist reader who may be interested in what other sorts of non-coding DNA exist. It also included a wiki-link to gene duplication which is a very helpful concept for the reader. If you don't like Quercus' wording, would it be possible to find wording that includes these two links? Elemimele (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not married to any particular way of conveying it, but the hyponymy and hypernymy definitely needs to be clearly conveyed, if not in that exact way then in another. But the way it's done in that edit is quite concise and clear, though (i.e., a high bar to improve on it; and also, not clear what is supposed to be inoptimal about it). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to Talk:Pseudogenes where it belongs. Genome42 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

RfA question

Hey, Genome. Re your question at RfA. Administrators don't actually resolve disputes. Disputes are resolved using the WP:Dispute Resolution process. Administrators deal with behavioral issues, of which edit warring is one. I see from the various unblock requests above that you had some misunderstanding of this before.

Administrators never resolve content disputes. If an administrator gets involved in a content dispute, that means they are now w/re that content dispute simply an editor and cannot use their administrative tools there.

Other editors resolve content issues. It's a collaborative and often iterative process. When you disagree with someone here on Wikipedia, you must convince them of your point of view, or you must accept that consensus has gone against you. No administrator, scientist or not, is going to step in and say, "Genome is right and I am therefore reverting the edits in my administrative capacity." Again, administrators deal only with behavior, not with content.

Which means: more scientist administrators will not do anything to change how disputes at science articles are handled. Edit warring is edit warring. It literally does not come into consideration whether you were factually correct. It's a behavioral issues, which is what administrators deal with. Administrators do not deal with content disputes.

Your question above: If so, what's to prevent amateurs from using quotes from Nessa Carey's book to refute those claims? Who's going to decide what should go in Wikipedia article? The answer is: other editors decide what goes into the article, through the collaborative process. Not administrators. Administrators do not deal with content. Administrators deal with behavior.

I hope this helps, and apologies for making the same point multiple times, but w/re the RfA question I feel like maybe you still don't understand this absolutely crucial point about Wikipedia: administrators deal only with behavior, not with content. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you for those comments but I'm afraid they don't reflect reality. In science articles there are dozens of examples of disputes over the scientific consensus and the credibility of sources that Wikipedia considers to be "reliable." We have lots of examples of scientists trying to correct facts and misconceptions but Wikipedia editors block them because they are not following some arbitrary rules that were never designed to resolve factual scientific disputes.

Some of those Wikipedians will accuse well-meaning scientists of breaking the rules and will advocate banning them or blocking them. At this point, administrators will step in to make a judgement. Those whose main expertise is well outside of science may decide to implement the block without ever understanding the actual scientific issues and whether those somewhat arbitrary Wikipedia rules are the problem or the solution.

It's important that we have administrators with a background of solid critical thinking and a knowledge of how scientific disputes should be resolved.

All of my disputes involved serious discussions on the appropriate Talk pages where other knowledgeable experts agreed with me that an edit should be made to correct factually incorrect and/or misleading statements. These changes were often opposed by other editors who wouldn't engage in a serious discussion of the matter but wanted to complain about "process" rather than facts.

You may not be aware of this but there are lots of misconceptions and fake news out there and just because a majority of Wikipedians fall for them doesn't mean they are right and it doesn't mean they get to propagate false information on Wikipedia just because they are in the majority. We need to have a mechanism of dealing with scientific facts and scientific consensus (i.e. the consensus of experts).

I know the standard Wikipedia mantra that administrators don't deal with content, they only deal with behavior. But sometimes those distinctions are blurred when you have edit wars that are really about content and administrators have to resolve a dispute. Surely in those cases you want to tilt in favor of correct content and not just behavior, right?

Please help change the Wikipedia culture. The goal is factually correct material that reflects the scientific consensus and not whatever happens to be the most popular on the internet. I've been editing on Wikipedia on and off since 2007. I know that there's a problem with how Wikipedia deals with expert scientists and I think you do too. It's been widely publicized in the media and even on Wikipedia pages. Genome42 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You are in all likelihood misinterpreting what's happening. Administrators do not make judgements on content. To someone who doesn't really understand wikipedia, it may feel like administrators are making judgements on content because, during a content dispute, behavioral guidelines are breached, and the administrator deals with the behavior. That doesn't mean the administrator is working on content. But to someone who doesn't understand the difference, it may feel like the admin has acted on the content dispute.

I said "in all likelihood" to leave room for the possibility of admininstrative misconduct. If you believe an administrator has interfered w/re content please give me an example. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sectioning as they are asides

To address some of your other questions:

1. Oh, yes, we are fully aware of fake news, and we deal with it pretty well. The vast majority is on the other side.
2. But sometimes those distinctions are blurred when you have edit wars that are really about content and administrators have to resolve a dispute. Surely in those cases you want to tilt in favor of correct content and not just behavior, right? Nope. Absolutely 100% not, and if you see it, ping me. The answer to incorrect content is not administrative action. It's dispute resolution. An administrator using their tools to solve a content dispute would be guilty of administrative misconduct.
3. You've been editing on and off for 15 years and currently have 571 edits. You are a complete newbie, sorry.
4. We love experts. However, academics have a really hard time working here. They tend to believe original research and primary sources should be okay. They tend to believe administrators are somehow in charge of being the final curator of content, smilarly to the editorial panel of an academic journal. It often takes them several thousand edits to acclimate from their academic training. Librarians, now. Librarians do great here. Valereee (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a little secret. Sometimes people edit on Wikipedia under different accounts over the years. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Let me give you one specific example to help enlighten you. I wanted to remove an incorrect definition of a scientific term that was supported by a reference to the Oxford dictionary. An editor whose main expertise was romance novels reverted my edit on the grounds that the citation was a reliable source and that's all Wikipedia needs. I started a discussion on the Talk page where there were numerous other editors who knew something about the subject and we all agreed that it would be best to insert the correct scientific definition based on scientific textbooks instead of the incorrect one in the dictionary. So I made the edit. The non-expert reverted it again. Another editor added the correct definition and it was reverted again.

The outsider then launched a complaint against me for edit warring and within a few minutes an administrator banned me indefinitely. I appealed several times to have an administrator look at the actual exchanges to see if the ban was justified but they all supported the ban on the grounds that it was me, and not the other editor, who was guilty of the horrible crime of edit waring. This is clearly a case where content mattered. Finally, an editor with some knowledge of the material intervened and the ban was lifted because that editor had some sympathetic administrator friends.

We need more administrators like that who will take an interest in scientific disputes and an interest in facts over process.

Wikipedia does not love experts. Surely you know that? Your message actually contains a veiled attack against academics. Genome42 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know people edit under different accounts, and that's fine as long as they aren't doing it for nefarious purposes. The fact you have such a deep and ongoing misunderstanding of the administrative role made me think you probably were no more experienced than your current account seemed.

You'll have to give me a diff if you want me to investigate, but again from your anecdote that sounds like a behavioral issue. Edit warring is a behavioral issue. If you edit-warred to insert what you believe was correct information, you were guilty of edit-warring, a blockable offense. The content itself is immaterial. But more, literally none of your story sounds reasonable. An editor had some sympathetic administrator friends? If that happened, show me. I frankly find this series of events pretty hard to believe, but is it impossible something absolutely bizarre happened in some obscure corner of the project...sure. Show me.

You're telling me a long convoluted story that you think somehow proves your point, and you're expecting me to just accept it on faith, but you aren't giving me actual evidence that your story ever happened and is being conveyed correctly. Pretty sure the scientific method would require actual evidence. It's out there: everything on Wikipedia is preserved in edit histories. If it happened, you can find it and present it as evidence. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you for your clear example of what we are up against as we struggle to fix Wikipedia. Genome42 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Done here. Valereee (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Just a friendly comment about part of Wikipedia you may find interesting. Check this page out. You may want to join that WikiProject, monitor it's "Article Alerts" section (check it for links on how to do so or ask me), and monitor discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology as well. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I monitor that WikiProject but it’s not possible to join it. There are only two active members right now so there’s not very much happening. Most of the activity concerns minor issues that don’t interest me very much. The big issues in molecular biology are being dealt with elsewhere. Genome42 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, what do you mean it's not possible to join? By default, anyone can join a WikiProject just by, well, doing so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I registered as a “participant” last summer but I’m not listed as an active member. Nothing happens when you try to “join” on the home page. Genome42 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, this could be b/c someone needs to go to wiki code and add you as a member, and no-one active monitors this. Sorry about that. You could ask at the talk page of that project to see if anyone is "alive" out there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I already know that this is not an active WikiProject. There are a few of us who participate in the "Talk" section, as you can see. Genome42 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)