User talk:Sorrelish

Unblock
At the time when I made the edit I was a masters student working on my thesis about the miscommunication of ME/cfs as a pseudoscientific illness, which is how I came across that entry. If I appeared to be a sock puppet it could have been because I accessed the page from the university library, giving the impression of multiple accounts at one IP address? Having read the guidance on sock puppetry that’s the only thing I can think of. Regardless, the information on the page is still factually incorrect and potentially actively harmful. I can provide a more complete edit with extensive credible references if needed. Sorrelish (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the block log to link to the relevant master, who is Sockpuppet investigations/Guido den Broeder. ST47 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * is there CU info that I'm missing? I don't see Sorrelish mentioned in that investigation archive either, and the primary problematic subject of interest for Guido den Broeder seems to have been micronations, not pseudoscience. signed,Rosguill talk 18:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * CU was negative. The timing of their original unblock request makes it clear that they have another account which is blocked, and I linked it to that sockmaster based on the similarities to User talk:Saint Jut's behavior (who is CU confirmed) and the interest in myalgic encephalomyelitis / Chronic fatigue syndrome. ST47 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know if this helps at all but if you want proof that I’m a real human @sorrelish is also my twitter handle on an account I’ve had for like a decade and @sorrel_ish is my handle for my insta account that I’ve had for like three years? I’ve also read more of the guidelines and they specifically say you shouldn’t be punitive towards new and inexperienced users - given that it took me half an hour to work out how to add this reply, that definitely applies to me! The timing of my original unblock request was because I was trying to work out how to access a pages edit history for an assignment for a journalism class I’m taking. Sorrelish (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the above comments, I'd be willing to consider an unblock if you stay away from editing articles related to the medical conditions mentioned by ST47 above. do you have any objections? signed,Rosguill talk 19:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually,, no I don't have any objections to an unblock. ST47 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking but I’m not entirely satisfied by your reasoning. 1. How is the topic relevant here? Surely a block should be based on EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, which you haven’t presented, rather than the topic in question? 2. As an expert in the field (I wrote my masters thesis on it, I have a masters degree in science communication and have worked extensively in healthcare, I also work closely with the UK skeptics community in the field of pseudoscience and it’s communication) surely you shouldn’t be banning me for editing pages that relate to my area of expertise? The topic of communication about the aetiology of contested illnesses and the uses and abuses of pseudoscience is what I would be here to edit because it’s a topic I know lots about - I don’t accept being banned from a topic because you’ve consider that topic suspect, not because you have evidence of wrongdoing on my part. Sorrelish (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as a volunteer project that is often being abused by bad actors, we don't have the resources to only act in the presence of incontrovertible evidence. You can read more about blocking policy at WP:BLOCK.
 * As for editing subjects related to these medical conditions, what I have written here is advice, not an actual ban. If you insist on editing these subjects, make sure that you take the utmost care to not edit war or otherwise violate policies. If you're ever unsure as to whether an edit is appropriate, consider reaching out to me or another administrator on their talkpage, or taking the issue to the teahouse for advice. As you have stated that you are a subject matter expert in this field, make sure that you only use your expertise to find and cite reliable sources. Writing a claim without proper sourcing because you personally know it to be true is not allowed on Wikipedia under our policies against original research, even if you are a subject matter expert. signed,Rosguill talk 01:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As for editing subjects related to these medical conditions, what I have written here is advice, not an actual ban. If you insist on editing these subjects, make sure that you take the utmost care to not edit war or otherwise violate policies. If you're ever unsure as to whether an edit is appropriate, consider reaching out to me or another administrator on their talkpage, or taking the issue to the teahouse for advice. As you have stated that you are a subject matter expert in this field, make sure that you only use your expertise to find and cite reliable sources. Writing a claim without proper sourcing because you personally know it to be true is not allowed on Wikipedia under our policies against original research, even if you are a subject matter expert. signed,Rosguill talk 01:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)