Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Billybostickson! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mac Henni and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((help me)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} (Note: respond on minha talk page 17:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Mac Henni

Hello, Billybostickson. You have new messages at Mac Henni's talk page.
Message added 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

You can link the pages like this, by the way: [[Talk:List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Requesting an Edit to the China Section in this article to add more detail due to semi-protected status of page and no edit option]] Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} (Note: respond on minha talk page) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet. Hence we need summaries from secondary or tertiary sources rather than excerpts from transient news articles. Materialscientist (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please do read our policies (e.g. WP:NOT). Do not rush. Bold edit warring will only result in a routine block of your account, to prevent further disruption. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, Ok, materialscientist, i get that, I will have to summarise and paraphrase everything in my own words, Oh no, that is going to take ages, oh well, thanks for clarifying as I didn't understand your previous comment about "not being constructive". I think it is important to get these facts on to the section in question otherwise visitors will assume that the article is extremely biased. Billybostickson (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that writing an encyclopedia would be easy. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, we live and learn. I am hoping some other editor with more experience will be able to adapt the information into a suitable format so that the article appears less biased (my opinion of course) as I am unable to pursue this due to poor health. Billybostickson (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I am slowly adding things to the article. If there's something in particular you think should go in, please suggest it here. I am mostly just using the sources you give (and not the text you provided) to avoid copyright issues and to summarize in the way I've learned on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great, [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir as long as the sources listed are used I imagine that whatever you write will encapsulate the overall message without infringing copyright or using direct quotations, so it is unlikely that anyone could object to the inclusion of those incidents in China. Actually, I was surprised that no one else had added similar reports before, although the guardian article in my sources was mentioned by someone else a week ago but someone deleted it for unknown reasons, which was what partly inspired me to try to edit the article (major fail;) Well, thanks again, look forward to seeing the changes.

Billybostickson (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 - 2

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Your cited source only covers the comic strip that, as it happens, has since been deleted on WeChat; it has no mention of the ethnic / citizenship breakdown of imported cases in the mainland. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted the edit because the comics have already been covered by another source, and concur with this assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, I am watching your talk page, so it would have been preferable to reply here. It is acceptable to mention the breakdown (sourced to FT or Bloomberg), but with two caveats: 1) mention when the ratio was calculated 2) not make an editorial inference unless a reliable source makes it, so as to observe WP:SYNTH. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks CA, sorry I didn't know you were watching this page, I am quite new to wikipedia. About the ration calculation date, I am not 100& sure as I don't find that information in the two sources. Anyway, appreciate your guidance on this issue. Billybostickson (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 - 3

Your recent editing history at List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Carl Fredrik^talk 10:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl Fredrik:^talk OK, thanks for that advice. I have taken it onboard and have now created an attempt to achieve consensus with user @Donkey Hot-day on the Talk page for "List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic"

I will wait for a resolution before adding back any of my contributions. Hope it works!

Just for the record, :@Carl Fredrik: have I in fact broken the three-revert rule or not? I wasn't sure from the text above.

Billybostickson (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only count two reverts, but it is good that you are aware of edit warring policy before persisting. For the record, the back-and-forth occurred during my overnight hours, so have not examined the edits, but you should be careful with attribution and going overboard with descriptive language such as "Shanghai media" when it was only the Shanghaiist that was represented. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, :@CaradhrasAiguo: so, would I be within my Wikipedia rights to report user: @Donkey Hot-day for breaking the 3 revert rule without getting a WP: Boomerang?

I gleaned this from the Talk page:

"Second, @Donkey Hot-day you seem to believe based on your edit summary [4] that this was your first revert, it wasn’t... It was your third, refrain from reverting again to avoid a WP:Boomerang when you report them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Actually you might want to hold back on reporting, given [5] it appears you’ve also broken the three revert rule making WP:Boomerang a near certainty. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)"

Not saying I will as it seems complex to justify why, but I am trying to understand how these mechanisms operate in case the user refuses to engage in consensus seeking on the talk page. Billybostickson (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are within your Wikipedia rights does not make it prudent to do so. You already posted on the talk page; I think you would rather continue engaging there than be plunged into the drama of administrative noticeboards, which WP:AN/EW is. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: Fair enough, sounds reasonable, thanks.Billybostickson (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Mac Henni

Hello, Billybostickson. You have new messages at Mac Henni's talk page.
Message added 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hey, I responded on my talk page to your query! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} (Note: respond on minha (my) talk page) 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Mac Henni

Hello, Billybostickson. You have new messages at Template talk:This is a new user.
Message added 21:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I think you should state your rationale here. As always I stuck up for you. :) Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} (Note: respond on minha (my) talk page) 21:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~)). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation are unacceptable. As it says at WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, if you would like to discuss editor conduct rather than focus on content and processes, please do so at the editor's talk page or at an administrator's noticeboard. If you would like to discuss an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM exist. Your recent post attacking Bong! at the deletion discussion was inappropriate. As for WP:SPA, the evidence speaks for itself and there's a widely used template for the community to tag such WP:!VOTEs. You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack, so I'm reporting you as promised. —Paleo Neonate – 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again, —Paleo Neonate – 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

"I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee

If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that. Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish. . And please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text. To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Notice that you are now subject to a sanction

The following sanction has been incorrectly imposed on you:

~~You are topic banned from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community, or 01 January 2023, whichever comes first.~~

You ~~have~~ had been incorrectly sanctioned for persistently causing disruption and ignoring community concerns about your behavior in this area, this time by edit warring.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that topic. 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. was incorrect.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was done before you had been formally alerted about this possibility. The sanction was incorrect and has been removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 2 weeks

To enforce community-authorised general sanctions, and for violating the aforementioned topic ban on the page WP:AN, as described at WP:GS/COVID19,
you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block was based on an incorrect sanction and has been removed. See the section above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have become aware that an admin User: RandomCanadian who deleted one of my contributions for no logical reason:

then pinged you as an "uninvolved admin" apparently as a "solution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Lab_leak_COVID_conspirac_theory,_again

and in order to block me and stop me contributing to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis

You did this at 00:11. 13th Feb.

Then, 28 minutes later you arbitrarily imposed a two week editing ban despite the fact that 1. I was not yet given any reasonable time (28 minutes) to become aware of the previous sanction and 2. that I did not in fact make any edits on that page during that time. 3. Your arbitrary action in imposing a further two week editing ban almost immediately thus prevented me from responding on the administrator noticeboard page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

(you also deleted my edit there twice with no reason given) after I followed the requirements by informing the two users User:PaleoNeonate and User:Hemiauchenia that I wished to mention them on that page as per the regulations for that page. One of the users even removed the information informing him User:PaleoNeonate from his talk page.

This looks like a brazen attempt to gag a Wikipedia contributor through collusion. Although both you and the other editors concerned have deleted many edits and evidence of their attacks on me, I have recorded screenshots of their threats and attempts to WP:HOUND me. My suggestion is that you immediately remove the two week editing block so that I can answer the unjustified and false claims made against me on the relevant page. Once you have shown good faith by doing that we can move forward to discuss other issues regarding your sudden appearance at the "ping request" of user: Random Canadian which clearly provoked your action in banning me and attempting to gag me. Billybostickson (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It appears that you've been unblocked. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I wished to make (which you ~ ToBeFree reverted twice) was to clarify a false accusation of "an attack" on an admin after I merely reminded the admin of the heading at the top of the page regarding "voting" in a polite way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis

It is all quite clear here:

And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:

(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"

Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

I've managed to find an archive. Does anyone know who I should send this privately to? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I've emailed an archived link to Boing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk) I have zero interest in your identity and whether it is real or fake, that's not my business. As for me, yes I am using a pseudonym as I explained to you above. Do you have a problem with that? If there is a random Twitter account that you found while trying to WP:OUTING and WP:HOUND me, and the Twitter handle looks like my pseudonym, again that is not my business, nor should it be yours. Kindly refrain from WP:HOUND and threatening WP:OUTING. I will be inclined to report this threatening behaviour if it continues. Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk sorry , I do not understand what you mean by "pinging an uninvolved admin". Is this related to your deletion of my comment here which you justified with "ZBB is an Admin"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1006437415 Billybostickson (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice and warning

Billybostickson, the block was incorrectly based on an incorrectly placed sanction. The following formal notice had never been delivered to you, but such a notice would have been a requirement for the sanction.

Please note; this is a final warning: You will be topic banned exactly as previously incorrectly done, if you continue to disruptively edit in this area. I believe that the sanction was and is necessary to prevent further disruption; I would else not have placed it.

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.

Template:Z33

Additional information, as the topics can quickly become related:

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.

Template:Z33

If you have any procedural questions about these notifications, please ask them before continuing to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree I would like you to explain why the second ban was sent within 28 minutes of the first one, thus effectively gagging me, without a warning. Clearly you are an experienced admin and must know the correct procedures, so I feel an explanation is warranted. For example, which edit of mine provoked the second ban? Next, I would like you to answer the following 6 questions (for context kindly see below the questions:

1. Is it appropriate WP behaviour for someone who rverts a user's edit without giving a reasonable explanation to then "ping an uninvolved admin" (you) to find a "solution" to what was obviously a minor issue. 2. If a user accuses me of "attacking" an admin, which is patently false, I believe I have the right to respond on the page where the accusation is made, is that correct? 3. Thus, why did you delete twice my contribution on the admin noticeboard page which responded to the false claims. 4. If you look at my contributions on that page about Draft Covid-19 lab leak, all my contributions were polite, helpful and in line with WP rules, so why did you accuse me of "persistently causing disruption and ignoring community concerns about your behavior in this area, this time by edit warring"? 5. It is good that I have been unblocked and unbanned, but I would like to have my response on the admi9n noticeboard page undeleted, can you do that? can I do that? Please clarify. Thank you. 6. Finally, as mentioned before, I would like you to explain why the second ban was sent within 28 minutes of the first one, thus effectively gagging me, without a warning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis

It is all quite clear here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billybostickson

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1006437415 Billybostickson (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Billybostickson (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty chaotic; the following answer is in response to the seven questions at the top of your message.

The edit that seemed to make a block necessary was your second edit after my notification. After making your first edit, you have been notified about new messages on your talk page, by an orange banner and a red notification alert. I assumed that you had seen them or actively ignored them, and in both cases, a block would have been necessary to prevent further similar contributions. I agree that this is a debatable decision and that a warning could have achieved the same result.

Yes, asking for an uninvolved administrator's input can be a reasonable thing to do in such cases, especially in areas that are prone to disruptive editing even from experienced users. COVID-19 is such an area. This is why WP:GS/COVID19 exists. A relevant guideline when making such a decision can be WP:Canvassing, but pinging a single uninvolved administrator to a stalled noticeboard discussion is fine.
Generally, yes. That is, until persistent repetition of the same views/arguments (WP:IDHT) or edit warring (WP:EW) happen.
I believed that you had been correctly topic banned from this area of conflict, and your contributions violated the topic ban. Please see WP:BANEX for the very limited exceptions, which did not apply.
This is because you have been edit warring by repeatedly re-inserting a removed comment that was removed in good faith, ignoring community concerns about your edit.
I strongly advise against further pushing in this regard, as your message has very likely been read by everyone you attempted to reach. However, you are not currently prohibited from doing so, and would not be topic banned just for re-inserting the message. I have removed your message based on an incorrect decision, so re-instating it can be a reasonable thing to do. A much more helpful approach for the whole debate is described at WP:DISENGAGE.
I have incorrectly assumed that you had previously been alerted about the sanctions in this area. See the bullet point above "1." for details.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]