User talk:Billybostickson

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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]

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]

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]

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] 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. —PaleoNeonate – 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again, —PaleoNeonate – 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]

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]

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).

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]

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:

"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)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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]

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.

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.

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.

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:

"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)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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 the first of these edits, 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.

1. 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.
2. Generally, yes. That is, until persistent repetition of the same views/arguments (WP:IDHT) or edit warring (WP:EW) happen.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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]

OK, ~ ToBeFreeThank you for helping to clarify that, I understand some of your explanations, but one seems not correct: "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." That happened twice, the first time User: RandomCanadian justified the delete by saying "ZBB is an Admin", the second user User: PaleoNeonate deleted my revert saying "I will report you", then falsely and maliciously accused me of attacking the admin Boing! Said Zebedee. This is not true as anyone who reads the text in question will concur that my contribution was accurate, appropriately worded, timely and useful for the community on that page, since it merely reflected the page heading explanation about "votes".

Anyway, thanks again for taking time to clarify what happened.Billybostickson (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again for the incorrect block and you're welcome, Billybostickson. I normally wouldn't reply; this is a perfectly fine ending. For accountability reasons, I need to address the concern regarding the edit war, since this is what has caused the entire sanction in the first place: I believe that neither RandomCanadian nor PaleoNeonate have reverted your edit in bad faith. I agree that it was an unnecessary comment, disruptively making a point by teaching grandmother to suck eggs. I personally wouldn't have removed it, but adding the same comment three times against the concerns of two other users is edit warring. A reasonable approach would be waiting a few hours, thinking about the comment again, and then talking to the removing user if the removal still seems unreasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree] OK, Fair Point! I guess We can agree to disagree on that. Thank you for the time and attention about this.

The following sanction has been 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.

You have been sanctioned for persistently ignoring community concerns about your edits, pushing fringe theories and persistently accusing others of malice and bias (see also WP:ASPERSIONS), such as you did at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

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.

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) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the need for the ban in your very first edit after it has been placed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for effectively gagging me from seeking dispute resolution.

1. It is clear that I constructively engaged editors on the Talk Page in lieu of adding my contribution, which is an accurate, well sourced, truthful and timely quote from the Director General of the WHO and a statement by professor John watson on BBC confirming the same.

2. Instead of engaging in edit wars or other childish behaviour, i politely discussed my proposed contribution with the editors here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Deletion of a clarification by the Director General of the WHO on February 12th (less than 5200 words).

3. After civilised discussion, consensus was not reached so I asked for Dispute Resolution at the relevant noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

4. Imagine my surprise when you turned up like a bad penny again on the noticeboard and gagged me from what is considered to be a means to solve disputes, by saying the following: "I have now banned the editor from the topic area, please close this section. They can't participate in the dispute resolution process anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2021"

5. Very helpful, I'm sure! Next point, the alleged reason for the block was "for making personal attacks towards other editors". However, this is contrary to the facts, as

6. It was other editors who falsely and maliciously accused me of "attacking an admin" and they have yet to apologise.

7. I specifically and politely asked for dispute resolution as per WP rules, which you appear to be attempting to subvert by asking for my dispute resolution request to be deleted then blocking and banning me, thus preventing me from contributing to the dispute resolution process.

8. Now, moving on to the ban you imposed, your reasons were as follows: "You have been sanctioned for persistently ignoring community concerns about your edits, pushing fringe theories and persistently accusing others of malice and bias (see also WP:ASPERSIONS), such as you did at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard."

9. "persistently ignoring community concerns about your edits" This is a barefaced lie as I deliberately chose not to edit the Article Page and instead discussed the proposed contribution on the Article Talk page. Kindly delete that false accusation immediately.

10. "pushing fringe theories" Again this another barefaced lie. After my original inclusion of the Director General of the WHO's quoted clarification regarding all hypothese remaining on the table (which is accurate, valid and timely), I chose not to attempt to add it again, thus avoiding "pushing WP:FRINGE, instead I chose to discuss logically and politely with editors on the Talk Page in line with WP recommendations. So, again, kindly delete that false accusation immediately.

11. "persistently accusing others of malice and bias (see also WP:ASPERSIONS)" You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word "persistent'. But, yes it does seem that they and you are in fact biased against any mention of "lab leak theory", which has not been debunked, nor has the WHO rejected it, nor is their scientific consensus rejecting it. I suggest you stop conflating "lab leak theory" with "bioweapon theory" as they are two different things as anyone with half a brain understands.

12. So yes, there has been a biased attempt by gatekeepers to conflate a valid theory with a debunked one.

13. The valid "lab leak theory" is currently being given due weight by the WHO and many respected Scientists, including Ebright, Lentzos, Sirotkin, Leitenberg, Relman (who worked with WIV to improve biosafety in 207-2018). they all consider a lab leak possible and quite likely and some have called for an investigation of laboratories in Wuhan. A case in point can be found here:

"The data currently available are not sufficient to firmly assert whether SARS-CoV2 results from a zoonotic emergence or from an accidental escape of a laboratory strain."

From: Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1

14. Finally, the original dispute was about the statement of the Director General of the WHO and confirmation of this by Professor John Watson on the BBC today:

Here it is:

"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."

"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."

https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-member-states-briefing-on-covid-19---11-february-2021

15. It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses", including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.

https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Virus_Outbreak_China_WHO_Mission_94779.jpg?w=1080

16. There seems to be intent to misinterpret the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accuse him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute.

17. Nobody except for some Wikipedia editors seem to have any doubt about the meaning of Dr. Tedros's statement:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/all-hypotheses-on-covid-19-origins-still-being-investigated-says-who-boss

The background which informs the statement can be understood here:

"A spokesperson for the WHO says the mission will be guided by science, and “will be open-minded, iterative, not excluding any hypothesis that could contribute to generating evidence and narrowing the focus of research”."

Where did COVID come from? WHO investigation begins but faces challenges https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9

and the WHO Tors (China Side)

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version.pdf

and

https://www.who.int/nepal/activities/supporting-elimination-of-kala-azar-as-a-public-health-problem/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200802-tors-chn-and-who-agreed-final-version

18. So, to recap, many Scientists, such as Ebright, Leitenberg, Fumanski, Relman, Sirotkin, Decroly, Lentzos, van Helden, Canard, etc, have come out with support for the lab leak theory:

http://www.ianbirrell.com/world-experts-condemn-who-inquiry-as-a-charade/

19. Multiple news media sources have the courage and determination to pursue the lab leak theory as a plausible, indeed likely hypothesis:

https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9257413/Secret-bat-cages-Wuhan-lab-researchers-planned-breed-animals-virus-experiments.html

As have AP, BBC, Le Monde, Sky News, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Times, Taiwan News, L'Equipe, etc.

Now Professor John Watson from the WHO team has confirmed on BBC News that all hypotheses are still on the table and in response to a specific question from the interviewer that the lab leak hypothesis has not been ruled out.

See: Prof John Watson on Wuhan Covid origins (BBC Politics). Andrew Marr. Most Sundays from 9am on BBC One

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1360885644600373255/vid/1280x720/ZZYs8_GsMda1GB_9.mp4

20. Will you be saying that Professor Watson is WP:FRINGE now? Or the BBC is not a valid source?

21. When people read these articles and watch the news stories, then come here to have a check, they will be astounded at how a handful of biased editors and admins are dedicating themselves to making WP a laughing stock.

22. I have tried to make this all as clear as possible to avoid misunderstanding and insist that you remove both the block and ban forthwith and I would like an apology for false accusations from you, User:RandomCandadian and User: Paleoneonate.

23.I also request that you commit to an improvement plan which will help you to free yourself from bias, act in a more helpful manner and avoid bullying and malicious attempts to gag contributors and prevent them from seeking dispute resolution.

24. Kindly provide coherent information on how to proceed with this request if you are unable to think rationally. Billybostickson (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is way too long. I suggest you post a new unblock request, this time keeping it to around 100 or 200 words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The topic ban appeal portion of your appeal is hereby rejected; feel free to appeal to the community after the block. The block is unrelated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billbybostickson, no admin wants to read that long, off-point, and problematic unblock request, and if they do read it, they aren't unblocking you in response. Your unblock request has all the same problematic behaviors that got you unblocked in the first place. If you really want to ask to be unblocked, I suggest you read very carefully the guide to appealing blocks, which the block notice point you at but which is at WP:GAB. But I think you'd actually be better off spending the two weeks of your block actually reading Wikipedia policy around WP:Assuming good faith and reading various talk pages to see how those policies are interpreted. If you throw about terms like 'falsely and maliciously' and 'barefaced lie' and 'anyone with half a brain understands' and 'bullying and malicious attempts to gag contributors' and 'if you are unable to think rationally', you are likely to end up indefinitely blocked and without access to your talk page. If you can't interact civilly with other editors when you disagree with them, we really don't need your help. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Per the block log, you are blocked for making personal attacks. You're either going to need to make the case (in a clear, concise, and convincing fashion) that you did not make personal attacks, or make the case that you will not make them moving forward. I'm willing to look at your case as a neutral admin, if you can make a far shorter case that addresses the block itself.

@ToBeFree: would you mind linking to the diff of the personal attack so that the reviewing admin doesn't have to search for it, please? SQL^{Query me!} 20:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The straw that broke the camel's back is Special:Diff/1006770097 at WP:AN, beginning with "I can only conclude that you both failed to read", continuing with "you both continue to make perverse and false accusations", alleging "delusion", excluding the addressed person from the group "anyone with intelligence", alleging "childish bully boy tactics", and alleging malice. However, there is a longer history of disruptive personalization of disputes, such as in Special:Diff/1005968425 at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, where a disagreeing discussion participant is called "a sockpuppet and troll who is deliberately sabotaging this page and refusing to engage in honest discourse" and requested to be banned "from further edits and malicious behaviour which puts Wikipedia into disrepute", nothing of which is true. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the problem is that this newish editor is used to interacting online in places that allow people to talk to one another like that, and they've become so inured to it that they don't understand what we're objecting to. Billybostickson, we don't talk to one another that way here. Ideally we interact with one another as if we're in the headquarters office of a Fortune 500 workplace. If you wouldn't say it to your co-workers in front of someone from Human Resources and your boss, you shouldn't say it to other editors here. This isn't Reddit or 4chan or Parler. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee I am not North American and I don't use Reddit, 4Chan or Parler, so I don't know what you are talking about now. What I do know is that you deliberately tried to belittle my claim of racist abuse by an admin involved in gagging me. If you tried doing that in a Fortune 500 Company you would not last long. So, please when someone complaims about racist taunting, take their complaints seriously instead of dismissing them, and never attempt to gloss over such actions with mealy mouthed platitudes about circuses. It just makes it worse, don't you understand that? Billybostickson (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Thank you for taking time to come here and comment. If you read the relevant Talk Page you will see that I engaged in polite discussion until i was falsely accused of attacking an admin. I complained but was gagged by an admin who then blocked and banned me and destroyed my dispute resolution request. I have the patience of a saint, but this going beyond the pale. Now I have been racially abused, what would you like me to do? Bend Over and ask WP admins to abuse me further?

@ToBeFree: Thank you for offering to help, I appreciate it.

Regarding allegations of personal attack:

I engaged in polite discussion until i was falsely accused of attacking an admin by two users RandomCanadian and PaleoNeonate. This was a false accusation which has been repeated by the users:

"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, —[[User:PaleoNeonate"

There was no attack, a humorous admonishment if anything:

"(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!"

and I deliberately refrained from reverting edits, instead taking the discussion to the Talk Page as requested:

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

I complained but was gagged by an admin who then blocked and banned me and destroyed my dispute resolution request.

I have the patience of a saint, but this going beyond the pale.

Now I have been racially abused, what would you like me to do? Bend Over and ask WP admins to abuse me further?

I have written to the Arbitration Committee to ask for help as I have been subject to racist abuse.

I am a little new to Wikipedia and have tried my level best to adhere to the rules and communicate as politely as possible under the circumstances.

I have also been subject to racist abuse, after being called a Monkey by another admin who collaborated in deleting my humble request for dispute resolution.

"The topic ban appeal portion of your appeal is hereby rejected; feel free to appeal to the community after the block. The block is unrelated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

I thought that an independent admin would review it, but it was the same admin who blocked and banned me (ToBeFree)

why I have been gagged and prevented from seeking dispute resolution here?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

by the same admin (ToBeFree)

"Note: I have now banned the editor from the topic area, please close this section. They can't participate in the dispute resolution process anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

This was the same admin who was pinged before as "a solution" by a group of editors who were trying to gag me:

"@ToBeFree: Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)"

Mu dispute resolution request which was correctly prepared by notifying all the involved editors on their talk pages was then removed by "NightenBelle"

"filing editor is now topic banned. Problem solved. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

This person subsequently called me a monkey on their talk page which is racial harassment and cannot be allowed on WP or elsewheres:

"Problem solved

Yes. It doesn't matter whether we say that the editor was causing the problem or that the editor was the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

"The lab leak case was easier than the case of the Romani Hungarians. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)"

"LOL perhaps both? Some otherwise perfetly reasonable editors just can't avoid chasing certain carrots when they are dangled in front of them. But.... no longer monkeys in our particiular tent of the WP circus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightenbelle#Problem_solved

Regarding the future, I am always in favour of polite dialogue so can guarantee not to admonish users if they too engage in polite discourse. Billybostickson (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The block is about your behavior, not others' behavior. See WP:NOTTHEM for advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billybostickson, you'll have much better luck if you stay very, very brief. Robert McClenon wasn't calling you a monkey. He was referring to the phrase Not my circus, not my monkeys which simply means 'not my business.' Pinging an uninvolved admin is what you are supposed to do when you need help with a behavioral issue. Let's see, going through the complaints...gagged; no, you aren't gagged. You can still seek dispute resolution by asking for another editor to post to AN for you. ToBeFree is still an uninvolved admin, you don't necessarily get a new one for every new issue. —valereee (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Do you know anything about Racism and how to deal with complaints of Racism?

How dare you try to belittle my perception of a racist slur used against me. This will be dealt with by the appropriate WP authorities, so please refrain from further comments here which are likely to aggravate the situation. Thank you. Billybostickson (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billybostickson, you're talking to an administrator who is dealing with the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ToBeFree said. I am that brand-new admin you were asking for. Not sure how that aggravates anything, but if you reject help from an uninvolved admin, no other admins are likely to try. —valereee (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context, by the way, is Special:Diff/1006778219, by Nightenbelle, not Robert McClenon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. I have now sent an email to the Arbitration Committee to inform of them of racist taunting and admins trying to explain it away. I also find your response disturbing and as you are included in my formal complaint, I suggest you go elsewhere until this issue is resolved. Your contribution is not very helpful, but thank you anyway for your time and energy. Billybostickson (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL^{Query me!} and NinjaRobotPirate Thank you for your advice.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been falsely accused of attacking and admin and attacking editors. I engaged in polite discussion until I was falsely and repeatedly accused of attacking an admin by 2 users RandomCanadian & PaleoNeonate: "I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block, —User:PaleoNeonate" There was no attack, a humorous admonishment if anything: "(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!" Re: "You have been sanctioned for persistently ignoring community concerns about your edits, pushing fringe theories and persistently accusing others of malice and bias, such as you did at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard." 1. I have not persistently ignored community concerns about my edits, in fact I refrained from making any on the Article and engaged in discussion on the Talk Page as requested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Deletion%20of%20a%20clarification%20by%20the%20Director%20General%20of%20the%20WHO%20on%20February%2012th%20(less%20than%205200%20words) 2. I have not pushed WP:FRINGE in any way, I merely fact checked a false claim by suggesting a quote from the DG of the WHO and Professor John Watson was included. How is this pushing WP:FRINGE? 3. Yes, I have accused others of bias because it is clear from the discussion that they are indeed biased. If bias exists, it should be called out, as is the case now with exactly the same issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#WHO's%20update%20on%20the%20Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20hypothesis I hope this edited text is short enough. Thank you Billybostickson (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. There is a newer unblock request open below. SQL^{Query me!} 02:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

SQL^{Query me!} and NinjaRobotPirate One last point, I cannot appeal my ban on the Administrator Noticeboard until my block is lifted because I can only edit on my Talk Page, so that is another reason why I would like it lifted, to give me a chance to appeal my ban. Billybostickson (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting in your unblock request. Another admin should be by shortly to review it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The straw that broke the camel's back is Special:Diff/1006770097 at WP:AN, beginning with "I can only conclude that you both failed to read", continuing with "you both continue to make perverse and false accusations", alleging "delusion", excluding the addressed person from the group "anyone with intelligence", alleging "childish bully boy tactics", and alleging malice. However, there is a longer history of disruptive personalization of disputes, such as in Special:Diff/1005968425 at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, where a disagreeing discussion participant is called "a sockpuppet and troll who is deliberately sabotaging this page and refusing to engage in honest discourse" and requested to be banned "from further edits and malicious behaviour which puts Wikipedia into disrepute", nothing of which is true. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
— Me, above.

The unblock request does not address the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this isn't what you want to hear - but "I can only conclude that you both failed to read what I wrote", "desist from engaging in childish bully boy tactics", and "It is nothing of the kind as anyone with intelligence would agree" all fall far short of the expectations laid forth at WP:CIVIL. There are more, quotes from you like this - these are just examples.

A request addressing this issue would either be to make a convincing argument as to why those quotes are, in fact, in line with the behavioral expectations set at WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA - or - a convincing commitment to cease making such attacks going forth. It is my opinion that this request does not address the reason for the block.

I will not decline your unblock - I will leave it open for another admin to review, in case I'm incorrect with my interpretation of the situation.

Once you are unblocked, you will be able to appeal your topic ban at WP:AN. It isn't really relevant while you are blocked if I'm understanding the situation correctly. SQL^{Query me!} 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Thank you for your advice.

Sorry, in my request to remove the BLOCK, I included my explanation of why I want the BAN removed as well (because I cannot appeal my ban on the Admin Noticeboard per WP Policy as I was blocked immediately after being banned). My mistake. In my unblock request I disputed the accusation of attacking an admin (which is what I thought I was being accused of):

The block says: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions."

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).

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

---

Request reason:

If possible, I would like to renew my request to unblock me in a way that addresses the specific allegations because I misinterpreted the reason for the block. I deny that I attacked other editors as alleged:

"I can only conclude that you both failed to read" This means that I believe the editors did not read something. Not an Attack.

"you both continue to make perverse and false accusations" This is correct and factual, they accused me of attacking an admin (Boing! Said Zebedee) and everyone who has read what I said agrees it was not an Attack, even the admin himself did not complain. I still am demanding that they retract that false and perverse accusation.

"alleging "delusion". Yes, because they continue to argue illogically and refuse to delete a false claim, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#WHO's%20update%20on%20the%20Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20hypothesis

"excluding the addressed person from the group "anyone with intelligence". This is incorrect and is not an attack.

"alleging childish bully boy tactics"

Yes, I did feel I was being bullied and that is the impression of many other users who have had the misfortune to frequent the covid-19 misinformation page. not only do I feel bullied but I also feel that the attempts to gag me are indeed childish.

Again, anyone with an open mind can review my contributions on the Article talk page and see clearly that they are polite, accurate and helpful, and that instead of editing the Article, I sought consensus on the talk page.

"and alleging malice".

OK, I am not sure if the editors in question are indeed acting maliciously or just being obtuse, but they certainly seem even more confused now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#WHO's%20update%20on%20the%20Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20hypothesis

I do not agree that I was attacking editors as they used similar language and even worse actions against me on several occasions. Like I said, I am very polite unless I am attacked for no reason and subject to false acusations or racist abuse, then I can be equally obnoxious, I'm sure that is normal behaviour on any forum.

I can also guarantee that I will be polite and civil in future and bite my tongue before arguing with WP editors.

The real problem here is some very heavy handed editors are gatekeeping the article in question, falsely conflating different theories and refusing to accept that they are wrong about not including the WHO DG's clarification and that of Professor John Watson. The page as it stands now includes a false claim which is bringing WP into disrepute. This has been repeatedly brought to their attention, yet they wilfully persist in refusing to accept that they are wrong, is this not the very definition of "obtuseness". Billybostickson (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Oh dear. You are blocked for personal attacks, and in order to try to be unblocked you post text which includes further personal attacks. That alone would preclude unblocking you, but that is not all. Although this request is a little toned down compared to some of the other content of this page, it still has all the essential problematic properties that are to be seen in your other posts on this page, and in your actions which led up to the block in the first place. There is unlikely to be any point in trying to explain in detail what those problems are, as they have already been explained to you repeatedly, and you show no sign whatever of understanding them, so there is no reason to think that you will suddenly see the light if you are told the same things yet again. However, keeping your talk page access open is achieving nothing other than to allow you to cause other editors to waste time which they could instead have spent on more productive work than responding to your long pompous self-opinionated diatribes in which you fail to address the problems that are the cause of the block, and in which you attempt to defend yourself against accusations of making personal attacks by making personal attacks. I shall therefore remove your talk page access for the duration of the block. I advise you that before the block is over you should re-read all the good-faith comments posted by intelligent and conscientious editors, and consider whether there is anything there from which you can learn. JBW (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So calling me "mealy mouthed" because we disagree about whether there was any likely intended racial slur in the well-known Polish proverb "not my circus, not my monkeys", which is generally understood to mean "not my business", is your idea of being "very polite" unless attacked? I have been nothing but polite to you. I haven't attacked you. I've only said things you disagree with. —valereee (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Do you know anything about Racism and how to deal with complaints of Racism?

—valereee Not sure if you read what I already said about that, it adds the necessary context:

"How dare you try to belittle my perception of a racist slur used against me. This will be dealt with by the appropriate WP authorities, so please refrain from further comments here which are likely to aggravate the situation. Thank you"

In other words, your response to my complaint of racist taunting and crowing over victory by admins, was to try to explain it away as a "polish proverb" on behalf of the admin who made the out of line comment. That's not helpful and shows no understanding of dealing with perceived racist abuse. What you should have done is advised me how to deal with that according to WP policies and rules, not belittle my feelings. Billybostickson (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle is not an administrator. You can click "View user groups" on any user's talk page to see if they are. Additionally, administrators are never required to use their tools. Not taking action is never abuse of administrative privileges, as this is a volunteer-managed community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove this page from my watchlist now - as maybe the way I'm suggesting things just isn't sinking in. In any case - I don't believe that I've actually been of any help here. This is a failure to explain things on my part correctly perhaps. Best of luck, friend. Please try to take what others here have said to heart. SQL^{Query me!} 07:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SQL^{Query me!} you certainly gave good advice which I did consider. The problem is that it is a very complex issue that would require reading of respective talk pages and article talk pages in order to clearly understand the issue regarding unretracted false accusations by two editors (yet to be addressed). It would also require much time to understand the complexities of the discussion regarding failure to include recent clarifications by the WHO DG and Professor John Watson on the page in question. This is an ongoing dispute it seems. Unfortunately, well meaning contributors arrive at such pages, try to add a useful, accurate, well sourced and timely contribution, only to be met with obstruction, inexplicable reverts, confused reasoning, evident bias, etc, etc. As a result, sharp words are often exchanged due to frustration at responses and actions by those veteran users concerned, who act together as gatekeepers on such pages, sometimes to positive effect, but sometimes in line with adopted schema which is neither relevant nor lucid. That is the real issue here and I doubt you or anyone will be able to solve that, ever. So, again Thanks for your time and energy. I have better things to do than try to improve a frankly ludicrous section on a WP Page. I suspect that this particular section will be the subject of derision for many years to come, so perhaps it is better that it stands, as an example of what a WP Page should NOT be. Billybostickson (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try one more time, as w/re the content dispute, I do understand what Bostickson is trying to say, because some normally-considered-reliable sources are discussing this subject as a not-impossibility. I'll try to explain it again.

1. For articles around medicine, we have higher standards, which I believe has been explained to you, and which you don't seem to want to believe, but I'll tell you again: Your sources don't meet the standards. Daily Mail, which is the one you've most often linked to, isn't even reliable enough for normal articles, much less one around medicine. Even the WaPo editorial isn't enough for ones around medicine, especially anything controversial, and this one is highly controversial. I completely agree with you that the WaPo editorial board is saying there might be something there re: a not-impossible lab leak. That's not good enough for articles around medicine.
2. I understand this has been very frustrating for you. That doesn't excuse you calling names. There are a very few times when WP admins will try as long as they can to overlook incivility. Content disputes are not one of them, no matter how frustrating they are, no matter how much you think you're right and others are wrong. (Getting blocked is, however, one of them, which is likely why no one has yet removed your talk page access for the namecalling you're continuing to do in your block requests and posts.)
3. For a block request to work, it has to do one of two things: Explain why it wasn't necessary (see point 2 for why that won't work; this was a content dispute, and you were namecalling our of frustration over it because you thought you were right) or explain why it's no longer necessary because you now understand why the block was necessary and won't do it again. You haven't done that. If you keep writing block requests that insist the block wasn't necessary because you were right in a content dispute, you aren't going to be unblocked. And if you wait out the unblock and in two weeks' time start using that kind of language in a content dispute again because you're frustrated again because you're sure you're right again, you'll likely be blocked again, and probably for longer.
4. Finally, you're very new here. Controversial articles and new editors are a terrible mix, as is obvious to basically everyone watching this. Our policies are arcane and we have a steep learning curve. It's better to learn by editing somewhere else. If you're going to insist on editing in controversial articles, I'm afraid until you understand our policies much better than you think you do, you're going to have to accept it when multiple experienced editors tell you you're wrong about something. That's not gatekeeping. It's consensus on policy going against you, and it's something we all have to learn to deal with. I suggest you go to Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing and enable Navigation Popups. That will allow you to hover over a user name and see how many edits a user has and how long they've been editing. It's a good shorthand for whether they likely know what they're talking about. —valereee (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —valereee that was actually very helpful and useful.Nice you took the time to explain all that. Just some points: 1. The edit that I made on the Article Page was not from the DM, it was correctly, accurately sourced from the WHO DG's Statement on the WHO website (for his quote) and backed up by another valid source, the Straits Times. Please understand the context, a public clarification by the DG. Later when discussing the reason my contribution was reverted, I mentioned further support fromm the Guardian, also a valid source for news (this was news not medical information), I also pointed out a review article based on a French Paper published in Environmental Chemistry which specifically states that a lab leak theory is plausible. This was all happening on the Talk Page, not the Article itself as I decided not to engage in futile edit wars and I was the one who took it to the Talk Page. Now, you mentioned the DM, yes, I did link to that on the Talk Page because it contained summarised quotes from about 10 respected scientists in the field who confirmed that lab leak was quite likely, and another DM Link which I used to illustrate my point that the MSM was giving the lab leak theory due weight. I guess you read the conversation so you will understand that the DM link was context specific and never suggested as an addition to the article itself. As you rightly say, we are not stupid here. 2. Nobody has yet dealt with the issue of two editors falsely accusing me of attacking an admin. You must have see that discussion. It is clear as daylight that i did not attack an admin. The most that could be said would be I was "teaching a grandmother to suck eggs". This is not an attack. People normally dislike being falsely accused. Yet, can you tell me, why has nobody even clarified that or apologised? 3. The underlying reason for the conflict is not my behaviour but rather an obstinate attitude on the part of certain editors who refuse to use critical thinking and instead persist in semantics and obfuscation on order to protect their precious "idee fixe". In this case, I am right and they are wrong, that's basically all there is to it. I sincerely believe that anyone with a clear mind will agree with that. 4. The rest of what you say makes a lot of sense and I will certainly take it on board. I am too busy helping prepare a report for an intelligence agency at the moment to pursue this dispute, and yes, the report is about lab leaks ;) OK, well thanks again for taking to time to help out. Appreciated.

Billybostickson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding point 2, I hadn't been following the argument in detail or I might have commented sooner. I do think your reply to me was an unnecessary response to my simple pointing out of a bit of established Wikipedia procedure. But, for what it's worth, I do not consider it a personal attack. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, since I am one of the persons accused of accusing you (and then I'm also, still accused of making "perverse and false accusations", "continue to argue illogically and refuse to delete a false claim", ...); I did not remove the comment because it was an "attack", but because it was disruptive, see WP:POINTY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee Thanks for coming here to clarify that.

RandomCanadian User:PaleoneonateJust like to set the record straight here, sorry if it is a bit long but it includes all the relevant diffs:

Here is where it all began with my contribution about the WHO DG, accurately sourced, timely and true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006434769

Little did I expect the furore that would be unleashed in response to my mild and humorous admonishment of Boing! Said Zebedee:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006434845

Random Canadian begins with:

“Rollback edit(s) by Billybostickson (talk): Rv disruptive editing; BSZ is an admin.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006435863

I politely disagree and add my edit again:

“Undid revision 1006435995 by RandomCanadian (talk) This is not a logical reason for removing the text as it merely reminds the admin that the discussion is not about counting votes.)”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006435995

Now, PaleoNeonate arrives and reverts what I added

PaleoNeonate (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1006437415 by Billybostickson (talk) will report at WP:ANI if restored) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006437929

I disagree and explain politely why I disagree

“Undid revision 1006440254 by PaleoNeonate (talk) I cannot understand the reason why you deleted the text and why you are threatening me. Kindly clarify your thoughts. Have a Great Day!)”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006440254

Not sure what happened next as it was suppressed by Hemiauchenia

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=1006441295

But later on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, PaleoNeonate and RandomCanadian return to accuse me of being a troll and attacking admins:

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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story

“ 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. —PALEONEONATE”

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=1006441295

Then I was banned and blocked so “problem solved”, and then I was called a monkey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightenbelle#Problem%20solved

This person (who closed the dispute resolution request “filing editor is now topic banned. Problem solved.) Nightenbelle” crowed over their victory with the other person involved who never even bothered to reply to a clarification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#COVID-19%20misinformation#Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20story%20discussion

This is a review of what happened just for the record.

Billybostickson (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billybostickson (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary navigation break[edit]

BBSS, okay, so here's the thing about admins: we don't really care who is wrong or right in a content dispute. When we're acting in an administrative capacity, we don't care about content. We care about behavior. So arguing to me or any other admin that you should be unblocked because you were right and someone else was wrong is a non-starter. So your entire point 1 is irrelevant.

Re: point 2, I've actually been more concerned about what's happening here, where I have followed the conversation and know what's going on, than in trying to trace back the original edit. As far as I can tell you were blocked was because of this edit, so disputes leading up to it are not really all that important. If you want to complain about other editors' behavior, your unblock request is not the place to do it. For purposes of your unblock request, we don't care what they did wrong first. I know that to someone new here, it's hard to understand that "But he started it!" isn't helping you. It's one of the reasons we recommend new editors edit in noncontroversial articles until they learn a bit about how we make a project with hundreds of thousands of semi-anonymous volunteers actually not implode. Here's our recommendation on the normal process for resolving disputes.

Re your point 3, if you call other editors obstinate or say anything like refuse to use critical thinking and instead persist in semantics and obfuscation on order to protect their precious "idee fixe" or anyone with a clear mind will agree with that again, I will remove talk page access. As I've said multiple times, we consider this uncivil, and we only put up with it so long, even when someone has been blocked and is angry. You seem to be having a hard time understanding this, so it might be best if you simply stop commenting on other editors altogether until you've got more time to figure it out.

Re: 4, we'll await coverage of your intelligence report about lab leaks in peer-reviewed medical journals with bated breath. :) —valereee (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) —valereee Thanks for the sarky comment, very helpful, I'm sure. Civility comes in many shapes and sizes and is not just about words but more importantly, actions.Billybostickson (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You found that uncivil? I think your detection settings for incoming vs outgoing might be misaligned, but I apologize for causing offense. —valereee (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Just trying to raise your awareness of the hypocrisy inherent in equating civility with linguistic features while ignoring actions, a bit like someone deliberately stamping on your foot on a packed train while fake smiling at you and saying "so, sorry!", so no need to apologise at all ;)Billybostickson (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you lost me, can you clarify on what you mean by "equating civility with linguistic features while ignoring actions"?

There's information about talk page formatting at Wikipedia:TALKREPLY; basically, when you respond to someone, insert one more colon in front of your post than are in front of the post you're replying to. That helps other editors follow a conversation. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"equating civility with linguistic features while ignoring actions" is:

"a bit like someone deliberately stamping on your foot on a packed train while fake smiling at you and saying "so, sorry!"

an analogy which if transplanted to WP, would be someone doing something annoying while being polite (for example). Billybostickson (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as explained here:

Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and abuse of talk pages as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues. Just as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR cannot be applied in isolation, WP:CIVIL should not be interpreted or enforced without reference to other guidelines and policies. Civility is important, but it does not trump other core behavioral and content policies. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Even when such behavior is superficially civil it is just as harmful to the project, if not more so, than incivility. The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated. Civility does not mean that editors cannot disagree. Academe is well known for spirited debates and disagreements and these often point the way to progress. The key principle is "stay on topic"; that is, arguments should be on the merits and not personalities. Editors should bear in mind that a disagreement with their point is not an attack on their honor. Billybostickson (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nav break for tp indenting guidelines[edit]

Yeah, I'm familiar with policy. I've done something that equates to deliberately stamping on your foot while fake smiling at you? Sorry to hear that's how it feels. I'm no angel but usually I'm not that big of an asshole, frankly.

Inserting a new nav break so we can do TP formatting discussion without having to go back yonks. There's information about talk page formatting at Wikipedia:TALKREPLY; basically, when you respond to someone, insert one more colon in front of your post than are in front of the post you're replying to. That helps other editors follow a conversation. For instance, when you reply to this post of mine, you'll use a single colon. When I reply to that one of yours, I'll use two. It'll look like this:

Point 1

1st reply to point 1

1st reply to 1st reply to point 1

2nd reply to 1st reply to point 1

2nd reply to point 1

Point 2

—valereee (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billybostickson will surely be extended confirmed before the end of the block. Perhaps we could wait for someone to review the unblock request. This section, however, is probably actually helpful as ensures a minimum level of readability in the likely following AN discussion about the topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this into a separate section, as it's unrelated to your block. I know a very small amount about racism: that as a white person in a culture dominated by white people I'm inherently racist, and that it's necessary for me to accept what persons of color are telling me about what is and isn't racist. Certainly if you want to file a complaint that the proverb "not my circus, not my monkeys" is always racist regardless of context, and that therefore the editor who used it to describe a situation, believing you to be a person of color, was calling you a monkey, that's your prerogative.

I don't think it's something I'd recommend you do, as frankly it was when you started making accusations of racism (from the use of a saying that is widely understood to mean a situation is not my business or not my responsibility to deal with and which is not understood to be referring to the people involved in that situation) that I started to wonder if you were maybe just here to try to be generally disruptive. I think this might not be a bad time to tell you that there are actually very few stupid people here. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Thanks. I already complained via email to the Admins about that, so will wait to see what they have to say. My perception when I clicked on the user name which deleted my dispute resolution request was first astonishment at their cavalier and mocking attitude to such request for dispute resolution, and then I was shocked to read "we won't have any more monkeys here on WP" or words to that effect. I interpreted that as a racist slur when taken in the context of crowing over "solving the problem". That doesn't seem respectful and suggests the users were laughing at deleting the dispute resolution while engaging in racist banter. I may be wrong, there may be an innocent explanation, but that was what I felt, and that should be afforded some respect as well. Billybostickson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Billybostickson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please email the Arbitration Committee at your earliest convenience and in any case by Wednesday, February 24. To email the Committee, visit Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee or email arbcom-enwikimedia.org directly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]