This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
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.
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.
Just to be clear, have you participated in the same discussion as both this user and as an IP address? If so, it may run afoul of WP:SOCK. You need to declare when you are returning to a discussion as a username. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That page just stinks of WP:ABF; and that's not a good thing. Not only that, but it is also quite inaccurate. You seem to be claiming that these are "flash reverts" (by which I assume you mean that I reverted without taking the time to look at it). Now that would be very easy to refute if I pointed out the reasons given in the edit summaries. For example, here, I clearly explain exactly why this is wrong (because it is not adhering, even remotely, to what is written in the source, which barely mentions the article subject). The next edit (the one you link) did two things: it removed an unsourced quote (which was also not particularly encyclopedic, being an uncontextualised soundbite from an exchange between Fauci and Paul); and it removed a very mundane statement about speculation concerning holidays and the end of COVID restrictions. The other diff you're complaining about is the removal of this. Now, again, I bothered to provide an edit summary, which you should have read, and attempted to comprehend. Not only was the edit based on news sources (which is not ideal, if those sources contradict scientific journals), but it was also of dubious relevance (since this is more about the controversy surrounding GoFR and the links of Daszak et al. with Chinese researchers: neither of these two are relevant in an article about a lab leak, since, according to scientists, as explained to you already, SARS-CoV-2 didn't come from deliberate engineering [such as GoFR] in a lab...). And, as I gently noted, this was already under discussion (in the long section before, here), and there had not been any consensus for its inclusion, so your edit was also reverted because of that.
The final diff, where you some to insinuate I have no clue ([1]), is similarly petty motivated reasoning. The reason I say "it is a name which I've not heard before, and given they don't appear to be a prominent figure in this" is twofold: 1) unlike people like Andersen, Daszak, Ebright, ..., I don't remember seeing "Waine-Hobson" in the news about this 2) I don't remember seeing his name in any prominent scientific paper on the subject of COVID origins (I searched rather extensively: I've just checked again, in fact, here, and he doesn't appear to have a single publication on the topic...). So yeah, he is not a "prominent figure in this" ("this" being the debate over COVID) - his only relevant contribution seems to have been back in 2013, but obviously that source has no link with COVID, and any such link would be SYNTH. Obviously, if you filed an AE report based on this, it would likely WP:BOOMERANG back on you for being frivolous.
Now, unpleasantness about what was surely an exaggerated threat (and that I have also demonstrated to be unfounded) to get my attention, I'll also take the opportunity to remind you that you seem quite new (you've been here less than a month), and that you should maybe take the advice given to you regarding looking for WP:BESTSOURCES (and being rigourous about it, judging sources not on whether they support your opinion but whether they are written by qualified people and are published in reputable outlets, bonus points if it is a good scientific journal); and also take further time to look at WP:RS: in particular, you should be aware of the dangers of using op-eds/opinion pieces (which should be avoided in the vast majority of cases) - WP:RSOPINION; and of the natural preference for WP:SCHOLARSHIP when writing a WP:MAINSTREAM (i.e. mainstream, in sciences, is not a head count) encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be). WP:FRINGE also has much useful guidance for dealing with ideas which might have aggressive proponents (say, like Drastic) but which are at odd with the positions of qualified authorities. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Final point regarding you asking me to revert: WP:BRD is the usual process. Someone made a Bold edit. Finding it to have fundamental flaws, I Reverted it. Now, you seem to want to include it anyway, maybe in an altered form. That requires, from you, that you Discuss this on the article talk page, and achieve WP:CONSENSUS (which in this case would likely be a compromise which should be acceptable to most participants). Threatening to send others to AE if they disagree with you is only likely to get you more irate responses from people less patient than me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, instead of reverting this edit, you could have tried engaging with Isi96 to encourage and improve their good faith and brave attempt at covering a WP:DUE story that has been going round in RS for many months. Your reversion of Isi96’s edit was not an isolated incident, as you also reverts of Prototyperspective and Yodabyte's were similarly acrimonious, and against the norm in controversial topic areas. If you do not undo your revert of the Prototyperspective's edit, and improve with it with additional information and sources, I will have no choice but to file a case at WP:AE.
Furthermore, your constant misappropriation of WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:BESTSOURCES in the topic area of COVID origins has reached WP:BLUDGEON proportions. As SmolBranesaid, we do not rely exclusively on academic sources for covering stories with political connotations, a point which has been made by many editors in past discussions [2][3]. I would add to this, that since COVID origins is an area of great uncertainty, no consensus can be declared based on the controversial WHO-convened study. I see an WP:ARCA case has been requested by DGG to resolve WP:V problems in the R&I topic area, which mirrors the concerns sources in COVID origins, especially in regards to the Graham Baric paper, the Hakim paper, and a Science magazine article on Ben Embarek’s position.
LondonIP, you may want to look at WP:POLEMIC, which says in part "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Obviously, I don't know if you have imminent plans to use the material, but I can suggest careful consideration of next steps and whether public collection of this negative information is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, thank you. I intend to bring these edits for review to improve the editing atmosphere in the COVID-19 origins topic area. I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years and have never encountered an editor so intent on reverting content in a controversial topic area instead of improving the edit with additional information and sources. I have contributed extensively to the Brexit topic area without seeing any of the sourcing disputes we're seeing in this topic area. I won't file this case if RandomCanadian undoes their revert, as I have requested. LondonIP (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Here's my take, now departing from the strict policy text: I'd recommend compiling evidence off-wiki and only copying it into userspace when I'm minutes/hours away from filing, giving me a little time to get the wiki-formatting right. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the diffs you have collected are in fact good contributions to the state of the project, and if RC reverted the edit reverting Isis96, I would happily reinstate it myself. The material in question was not WP:DUE for the Fauci article (given that Fauci is only a very brief passing mention), but instead for the EHA article. It now appears in the EHA article in a more NPOV fashion. I believe RC was completely within policy to revert the edit as UNDUE, and will say as much in response to any AE filing. If you intend to file at AE or ArbCom, I do have 3 pieces of advice: Keep in mind A) WP:ASPERSIONS (not saying that's what you're doing, but something it would be good for you to read), B) WP:BOOMERANG is always a risk, so be mindful that your conduct will be examined just as closely anywhere and everywhere in this topic area, and C) Content disputes are almost always dismissed in this venues, so you want to be very careful to have a strong case when trying to contradict diffs that are not explicitly breaking "conduct" rules. Your diffs and comments here are mainly about "content" rules, which are more thorny. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have contested this deletion because II is specifically permitted to gather diffs for an arbitration action, The page should be removed after it has been used or become unnecessary. Of course, I have the ability to remove the speedy,but altho doing so is not an admin action, I'm of course involved in this topic. -- DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)``[reply]
I'd just like to add that even if this is not explicitly forbidden by any policy or rule, it is certainly quite bad decorum. Typically a list of diffs like this would be compiled off-site. And if it isn't used in any expedient fashion, I think these CSD tags should likely reapply. One cannot compile a "hate list" ad infinitum. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if it isn't being used it should be offsite. I can't immediately tell if this is going to be active, or not. (My advice, of course, is very definitely to AVOID AE if at all possible. LondonIP, copy and remove the material yourself. -- DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because the limitations of the software permit an article to have only one title, I have seen thousands of disagreements over which title to choose; almost none have made much difference, but a lot of people havve ended leaving WP becausre of them. When I was an arb , one of the things we did was try to figure out the relative responsibility of the two parties to a dispute; I never quite agreed with this, bcause both were almost always responsible, in htesense that either one could have prevented it from being disruption. It's inherent to the manner of working here that things do not always get done the way one would want them. The solution is to leave the matter alone.
And the way to deal with your page of links is to label it for deletion--place {{db-user}} at the top of the page, or it is almost certain to be deleted for you. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I deleted the list to avoid personalisation of the dispute. I would instead like to file an ARCA case to clarify how WP:FRINGE applies to a theoretical possibility that reputed scientists like Simon Wain-Hobson and Alexander Kekulé have commented on in RS. I have never filed an ARCA case though. Can you advise on the procedure? LondonIP (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is here. And you really should not be citing tweets (which are rarely acceptable sources for anything, much less controversial opinions), be they from Ebright or from any of the numerous scientists with opposed views, especially since this is indeed prone to controversy... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for removing the page.
I am not much of an expert at ARCA. i have filed a total of 1, and it justfailedwas rejected. . Perhaps it will inspire others to understand what I think we should mean by NPOV, but it won't have a direct effect. From my experience, the best way to have a good effect on WP is adding unquestionably good references in pertinent places. What is usually a dead end is metadiscussions like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I read the case and I don't think you "failed" at it. I think it just needs to be crafted in the right way. The arbs left open the possibility of filing a case with more specific details. LondonIP (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some recent comments of yours, it does not help to talk about possible arb com or AE actions of any sort. At the right time, it may help to do them. My idea of the right time to try arb com again is after the new arbs take their seats in January. (If something is still being discussed at arb at the end of the year, the outgoing arbs can still join in the matter) I'm not saying the new committee willl necessarily be more open to discussion of this, but at least it's a possibility. My current thought is to let the other parties dig themselves into a hole as new sources accumulate. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Christmas markets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi LondonIP, have you read the WP:AOTE portion of WP:TE? Mixing in accusations of tendentious editing with your points on content is not helpful. If you are convinced an editor is editing disruptively in that way, a good first step might be to bring it up at their user talk page. Firefangledfeathers05:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read it. Please weigh in on the question of what is or is not a scientific debate. I was accused by this editor of "floating" BRD for reinserting the phrase with supporting sources [4]. LondonIP (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading through some sources to see how they describe the debate. If you know of any besides those linked in the article, I'd appreciate the links. It looks like Shibbolethink's edit summary referred not to "floating" but "flouting" as in "willfully ignoring". Firefangledfeathers05:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't actually matter what Shibbolethink accused me of that one time. There is a pattern of behaviour here that is just unacceptable, and he should recognise that. It also doesn't matter how exactly the debate is described, but that it was organised by a scientific journal, with scientists, debating science. It was Shibbolethink who cited WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY is another discussion, which is the relevant policy here, and there is simply no reason not to describe the debate as a scientific one. LondonIP (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mere involvement of scientists does not make something a scientific debate (figuring out some counter-example would be trivial). I've described the rest on the article talk. As for the rest of your comment, WP:CIVIL is a requirement and if you wish to make accusations of misconduct, then the proper way to do so is not as an argument to delegitimise your opponents (rememver WP:BATTLEGROUND), but at the appropriate venue, backed up with appropriate evidence (something which, like for the lab-leak, is sorely lacking here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that my main point here is that if you believe Shibbolethink is acting unacceptably, the best place to bring it up is at his user talk page. Article talk pages are one of the worst places to do so. Even if your user talk page post goes nowhere, at least you can say you followed the first step of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Firefangledfeathers05:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink knows they are acting unacceptably, as do you. He accused me of edit warring over my "preferred wording" as soon as I started editing a page as an IP and immediately requested protection of the page, doubling down on the edit warring accusation when I questioned them, and then denied it. You have provided them with guidance before, and I'd ask you to do so again, otherwise we're headed to WP:AE. LondonIP (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I've done anything wrong, but I also cannot assess all that well given that I am provided so little in the way of actual accusations. Truly, I have no idea which events you've referred to here, given that many different IPs were editing in these articles around the time of the post you've linked. I would remind you from AOTE: unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. I definitely feel quite harassed, as though your repeated accusations are an attempt to discourage me from contributing to that conversation. It's clear from the talk page section that several other editors agree with my position. Are they also tendentious editing? — Shibbolethink(♔♕)18:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia
Hello friend. I noticed you copy pasted some content between articles. Just so you're aware, we're supposed to link back to those articles in our edit summaries when we do this. WP:PATT talks more about this. Anyway that's all for now. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewayne "Lee" Johnson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
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 genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
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.
In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
KoA, thank you for the notification. Do you have a list of all the RfCs or other consensus discussions that have been held on the Roundup and Glyphosate-based herbicides to date? Has there been any discussion about this recent study from the Medical University of Vienna's Institute of Cancer Research and its implications for our (neutral) coverage of the issues? LondonIP (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, especially if trying to cite a contributor with a conflict of interest and [[WP:FRINGE]-proponent ]like Gilliam, is generally not reliable for summaries in this subject. The consensus mostly revolves around what independent organizations have to say rather than just company data, and that's outlined in most of the relevant articles.
To be blunt, given the number of topics you've found yourself having issues in based on the number of DS notifications, I would suggest not pushing so hard on this topic. It's a controversial and technical subject that requires quite a bit of care, and the tone I've seen so far (in addition to citing someone like Gilliam) doesn't look very compatible with it. Continuing to push some of the tone you've already had is only apt to generate more heat in a DS topic that already has a low tolerance for WP:ADVOCACY. KoA (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KoA please can you link to the relevant RfCs or consensus discussions so that I can familiarise myself with the regulatory and litigation issues relating to Roundup and Glyphosate-based herbicides? I want to understand why you consider the position that Glyphosate may cause cancer in groundkeepers to be WP:FRINGE, when independent organisations like UK Cancer Research clearly differentiate between light and heavy exposure. I see your "blunt" comment above as a threat, which I do not appreciate, and which I will cite it in any future DS enforcement attempts. LondonIP (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That you're now trying to turn cautions about your behavior so far into "threats" (and have been cautioned about battleground behavior attitude in other DS topics), I would rather not engage with you further. Please do not ping me again. KoA (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I see your caution as a threat is because as an experienced editor, you know enforcing admins often look at other factors, and not just the topic at hand. Were you to try enforcement and cite "other topics" with the claim of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, I will cite this caution/threat of yours. LondonIP (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Lee (solicitor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Doesn't seem to have any traction beyond WHO suggestion. All sourcing seems to just be repeating one opinion
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, LondonIP!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LondonIP. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (allegations), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
