Hello, BabbleOnto, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform toWikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about theNPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to theQuestions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or,click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Gohere.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check outWikipedia:Questions or ask me onmy talk page. Again, welcome! Bon courage (talk)04:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related toCOVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to thepurposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicablepolicies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain fromgaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk)04:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbleOnto, given you've now been advised that COVID-19 is a contentious topic if you continue edit warring atGain-of-function research you will find yourself the subject of a noticeboard report.TarnishedPath^talk07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you felt the need to put the same notice below a notice which was already left 19 days ago? Other than a thinly-veiled threat?BabbleOnto (talk)07:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BabbleOnto, the previous notice was advising that COVID-19 is a contentious topic. The one provided by @Newslinger advises that post-1992 American politics is a contentious topic.TarnishedPath^talk07:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which post-1992 American politics article did I edit?BabbleOnto (talk)07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InSpecial:Diff/1264713915, you edited theReactions to the Mueller special counsel investigation article, which is covered under the"Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed" contentious topic. — Newslinger talk07:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot I made that edit. My apologies.BabbleOnto (talk)07:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.McSly (talk)20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've posted on my talk page warning me I'm engaging in an "edit-war" for reverting changes. I also notice you have not left any similar warning on the person who is reverting my changes with equal frequency. Could you explain this?BabbleOnto (talk)21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. First, since you are a new user, I'm assuminggood faith as we may not have noticed, but it's not not 1 person reverting you, it's 2, which means obviously NOT with equal frequency. Also 3 editors disagree with you on the talk page. So to be clear, as the person trying to insert the new text, when reverted, you need to wait for the discussion to reachconsensus BEFORE reinserting the text (seeWP:BRD). Youwrongfully tried to reinsert your text multiple times when there was clearly no agreement among the editors. The other editorsrightfully reverted you. This is why you are the only one receiving this warning. If you have any question, let me know. --McSly (talk)21:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments atWP:FTN illustrate that you still have much to learn about how to write aboutWP:FRINGE topics at this website. You may wish to step back and learn more about that prior to pontificating in the way you did. If you do not modify your approach, you may find yourself looking at a topic ban or worse fromarbitration enforcement.jps (talk)22:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Threatening me in an attempt to get me to stop defending my edits is highly inappropriate. Trying to scare me into withdrawing from arbitration proceedings is reprehensible. So long as I think my edits are within the rules I will continue to explain why I'm making them. I will defend my edits because I believe they are within the rules.

Thanks.BabbleOnto (talk)02:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the guy threatening you is a pro at this and has gotten several good faith editors banned within the past year. As you have already noticed the rules don't count for much in this area, and you are badly outnumbered. -Palpable (talk)22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the rules don't count for much in this area

Indeed, as I have come to find. When all which is required is consensus, rules fail to mean anything if two wolves may overthrow them to eat a single lamb.

I had hoped I could find solace, refuge with a fervent adherence to the rules and policies. But alas, the rules mean whatever a two people against one shall dictate. Truly, 1+1=3 if two people agree that it does and one objects. If two people, commenting the exact same thing, within minutes of each other, agree, that is.

It is no matter. The hens always come home to roost. Every ill-constructed dam will fail, not if but when. We cannot concern ourselves with the misgivings of others, we can only ensure that we act appropriately.

If I shall be banned for caring about the rules too much, I bore the mark of Cain from the beginning.BabbleOnto (talk)23:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your disillusionment but suggest that you walk away, calm down a bit, and then think about what you are trying to accomplish. This is a collaborative project and picking fights that you know you are going to lose is pretty much the definition of disruptive. -Palpable (talk)23:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sympathy. I do not appreciate your condescension.

I do not know I will lose, nor am I picking fights. I am trying to constructively edit articles according to the rules.BabbleOnto (talk)23:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got indefinitely banned earlier this month after being accused of sockpupptry and trolling after my first four edits. The admin culture here is unfortunately, undeniably toxic at the moment, with quite a few admins completely ignoringWP:DONTBITE andWP:ADMINACCT. Luckily there are still some who will hear reason, and some who will evenbring these conversations into more visible areas. Good luck out there.Big Thumpus (talk)18:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your currentWP:SPA approach to using the Lab Leak Theory talkpage as atendetioussoapbox has me considering whether to file anWP:AE report about you. I strongly recommend disengaging from the topic if you would like to avoid this.jps (talk)21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been warned before for threatening other users on Wikipedia.

This is not a single purpose account, nor am I using any page as a soapbox.

Please stop trying to use scare-tactics to get users you disagree with to stop editing.BabbleOnto (talk)05:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This accountjust leveled me these same accusations. I think this sort of harassment and abuse, and the kind we've seen with some other editors with the ad hominems, people openly defending uncivil conduct, is why the Lab Leak article is so twisted to one side.Lardlegwarmers (talk)08:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments onWP:FTN andGain-of-function research show extensive experience with Wikipedia policy despite your short history here. Of course, everyone is entitled to create a new account if they want, and you may just have previously edited anonymously; nobody is required to reveal who they were in the past under normal circumstances, either. But perWP:BADSOCK there's a lot of restrictions on doing so, especially if it avoids scrutiny, and given the concerns above and your fairly intense contributions to a controversial topic area it seems reasonable to ask you if you have older accounts you could reveal to allay possible concerns. --Aquillion (talk)13:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first and only Wikipedia account.

I have tens of thousands of contributions to other MediaWiki-based websites. This is why I have an extensive experience with formatting and WP policies.BabbleOnto (talk)18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of anArbitration Committee decision. The thread isBabbleOnto. Thank you.)jps (talk)17:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are formally warned for your conduct in discussions, including behavior commonly referred to as "sealioning", and notified that continued behavior of this type may result in topic bans from the area where it takes place and/or other sanctions.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response tothis arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, thecontentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read thebanning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may beblocked 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 usingthe appeal process. I recommend that you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement 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 above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}20:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Seraphimblade. Just wondering ifthis counts as COVID-19 sealioning? I note your sanction above against COVID-19 sealioning, and I see this user bludgeoning a discussion at ANI regarding a COVID-19 RFC. Thanks for your time. –Novem Linguae(talk)02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder why this thinly-veiled threat has shown up on my talk page as soon as I dared submit evidence to ANI of misconduct on the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory page.

I should be allowed to give my side of a story to an administrator notice board without fear of retribution. An administrator is going to review the ANI anyway, if I've committed some sort of offense it's not like they'll miss it. This is just bullying.BabbleOnto (talk)02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's so unlikely I'd miss it that I came here specifically tocheck if you'd already had someone tell you off for this before. I'm going to takeValereee up on thatfurther instances of sealioning are grounds for a topic ban from contentious topics, placeable by any uninvolved admin. Good grief. --asilvering (talk)05:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper procedure if someone asserts something which isfactually incorrect, yet continuously asserts it as true.

It seems to me so long as someone keeps asserting something is true, even if they're openly lying about it, I'm not allowed to present any evidence that to that fact, I'm just supposed to let them lie uncontradicted. For every time I say "Hey, what you just said isn't true and is not supported anywhere in your source," that's called "Sealioning" somehow and is against the rules.

For example, in the ANI, a user hasfabricated sections of a WP that are not there and used them as grounds to dismiss someone else's argument. AndI'm the one who gets banned for pointing it out.

What was I supposed to do there? Just let my argument be dismissed even though the userliterally just made up fake rules and is citing them as policy? Is there going to be any accountability for this, other than topic-banning the whistleblower?BabbleOnto (talk)13:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say the proper procedure is to make sure they're factually incorrect first. --asilvering (talk)22:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BabbleOnto,this edit you made to your userpage is a violation of your topic ban. (SeeWP:TOPICBAN for more information on why.) I'd encourage you to self-revert.EducatedRedneck (talk)23:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As are your contributions hereUser talk:RowanElder#A caution.100.36.106.199 (talk)01:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let these two stand collectively as one warning, @BabbleOnto. I've removed the edit on your userpage. You were given very kind advicehere, and I suggest you take it to heart. --asilvering (talk)02:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic-banned from Covid19.

You have been sanctioned for continued sealioning, etc, atWP:ANI#Disruptive Editing from User TarnishedPath following their previous warning.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, thecontentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read thebanning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may beblocked 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 usingthe appeal process and thearbitration enforcement appeals template. 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 above is unclear to you. ~~~~

asilvering (talk)05:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]