User talk:Francesco espo

Francesco espo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Francesco espo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 ( 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.. Please do not write articles about you or groups you are heavily involved in. Do not use

Hello, i created that content only as a supporter of the Drastic team, i'm not a component, so i don't think that any COI is involved in this matter. --Francesco espo (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll do my best! Francesco espo (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has gone in speedy deletion because I used the same sentences of my website. I infringed the copyright of myself. I removed those sentences and contested the speedy deletion. If you need evidence I'm here! Francesco espo (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

As I've written in other pages, the content is mine, laboratoryleak.com is my website. In any case i deleted that content. Please remove the violation! Francesco espo (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Drastic Team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drastic Team 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome here and gratulation that your new article wasn´t delete. Maybe you should have a look on this discussion and this discussion. We have a simple classification problem, specially because some editors brand all statements, even scientific studies, scientific statements which want investigate the laboratory hypothesis (or find results) supporting a conspiracy theory (= like china KPC !) and filter out many relevant informations. This group represents more or less a dogmatic fring position and applies our rules in a wrong way. Many editors and administrators are therefore frustrated. But we look for a solution. Greeting --Empiricus (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco espo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Per [1] you are the author of [ https://www.laboratoryleak.com/ ] and thus have a clear conflict of interest regarding the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Please follow the instruction above to disclose your conflict of interest. You may find

You have continued editing in the area where you have a COI.[2] I will give you three choices:

1. Declare your COI and start following the rules.
2. Present an argument for you not having a COI.
3. We take a trip to
   WP:ANI
   where I will asked that you be topic banned from all Covid-19 related articles.

If you don't make a choice, I will choose for you, and my choice will be asking for a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? My website is totally ad-free, I wrote of an argument who I'm passioned for! What kind of coi is that? If you write a book on apes you can't edit apes on wiki? I think it is the same with a website! I have no affiliation with Drastic but i admire their job. It's enough? If you have questions write and I will answer. Francesco espo (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have chosen to present an argument for you not having a COI. Good choice. Let's discuss it; after all, I could be wrong.

First, whether your advocacy website has ads or not is irrelevant. You appear to be confusing paid editing (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing) with COI editing. (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing) For example, if you were, say, an unpaid volunteer for a political candidate or a rock band and ran an ad-free website saying how great that political candidate or rock band is you would have a COI and should not edit that political candidate or rock band's Wikipedia page.

So, how does Wikipedia decide if someone has a COI if they aren't being paid? See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is conflict of interest?, which says:

"While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest (similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if they are married to the defendant.)

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject."

Also see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which says:

"A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose... Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that 'single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.' "

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion says:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for aAdvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions... Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view."

Finally, there is Wikipedia:Advocacy#Identifying advocacy, which says:

"Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint. It may be a hypothesis which they feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community; it may be alternate or revisionist interpretation of a historical event or personage; it may be additions to an article about an organization to portray it in a positive or negative light. The essential problem is that these goals conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia. If an editor appears to be advocating for a particular point of view, this can be brought to their attention with reference to the neutral point of view policy. If the editor volunteers information that confirms they are acting as an advocate, this information can be used to justify appropriate measures."

You are clearly a single purpose account that is engaged in advocacy. You are clearly promoting a hypothesis which you feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community. That means that you have a conflict of interest. You may still contribute in the area where you have a COI, but you should disclose your COI and follow the rules for COI editors. Again,

Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations is a good guideline for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Guy Macon, thanks for all these informations. I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do. I'm just a regular guy from Italy with a bike and i have no intention of causing any disruption here, if i post on the origins of covid it's because it's a personal "passion". I want really come to the end of this question, if it will ever be possible, even if it will go in the opposite side of my way of thinking. Any tie that i have with Drastic and researchers of the field exists only for my personal research. When i critic sources, it's because of phenomenons like this^[1]--Francesco espo (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting one's website is indeed a COI issue and may also lead to it being blacklisted. On the other hand, I don't think it has reached that point. It is also not a usable source (an exception would be

WP:ABOUTSELF in a BLP article about you). —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:ToBeFree, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You've been warned of the discretionary sanctions, and you've been warned about making this kind of personal attacks. If this continues, if you keep treating Wikipedia as a confrontational debating society where you can try to promote a viewpoint with complete disregard for the site's policies, you can expect to get treated in consequence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for incivility on an arbitration page. 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) 21:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ToBeFree can you give me the link of the post where i've been incivil? I'm curious to read that.--Francesco espo (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Special:Diff/1034939263/1034970153 and the quote below the block notification (likely an edit conflict). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was too strong in tone, but you administrators, tell me, do you find it conceivable that someone changes a post after 7 seconds (so without having clearly read it)? I will be wrong to say that <<he made a fool of himself>>, but you, please, moderate this type of behavior because I do not think they are admissible in a place where people are committed to try to give as much voice as possible to the elements they have deemed reliable and someone without reading remove them. --Francesco espo (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky situation and I hope to get input from other administrators instead of making an unilateral decision. I'd say it is almost guaranteed that any topic ban in this matter will be appealed, and then we'll likely have a community discussion at

WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ToBeFree thank you. --Francesco espo (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Regarding the apology above, I have to admit I'm surprised; I had somehow expected a confrontational response and took, as a kind of necessary evil, into account that a heated discussion might ensue here, away from the AE page, which would at least have kept the highly important AE thread free of it. The attack after a warning for attacks made it seem to me as if talking alone had no effect: Adding another warning after an "only"/final one potentially waters down the meaning of warnings in general.

I'll likely unblock during the 72 hours if a request is made (see above for the syntax) that addresses the "fool of himself" quote and perhaps the general tone of "This is hilarious, [other participant] is in the house" in the context of a formal page such as AE as well, probably ideally without the "if" that adds a condition to the apology. I can also understand if no request is made, however. Censoring oneself after the incident and practically somehow begging for an unblock may well be below one's dignity, so the block expires relatively early. It is, contrary to an indefinite block, not meant to enforce the creation of an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm just a note on something interesting I noticed. There are various points you have been making and quotes cited that you appear to find very important, although it may be good to also read carefully when others explain why it doesn't seem that important to them. In one case a Fox News link you posted also made a great deal of it, but it turned out to be sensational reporting on something minor like a standard journalistic uncertainty statement. Some pointed out that it was one of the reasons Fox is not considered a reliable source for various topics. You can reject that, but it's an important clue that may help. I say that as someone who used to believe all kinds of incredible things and was influenced by false literature forced on me for many years. So my life has been a history of gradual learning and perception change, it's of course never over... BTW, even though I perceive you to be doing activism here, I don't hate people (probably for the same reasons, it doesn't mean that I can't be impatient at times). I try to give advice including to sockpuppets on how they can eventually have a legitimate account again, of course they chose what to do with that information. You decide if my priority is the encyclopedia or "anti-leak activism"... I'll leave you alone after this post, but feel free to ask on my talk page when you have technical questions about WP. —PaleoNeonate – 15:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all guys for your wise suggestions, I will try to implement them as much as possible. Francesco espo (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked at ARE, I'm very confused about this seven seconds thing. AFAICT, it arises from an error whether misunderstanding or typing the wrong word and keeps getting repeated. There doesn't seem to be any change that was made within seven seconds of anything not least because there's no way to know seconds on Wikipedia diffs. But as I also pointed out, even if this really happened, you shouldn't ascribe poor motives let alone call someone a fool because of it. If someone explains why they did something but takes a while, it's entirely possible that another editor will revert without realising the other editor is about to offer an explanation. Even if the explanation was offered at the same time of the edit, then while yes, normally editors should check the talk page for an explanation and read it before reverting it's complicated and there's no reason to worry about a single instances. Note I say "it's complicated" because in some cases it's not unreasonable that an editor may feel no explanation could be enough and revert before reading it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I was mistaken about it not being possible to see seconds in diffs. However I still think this was most likely an error since I see a change made within 7 minutes of a reply but not one within 7 seconds although as per my other point it doesn't really matter if I did miss something and there was some change within seven seconds. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If and when something doesn't go the way you wanted, before you appeal to Jimbo, my suggestion would be to read Wikipedia:Appeals_to_Jimbo and especially the section re: The Wrong Version™ carefully.

Such arguments are not always as persuasive as you may like them to be... Often the best and most persuasive arguments involve direct quotations (that are not

You clearly know enough about the subject to know that this edit was unacceptably one-sided and in flagrant breach of

@

WP:SPA or a bad man. I am always polite, I even use my real name, as I have nothing to hide. Francesco espo (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Francesco espo, I'm currently not active in the COVID19 topic area nor currently interested in becoming active there again. I uphold existing protections and may very rarely add one when I see an immediate need, but that's about it. If there's a need for unprotection, I'm sure the community will one day agree on removing the sanctions from this area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(additional note: The Task Center contains numerous ideas for improving Wikipedia outside of this topic area, and making 276 helpful contributions in any of the ways described there automatically unlocks the permission you may be looking for.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

DRASTIC page following an accusal by Shibbolathink that LondonIP was edit warring, which seems to favour a false narrative of events. You see from the RfC on that page that there are many POVs [3], so there was no edit warring and the confusion was created by Shibbolathink, who posted an RfC and withdrew it. At this time, it doesn't look like anyone on the WP:NOLABLEAK side of this debate wants to update the investigations page with the news that the WHO has disbanded its team, so we have a legittimo reason to question the protection of that page. Would you perhaps like to update the page with last month's news now that you are not administrating in this topic area (beside for protecting pages)? Francesco espo (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That wasn't actually why I asked for the page to be protected. There were many different editors edit warring, not just LondonIP. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that my advice wasn't exactly asked for; I still think it's valid though. I don't comment on the article content, and I don't implement COVID19-related edit requests. The reason for all my protections in the COVID-19 area is that semi-protection, and in some cases extended-confirmed protection, have turned out to be necessary to enforce discussion. Without it, the amount of users disregarding the existence of talk pages and consensus leads to an unmanageable back-and-forth "discussion" that happens only in edit summaries of reverts. If I understand correctly, there is currently no clear consensus for a change you'd like to see, so the correct approach is continued discussion (or

edit protected}} to your edit request to enforce an answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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.

Regarding your edits to Alina Chan. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]