User talk:BillyHatch2020

Welcome![edit]

Hello, BillyHatch2020, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Glyphosate-based herbicides. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMO and pesticide topics[edit]

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.

Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that standard template mentions it doesn't imply wrongdoing, it is meant to educate editors on controversial topics in Wikipedia with more restrictions than normal. It is usually very difficult for new editors to edit successfully in these topics, especially if they charge in with statements like Editors will be subject to financial and other conflicts of interest investigations.. Those discretionary sanctions specifically have a provision on casting aspersions about editors without evidence as your statement implies, so please be mindful of restrictions in this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I will be careful not cast aspersions but meant to indicate that I have reported a specific article to the correct place to be reviewed. BillyHatch2020 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, given your recent comments, I do have to caution you about WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and we need to reflect what reliable sources say, especially for WP:FRINGE subjects like this.

You have also been making broad references to Wikipedia policy. Do you have a previous account? Otherwise, with comments like what I am in this conversation for is as part of my work to identify specific pages, which have deep conflicts of interest as the base for the information, to help the Wikimedia Foundation., that is somewhat unclear. Are you affiliated with an organization doing this work? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and I have taken note of your comments and will closely follow guidelines. I am not interested in advocacy. I am actually a Conflicts of Interest government consultant, now focusing on pages across the Wikipedia platform, which may have been led completely by a specific private corporations PR campaign/s, without the knowledge of the editors. Pages that could be defamatory and are led by such PR campaigns are of specific interest and will be filed for deletion as per the Wikipedia guidelines. I hope to be of assistance and I look forward to discussing specific points as you are an excellent editor with much experience. BillyHatch2020 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:THREAD and don't split other's posts. I have fixed that. You also didn't answer my second paragraph. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an independent Conflicts of Interest expert and I have found it utterly outrageous that I have been blocked from editing as a new editor with no connection to any previous editors. Please can you help? I am trying to follow guidelines that you have suggested but this is a learning process - I am sure no editor was an expert from day one.

I found some secondary reliable sources for the Seralini affair article as requested and was just about to move on to other non-related articles.^[1]^[2] ^[3]

References

^ https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/monsanto-papers-reveal-company-covered-up-cancer-concerns-a-1174233.html
^ https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/10/05/l-affaire-seralini-ou-l-histoire-secrete-d-un-torpillage_5196526_3244.html
^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html

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).

BillyHatch2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am in no way connected to any previous editors, as I am sure can be noted from the country or location of my IP. I am a conflicts of interest expert and am set to suggest edits on pages across the Wikipedia platform. The block as a 'sockpuppet' is frankly bizarre. I am not an exper t editor but aim to become one with the help of the community BillyHatch2020 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. This has correctly happened here. Location or country are not required to match; this is about your behavior. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dusha100/Archive and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_April_2 for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2020 (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.

[1] ttps://www.spiegel.de/international/world/monsanto-papers-reveal-company-covered-up-cancer-concerns-a-1174233.html

[2] ttps://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/10/05/l-affaire-seralini-ou-l-histoire-secrete-d-un-torpillage_5196526_3244.html

[3] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html

[1]

[2]

[3]