Today we're consistently seeing political interference with Wikipedia's core principles. I'll leave the notices below, as an indicator of the communities that have been captured and what users are central to the problem. Note that all of my crimes I'm warned about were *talk page discussions*. Simply showing someone's source to be incorrect is now Vandalism.

In both cases, the "correct" viewpoint censored articles and played Wiki games (mostly definitions around ReliableSources and OriginalResearch) to literally lie in the articles and prevent factual cleanup by stigmatizing discussion.

In the case of Covid, we were told that simple discussion of a lab leak was a trump-invented lie and we were directed to WP:NOLABLEAK to be educated. In that essay many of the reliable sources quoted were either not making a strong claim about a lab leak, or were speaking of things that their research/lab-setting would not inform them of - in other words, they weren't reliable in those areas. People calling this out were slandered, falsely accused of wikicrime, and blocked.

In the gender issue "reliable sources" are saying tautologically ridiculous things - things that if true would invalidate the entire article. If Dr Levine is female then Dr Levine isn't a transwomen and thus the whole article is meaningless. If a source says something that is tautologically incorrect because it's incoherent or self-contradictory it's not right to use that source for that topic.

Today's politically motivated editors want to use Reliable Sources as a way to remove any source that isn't politically reliable, not that isn't factually correct, and they'll shift the goalposts, claiming that any examination of the quality of a source is Original Research.

Join me in standing against these scolds, these discussion killers, who say that to challenge them is unacceptable. InverseZebra (talk) 20:49, 3 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 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 19:17, 5 March 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 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit at Talk:Rachel Levine could be seen as disruptive enough to result in a block per this discretionary-sanctions standard. I suggest you find some other topic-area. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If a "Reliable Source" said up was down would you correct the Gravity page or question the source? Female is a biological term."

No, it could not. You're lying because it offends *you*. You're the one who deleted my edit. If you don't like what I said it's because you're committed to promoting bad sources as reliable. InverseZebra (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Rachel Levine. It is a blockable offense. And this is not the first time you've been warned about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations aren't warnings, they were lies from people like you who intentionally conflate counter-examples with vandalism. Nobody has actually credibly warned me about anything because that would require an example of actual misbehavior. Your post is another example, you come rolling up as if I vandalized a page by changing references when I merely questioned the reliability of a source on the talk page. You and your cadre of false accusers are making Wikipedia a dangerous place, where I don't feel safe.

It's the talk page that's supposed to be used to determine what's a good source and what's not. A reliable source on one topic isn't on another. How would you expect a source to be questioned if not by showing an example of where it's wrong? If you're complaining about a factual comment on a talk page then *you* are the problem, arguing in bad faith and abusing wiki processes. InverseZebra (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]