AussiePete56
Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!
editWelcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
- The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!
Notice
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 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. |
A lengthy welcome
editHi AussiePete56. Welcome to Wikipedia. You asked for suggestions on how to collaborate with others:
If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors, such as the restrictions on COVID-19. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Original Barnstar |
| thank you for your contributions Artemon ge (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
I also raised an issue about likely non NPOV of alex, in the IVM/misinformation section. what do you think of it?Artemon ge (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi AussiePete56, a belated welcome to Wikipedia. I'm just dropping by to follow-up on your message at the bottom of Talk:Ivermectin regarding adding some ivermectin-related material to COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I'd be happy to do so. I can't promise a particularly quick timeline, but I'll get to it as soon as I do the same at Ivermectin. I will admit that while I've been around for a bit, I mostly edit in a fairly niche topic (infectious diseases of the global poor, a topic where ivermectin is unambiguously a miracle drug!). I don't much enjoy the headbutting that inevitably comes with more contentious topics, so forgive me for not engaging as closely with the back-and-forth at the ivermectin talk page. Similarly, I've mostly avoided the covid-related pages over the course of the pandemic. Certainly they're important pages, and I'm glad somebody works on them. But I think maintaining your sanity here over the medium-to-long term means finding the places where contributing brings you joy, and avoiding the places where it brings you frustration. Anyway, just figured I'd post here where verbosity might be more allowed. I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Ivermectin#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_January_2021_2. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Just knock it off and let's talk about the merits of the content. "certain editors here have an ideological commitment to never mentioning any positive association between ivermectin and Covid 19 treatment" adds nothing useful to the discussion. Jdphenix (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
edit Hi AussiePete56! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
ANI notice
editSee WP:ANI#Legal threat. Alexbrn (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
AussiePete56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is unfair for the following reason - the Wikipedia policy explicitly states, "a legal threat...is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process" This does not apply to me in this situation as I am not, nor could I be, in any position to "engage in a legal process", as Alexbrn's accusation of "fakery" that I was objecting to was not directed at me in the first place. I was advising Alexbrn that he was putting himself in a position of legal difficulty if the person he allegedly offended, Dr. Lawrie, with whom I have no connection, decided to take legal action.
Also, Wikipedia's blocking policy states that blocks cannot be made for reasons of retaliation or punishment [[1]] which I allege is clearly happening here. Alexbrn controls the ivermectin page, and also the ivermectin section of the Covid 19 drug re-purposing page, and has a policy of not allowing any mention of ivermectin's potential effectiveness against Covid 19 on either page, despite 39 studies now clearly showing such an effect. [[ https://ivmmeta.com/]] ) He and I disagree a lot on this policy. For example, in early February, with the help of Skingo12, I added to the Covid19 Drug Re-Purposing page, "On the 27th Jan 2021, Slovakia became the first European nation to approve the use of ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of Covid 19." Very quickly, Alexbrn removed it without discussion. I could list dozens of similar examples. He recently cherry-picked a piece of original research [[2]] against Wikipedia's policies just because this primary sourced document did not clearly show strong effectiveness for ivermectin. When I suggested using instead a strong meta-analysis and review File:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/IvermectinforpreventingandtreatingCOVID-19-arapidreviewtovalidateFLCCCconclusions-v1.2 06-01-2021.pdf he called it a "faked-up document" - which considering the credentials of the author (nearly 4,000 citations, ranked in the top 5% of ResearchGate) [[3]] I regarded as not just unfounded but potentially libellous, which I proceeded to warn him about.
I understand that Wikipedia has a policy of always supporting the senior editors because they do most of the work and the organisation doesn't want to lose their contribution. At the end of the day, whether Wikipedia decides to block or unblock me, I think other senior editors should make an official policy decision on the ivermectin situation. The pre-eminent medical advisory body, the National Institutes of Health recently updated their policy on using ivermectin for Covid 19, [[4]] rescinding their earlier opposition to its use and adopting a neutral position instead. Surely it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's philosophy that we should be formally opposed to any suggestion of ivermectin as am effective Covid 19 therapy when the position of the NIH itself is neutral on the subject. AussiePete56 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You misunderstand the purpose of our WP:NLT policy. We do not tolerate using the law as a bludgeon. Telling somebody in the course of an editing disagreement that their Wikipedia editing will get them into legal trouble has a chilling effect. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
AussiePete56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WP:THREAT states, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Also, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action." Nobody asked me what my intentions were. Actually, what could they be? The alleged libel didn't concern me at all. I was warning of an external threat. I may have been regrettably impolite and unsympathetic to the libeller, but Wikipedia's policies don't allow for a block under those circumstances either. AussiePete56 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You didn't just discuss if the material in question was libelous, you asked the other person if they had "access to deep pockets and a good lawyer". You might call this "warning of an external threat", but it doesn't matter if it is external or you are the one wishing to initiate legal action. It's still a legal threat. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
I would also note about that Wikipedia does not have a policy of "supporting the senior editors because they do most of the work". There are no formal "senior editors" to support, we all work together regardless of if one makes frequent contributions or their first or infrequent contribution. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
AussiePete56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is not complicated. Even if I had explicitly said, "I HOPE you get sued and lose a lot of money", it would still not be, "issuing a legal threat" if I personally cannot sue. It might be aggressive rudeness and if you want to block on those grounds, be honest about it. If you want confirmation of what Wikipedia's policy about legal threats means, look at the words, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action." Firstly, that requirement was not met - a clear failure. Secondly, "the user's intentions" unambiguously refers to the act of actually suing. So it is not just a question of what was said, but the intentions behind it. AussiePete56 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request here is overly focused on appealing based on the letter of policy rather than its spirit. You are not going to be unblocked until you fully acknowledge that you should not threaten or allude to threatening other editors with legal action. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
AussiePete56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Oh, so Wikipedia is a SPIRITUAL organization is it Rosguill? Actual libel doesn’t concern you but critical reference to it is a hanging offense.
Obviously, corruption in this place runs deep. Commitment to consensus is half-hearted – individuals have strangleholds over some articles. Ivermectin’s relationship with Covid-19, Alexbrn’s personal Wikipedia project, is a carnival of information suppression, a self-parody of bias, where any reference to the deep scientific controversy doesn’t exist – the 46 studies contradicting official policy are ignored; and apparently if the best meta-analysis of these studies challenges your story, you can just libel the author. If Wikipedia wanted to allow as many people as possible to die from Covid-19 by corrupting the story about the one drug that is available to help people all over the world right now, it wouldn’t need to change a thing.
Obviously I could come back under a new name via a VPN, but the polluted air here is too potent for me.
Good luck
AussiePete56 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
AussiePete56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
" I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block"
That's amusing - my previous post attracted the opposite criticism... Rosguill commented that I was "overly focused on appealing based on facts instead of addressing the general vibe" (I'm paraphrasing.) You fun-loving japesters have this scam tied up tightly don't you - you have 'em coming AND going - you can't lose.
Disinterested third-party witnesses to a libel can't be credibly accused of threatening to sue.
I notice that none of the comments here have addressed the disgusting immorality of smearing a distinguished professional person with the accusation that she deliberately falsified her research report to make it look like it had been published by a reputable journal. Perhaps you actually agree with Alexbrm's comments? If so, why not come out and say it? Could it be that prudence dictates being wary of making such accusations on a public forum?
Oops! There I go - "issuing legal threats" again! AussiePete56 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a WP:GAB-compliant appeal; it only serves as commentary on the previous declines and includes a continuation of battleground behaviour. As several weeks have passed and several admins have reviewed and declined multiple appeals, and as your appeals are becoming increasingly aggressive in tone, I am revoking talk page access. When you are ready to appeal you can do so via WP:UTRS.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.