User talk:AussiePete56

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)[reply]

You misunderstand the purpose of our

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" 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)

This is not a