User talk:Heterodox2021

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 and edits about COVID-19. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki activity

Do you know anything about this twitter account spreading lies and reflecting the content you're adding to Wikipedia's Talk pages? Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That would be me. I have deleted the erroneous tweet, and replaced it with an accurate one. I apologize for my mistake in the interpretation of the diff system.

Are you aware I've been receiving threats of violence because of off-wiki campaigning like this? Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that. I can't even comprehend the volume and nature of threats that Drs. Weinstein and Heying and their children must be receiving.

Okay, I have posted about you at WP:ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After having seen how a clique of editors at Wikipedia can work to clearly slant a narrative, and reject edits providing not only more neutral language, but more accurate summaries of information that still retains its criticism of Dr. Weinstein's positions, I frankly don't care if I ever provide edits to Wikipedia again. Thanks for that.

@Heterodox2021: Good riddance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heterodox2021, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Heterodox2021! 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 Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Heterodox2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Consider this an appeal. I have reviewed the Off-wiki harassment policy, and I would like the section being violated to be explicity cited. My posts on Twitter are not and were not "contact" or "communication" with the editor. There was no "Linking to extrenal harassment", as no links to external sites including Twitter were ever placed on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an open platform, and the editing history is public. Some editors chose to disclose to the public their identity, while others do not. Criticizing edits, editorial misconduct (which we will get to shortly), and posting screenshots of edit history "off-Wiki" is the definition of transparency and orthogonal to the idea of harassment.

When Alexbrn alerted me that he was receiving threats, I quickly called out in my Twitter thread that threats are unacceptable: reference. If my intention were to harass rather than criticize, would I have done so? I not playing 3-dimensional chess here, anticipating a block whereby I would need to pre-plant a disclaimer that I could use in my later defense.

Acccording to other talk discussion by Alexbrn, he was already being harassed over the past weeks -- pre-dating anything I have posted -- so I don't know how he can attribute any threats to anything I posted. Regardless, I clearly disavowed any such behavior and called for it to stop. There are many likes on that Tweet.

If anyone should be blocked, it should be Alexbrn. It is Alexbrn who is completely out of control, even publicly accusing editor Eric, a +15 year editor of Wikipedia, of WP:NOTHERE! 😂 Until Eric put him in his place. See Talk:Bret_Weinstein#Reliable_sourcing.

Alexbrn, in his zealousness to prevent anyone from attempting to tone down the smears of Bret_Weinstein, or even providing links to published peer-reviewed medical journals, has swatted down commentary and rolled back edits. He removes links to published peer-reviewed journal articles, the highest standard, if they come from what he decides are "minor outlier journals". Then he closes the discussion. How is he in a position to judge what are and are not the major or minor academic journals? It is peer-reviewed, and it is published, and the work cited by other papers.

At the same time, Alexbrn defended the libelous edit, since removed, that "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.", on the basis of a Vice article.

User:Alexbrn rejected an edit, on the basis of FRIN, that the WHO had called for further research into the drug Ivermectin, advocated for by Bret Weinstein. The trouble is that this is not a generic statement of FRIN, the WHO is literally publicly calling for registered trials to answer the question of efficacy. But after this final FRIN comment, Alexbrn closed the discussion.

I implore you to read the Talk page of the article.

If anyone should be blocked, it is Alexbrn for a clearly biased campaign of editing and rejection, and using his power position to shutdown edits and discussion. Even dedicated editors like Eric just throw up their hands and walk away. The Talk page is litered with edits and discussions where Alexbrn always seems to have the final word. And that word is, "Bret Weinstein is a spreader of disinformation, there is no good evidence that Ivermectin works, and anyone advocating for its use is a purveyor of misinformation."

This kind of editorial control is damaging Wikipedia's reputation.

Heterodox2021 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your work is done here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:39, 8 July 2021 (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.

Just to note, by tagging me into their tweets, this user certainly did "contact me". And their campaign has certainly had the predictable effect, with me now being on the receiving end of a stream of abusive tweets. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, there is no "their compaign".Heterodox2021 (talk)

jpgordon That is convenient shorthand. I would like the section being violated to be explicity cited, explicitly. Such a decision cannot be based on some loosy-goosey interpretation. If courts did that, the rule of law would collapse.Heterodox2021 (talk)

This is a website, not a court of law. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view there is merit in Heterodox2021's unblock request. Under no circumstance are the words "Your work is done here." a valid reason for declining this request. ExperteImBademantel (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's reputation for bias on matters like these is quickly growing, this example only compounds the impression people will increasingly get. Such a pity. DragArse (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]