User talk:Asailum

Welcome!

Hello, Asailum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Talk:RNA vaccine, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 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) 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts?

Have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Nope, this is my only account. I have never made an edit before a week ago or so. Also your name is highlighted as a sockpuppet example in a CNET article ^[1][reply]

Thanks you for your response. You reading of that CNET article would seem to demonstrate poor powers of comprehension, leading to you making a false statement. Perhaps this is the issue with the vaccine stuff too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow so rude, seems as a moderator you are happy to break many wikipedia policies by opening baseless sockpuppet investigations in an abusive manner to bully, breaking WP:NPOV by using your political bias and editing out the inventor of a technology with dozens of papers and patents proving his work which easily fall under WP:RS Finally you insult members and attempt to bully them when confronted.

The linked article shows a quote by Alexbrn explaining what sockpuppetry means on Wikipedia, so it was indeed misinterpreted, or at best misrepresented... I would also like to mention WP:FOC. Wikipedia not being for promotion, protecting it from obvious COI editing is not bullying... I will post the standard COI notice below for more information. —Paleo Neonate – 00:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote, quotes are all over the piece and have quotation marks. The sentence "On Wikipedia, a "sock puppet" is an account created by a member who pretends to be someone else. Sometimes this is used to circumvent blocks or push certain points of view." is from the author of the piece and is citing Alexbrn just for using his profile pic. Regardless, abusing mod powers to baselessly accuse me of conflict of interest or sock puppetry while simultaneously ignoring near 100 reliable sources of peer reviewed journal publications is clearly violating many wikipedia rules

FFS - it's a photo credit. I'm not a "mod" and if you think I'm WP:CLEARLY doing something dodgy you can report it to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.cnet.com/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glasspool1, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

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

Managing a conflict of interest on Wikipedia

Hello, Asailum. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neonate, I have zero connection to anyone related to the topics I am discussing in the mRNA talk page. I work in software engineering related to autonomous cars and simply researching mRNA on my free time. I have other areas I plan to contribute to but this one in particular struck me as odd considering the chain of events

July 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome @Cabayi !

Right-wing sources

Then we look at right wing sources and see the opposite, complete distrust simply based on them being conservative.

No, that is not correct. The "distrust" is based on the failure of these sources to evaluate as reliable. When a source cannot be evaluated as reliable (CRAAP test: currency, relevancy, authority, accuracy, and purpose), they should not be trusted. That some of these sources happen to be conservative is not part of the test (although it is evaluated under the purpose criterion). We see this in practice with sources like The Epoch Times, OAN, The Gateway Pundit, Natural News, Fox News, Zero Hedge, and Infowars. All of these sources are considered holy gospel by the populist right wing in the US, and they are considered unreliable since they fail the evaluation criteria.

For example, the WSJ passes the evaluation test as reliable, but the purpose criterion does come into play when evaluating it as a source for bias. To put it another way, all sources are biased, but not all sources are reliable. We know, for example, that multiple studies have shown that in the US, there are more people on the right-wing, conservative spectrum that embrace unreliable, post-truth sources than there are on the left. Why this is the case is the subject of some research.

You've said you're an engineer. As it turns out, engineers skew right, more so than other professions. Nobody knows why, but it is assumed that it has to do with a certain mindset or POV that sees the world in black and white, good and bad, yes and no, zero and one. There's much more that's going on in this instance, but an insistence on binary precision contributes to the POV. So the problem at hand might not be the sources, it might very well be the bias you are bringing to the table. Let me know if you have any questions. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao, your psychoanalysis is incredibly off, no engineers are almost all left leaning.. are you insane? Go work at google, apple, facebook etc and see how many right wingers you meet.. you will find there are virtually none. Your view on what is "credible" is basically "anything left wing that I agree with", it's not based on facts or data. Right wingers tend to use data much more than left wingers when debating topics, left wingers rely on using emotion to manipulate their audience. Take a look at any of the fake news the new york times released: they used completely unverified sources for the fake story about trump hiring hookers to pee on him in russia, they lied about january 6th that a police officer was murdered by a protester. I mean there are hundreds of examples of how terrible their credibility is, anyone calling them quality is way too biased to be making that judgement

Re: The New York Times

Is Wikipedia really in the business of making such confident statements, based only on the opinion of a hack journalist published in a low quality, rag newspaper? If so, Wikipedia has become an absolute joke...The new york times is a horrible source, they have a long history of corruption, withheld NSA spying on citizens, have completely lied about hundreds of things.. in no way shape or form should wikipedia cite such a biased media outlet as quality.

This is a popular talking point on the right, and illustrates what I said up above about black and white thinking. There is no such thing as a perfect source. All sources will make mistakes. But only some sources will have an editorial policy which admits these mistakes and issues retractions. You will notice that right wing sources rarely issue retractions or admit errors in their reporting, but liberal or left-leaning sources will do this on a daily basis. The reason is quite simple. Intellectual honesty demands that sources admit errors and issue retractions.

The fact that right-leaning sources rarely if ever do this, points to their post-truth level of dishonesty. Instead of playing a childish game of gotcha, you should be demanding editorial fact-checking and retractions from right-wing sources. You don't, and neither does the conservative base in the US, because they aren't interested in things like facts, evidence, and data. Conservatives are interested in feels over reals, what their religious authorities tell them, and what their trusted leaders hand down to them from on high. They have abdicated their role in critical thinking about ideas and policies and they have cut all ties with reality.

For a current illustration of this problem, simply look at how right wing sources have consistently downplayed the CDC, attacked health scientists, and criticized and discouraged the vaccine—all the while giving enormous amounts of print and airtime to medical frauds, hoaxsters, grifters, and con men and women, who push anti-mask, anti-vaccine, and anti-science religiosity, while personally profiting from sales of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other drugs that don't work to fight covid. It's a giant scam, perpetrated by conservatives, with Republicans bearing the brunt of this con job. This is the end result of what happens when conservatives don't evaluate sources for reliability, and it's why it's so important that we do. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not a "talking point", this is a factual statement and your leftist bias can't even see how much of a double standard you apply to "right wing" view points, while being completely blind to how often left wing talking points are completely fabricated lies. The new york times have made up completely fabricated stories many times, they are nowhere near a "credible" outlet https://nypost.com/2021/05/08/how-the-new-york-times-publishes-lies-to-serve-a-biased-narrative/ . There is no one "profiting" off ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine etc, these are super cheap generic drugs that have open patents, so this argument is ridiculous. The only one profiting is big pharma, who created a ton of new billionaires with the vaccine rollout. Second, there are mountains of proof of multiple meta analysis, random control trials, observational trials, in vitro studies that all show these drugs do work and entire countries have been using them outside of your north american big pharma captured government, who actively push disinformation against repurposed drugs so they can sell their profitable solution. www.ivmmeta.com It's somewhat amazing that people can reject over 113 studies proving ivermectin works, or fluvoxamine etc all because they were convinced by some idiot shill article and never bothered to read any of the studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652439/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asailum (talk • contribs)

Talk:Ivermectin

Any further behavior of the kind you recently exhibited at Talk:Ivermectin will be met with a topic ban. This is you only warning - you've already been advised concerning the arbitration sanctions applying to topics concerning Covid-19. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threaten me more after you've corruptly deleted the truth about ivermectin curing an entire country with 240 million people of covid with a 5% vaccination rate. Alexbrn spread disinformation on multiple topics, I pointed it out and you somehow think its right that he deleted me and then you threaten to ban me? You're just proving what I said there, you are corrupt and anti science. You pretend you're good people and then you actively work to kill people by spreading disinformation about ivermectin? Its just unbelievable that youre a mod at all when you clearly dont care about actually finding the truth, instead you fall for trillion dollar industries spreading lies to protect their profits. The founder of wikipedia is right, this site has gone completely leftist activist, but whats truly amazing is the same leftists that complain about capitalism are shilling for the most corrupt government and pharmaceutical companies. In a few years time when all the lies about ivermectin become well known stories and that in fact it did end the pandemic in multiple countries, we'll remember garbage humans like yourself. now the get the f*** out of my page. I was never "advised concerning abritration sanctions", a higher admin came in and shut down alexbrn when he corruptly attempted to lie about robert malone and put him back in the mRNA page. Dont lie about what happened, the page now shows that I was right because the evidence proves it. Asailum (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:20, 23 October 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).

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

Request reason:

This is absurd and ridiculous. Did a single one of you look at the 123+ studies? Did a single one of you talk to doctors in Uttar Pradesh? Explain how they eliminated covid with a 5% vaccination rate!!! DO IT! You're sitting here quivoling over "omg he personally attacked a proven liar" while you're spreading disinformation that is literally killing people, and in your insane mindset you believe you're a good person!?? The mods here are clearly corrupt. I know several people whose lives were saved with repurposed cheap drugs including fluvoxamine(89% improvement), ivermectin(67% improvement), quercetin(79% improvement), vitamin d(51% improvement), etc. Wikipedia is "supposed" to be about giving FACTUAL information, letting the reader come up with their own inclusion, and yet this totally corrupt mod structure is proving over and over again that there is nothing near that. Giving biased one sided information is corruption. It's literally the definition of propaganda. You are killing people by lying about hundreds of studies, dismissing millions of patients that received repurposed drugs and recovered WAY BETTER than the average UNTREATED covid patient. If you ban people for trying to save people's lives then it's incredibly clear where your morals lie. Anyone of you, prove this wrong https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/uttar-pradesh-government-says-early-use-of-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-positivity-deaths-low/ar-BB1gDp5U Asailum (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even without reading the guide to appealing blocks link given above, it should be obvious that a campaign statement is not suitable here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 23 October 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.

Since this appeal is in response to a block for personal attacks and not appealing the topic ban itself then this is a violation of your topic ban. I am removing talk page access. Your review will be left to be considered by another admin. When your block expires you are warned that further violations of your topic ban can result in a much longer block.

To be clear, you are not allowed to talk about this subject on Wikipedia at all, anywhere, ever. Continuing to do so, outside of the narrow path to appeal described to you, will result in loss of access to the site. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, including potential treatments and medications related to it.

You have been sanctioned due to ongoing disruption at Talk:Ivermectin after being notified of discretionary sanctions as well as personal attacks related to the topic[1].

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links provided in the above template. This topic ban will be enforced strictly. You may file an appeal of this topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement if you feel it is unfair. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 for being 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.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to offer perspective on the topic but noticed the topic ban and I have no intention to bait you into violating it further. Instead, my suggestion is to, from now on, completely avoid the topic, broadly construed, everywhere and to attempt to demonstrate an interest in the encyclopedia itself and its other topics to avoid an eventual complete siteban (WP:HERE). Perhaps my user page can be useful, it includes lists about possible editing venues. You can appeal the topic ban in 3-6 months and this may succeed with a credible editing history. —Paleo Neonate – 06:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.cnet.com/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/

[1]