Zefr
MEDRS tutorials for medical editors
edit- Why MEDRS?
- Plain and simple guide for new medical editors
- Wikiproject Medicine tutorial for new medical editors
- Wikiproject Medicine resources summary
- Summary guide for expert medical editors
- PDF for editing Wikipedia articles on Medicine
- WP:MEDHOW: Useful Wikipedia tips for editing medical and general content
- WP:MEDMOS: Manual of style and guide for templated medical source
- 2017 Review of medical content on Wikipedia
- 2020 Review of Wikipedia as the world's leading health information resource
November 2024
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)- It's not a good look to demand that others not edit war while you are edit warring yourself, it gives the appearance of weaponizing edit warring while yourself edit warring simply to try to force a specific version of content into an article. You made a bold edit that was contested. At this point, per WP:BRD, both of you should stop and discuss before reintroducing the content. Per WP:ONUS the fact that it is sourced is not sufficient nor is it justification to edit war:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
You are edit warring to reintroduce disputed content without consensus, which while at a different article is the same exact issue with the same exact editor as before. This behavior is disruptive and is a repeating pattern that needs to stop. - Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Zefr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Aoidh - That seems quite the overreach to block over good faith, sourced edits that were being reverted completely and immediately by the opposing editor whose history on the article and talk page is openly negative to the topic. My edit summaries were clear, I started topics and invited discussion and changes on the talk page, and laid out the case for making edits and having discussion. Rather than such an excessive block, a warning from you (to both editors) would be sufficient. Zefr (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Considering how often you have been blocked for edit warring, the block is lenient. You were edit warring, and you need to commit to not do so in future. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2024 (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.
Zefr (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is a content dispute. Negative or positive in reference to the topic totally irrelevant, because one view doesn't take precedence over the other. I don't think any one editor is the arbiter of what's sufficiently sourced vs not. I solicited other editors input but I felt those input weren't being considered. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Edit warring in good faith is still edit warring and is still disruptive, and believing that you gave clear edit summaries does not create an exception to this. I don't believe the block is excessive or that a warning would have been sufficient, given that this is your fifth edit warring block and is the same issue as the previous block (though on a different article). Your citing of edit warring in your edit summaries (1, 2) highlights that you were aware of the issue at the time, but chose to continue regardless. Another administrator will have to review the unblock request, but I don't think it's beneficial to lift the block early unless and until you can show understanding of the issue and can convince an administrator that this will not continue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)