User talk:Gcmackay

General sanctions notification

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.

FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sucharit Bhakdi; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you launch a DR you are supposed to inform all involved editors.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got that wrong, I didn't want to start putting listing people's usernames down. I simply think, with the level of disagreement, an impartial view should be sought to give advice.

It might be time for you to read policy, you are required to inform people "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page" is the fourth bullet point telling you how to launch a DR, it is not an option.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sucharit Bhakdi) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 24 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The Wikipedia page on reliable sources states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The opening statement on the Sucharit Bhakdi states he is known for spreading misinformation but there is no reference to back this up. The statement is also controversial. I have discussed the subject on the talk page and no reference has been provided. Every time I edit the article (according to the instructions on the reliable sources guidelines page, the edit is reverted without discussion Gcmackay (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 14 December 2020 (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.

The policy on edit warring says this, under exemptions to the three-revert rule: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis added) The biographies of living persons policy further states, under the "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" heading, that "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." Your assertion that the statement you removed was unsourced was rejected by several other editors who correctly observed that both of the citations for that statement directly supported it. You did not "discuss" this, you ignored that viewpoint and simply insisted that you were right. That's not how Wikipedia works and that attitude is disruptive. Repeatedly restoring a contested edit is disruptive even if you are right (and in this case you are not), and so I blocked you from editing the article. Properly discussing the dispute on the article's talk page and coming to an amicable consensus with the opposing editors will go a long way to demonstrating that this block is no longer necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. An earlier edit I made [[1]] which I was thanked for by three other editors was simply reverted without discussion. I believe it was reasonable and pragmatic compromise and the other editors clearly agreed.

Also, out of interest, doesn't it take two to "edit war"?

Please be sure to sign your messages by putting four tildes at the end, like so: ~~~~. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm starting to! Have also started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. [[2]]Gcmackay (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, a user can edit war with multiple other people. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but if two people updating each other's edits, aren't they both at fault?Gcmackay (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there are degrees of fault and, in practice, a red line that, if crossed, is almost certain to lead to trouble. Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this. You are not permitted to remove other people's comments like that from an admin noticeboard. You are welcome to respond to the accusations there, but not to simply remove them. Do not do this again. --Yamla (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So when someone publishes slanderous, defamatory information about me, I should allow that content to remain published? I don't think so. How about Yamla instructs other people not to make completely unfounded accusations against others? The only alternative would be legal action! The whole ridiculous saga came about when I attempted to revert another user's vandalism. Despite trying to come to an accord, and I admit edit warring (not the only one and I was following the Wikipedia guidelines regarding living people), I ended up being blocked from editing a page and being falsely accused of COVID-19 denialism, which is ridiculous. Eventually, that page has been edited back to almost the text I was trying to get it to before I started being attacked. The only good thing to come out of it is I withheld my usual Wikipedia donation. It's very disappointing Wikipedia has fallen so low but it's typical of the internet these days.