Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mccready

Moved from the case page. -- lucasbfr  talk 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was notified of a | |six month ban which I have served. Jim Butler who is a self-confessed acupuncturist has assumed bad faith by saying "I don't think any conversation we might have today would prove to be any more productive than in the past." I have now asked him twice why he objects, if he does so, to the edits. He has also assumed bad faith by accusing me of trying to circumvent the ban. I am not quite so stupid, have learned my lesson, and am well aware that my IP address is recorded. And for the record this matter was closed seven months ago without giving me rights of appeal. It's a very messy case and not a single admin has taken the time to trace back the edits and sort out the truth from the accusations.Mccready (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, why didn't you edit through your usual account if you thought your ban was served? -- lucasbfr  [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk ]] 08:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your topic ban was extended to one year on May 7, 2008. Given your comments on that thread, I'm sure you were well aware of this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I was notified it was six month - see diff above. Do you have another diff you believe I would have been aware of? Like I said I was not allowed to appeal - the block was a block upon a block basically for questioning too much. If you check the history you will see this is true. To respond to why I didn't log, in let me quote from the user's page who asked the question "I used to be too lazy to log in most of the time." In addition I don't store passwords on the machine and I set my browser to wipe out all information when i exit. It is simply quicker to edit sometimes without logging in. Occasionally you have to fill in a cathpa, but not always. hope that answers the questions. Mccready (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Vassyana's comment directly above: "You seemed to indicate above that you would not be commenting further to that thread. I had no reason to believe that you intended to contribute further to that discussion. Regardless, Scientizzle has already closed the discussion with the conclusion that the topic ban is now indefinite with the general pseudoscience probation set to a year.[40] Vassyana (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)" It was also indicated by Scientizzle at the top of the AN/I thread. I find it very suspicious that you chose to edit articles covered by your topic ban while logged out. If you believed that you were no longer under restrictions (which originally would have expired on November 1), then why hadn't you taken the opportunity to edit pseudoscience articles in the time since then? Yes, I know about WP:AGF, but I prefer to be forthright in dialogue. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 08:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (almost-edit-conflict with Nishkid64, so some redundancy follows) I find it highly amusing that Mccready appears to be pretending that the diff showing the indef ban, which I cited in the first sentence of the thread-starter, doesn't exist. Yes, the ban was originally for six months; then, per aforementioned diff, it was extended.  Also, Vassyana notified him of the extension right there on his user talk page.  Mccready may not have known, but there's every indication that he should have.
 * Re logging in: Special:Contributions/Mccready shows that he managed to log in for a bunch of other edits on 4 December, and on 3 and 5 December.  Oddly, acupuncture appears to have been the only exception.  What a strange coincidence.
 * The ban occurred for very good reasons, chief among them: to reduce disruption on WP.  That's why I'm not engaging him on articles where he's perma-banned:  he's exhausted the community's patience there, and I have no desire to repeat endless rounds of WP:SOUP. --Jim Butler (t) 08:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

undent. Nish and Jim you have both assumed bad faith. Let me quote Jim "AGF trumps all else. Any time there is a conflict, we should always AGF, no matter what other editors' histories are. AGF, always. AGF." It is very easy to go looking for reasons that don't exist and then build a case based on hypotheticals. I have no idea what pseudoscience articles I may or may not have edited while logged in or not in the last week or two since the ban expired. You cannot seriously believe I would be so stupid as to not realize my IP is logged? The diff Jim supplies shows an admin who abused me, refused to discuss the issue, imputed opinions to me which I do not and have never held. etc etc. Both of you are steering very close to similar imputations at the moment. Please see the response I made on my talkpage. And may I remind the community that things got worse between me and Jim when Jim refused to accept a MedCab case which found Jim had "edited against consensus". Let's not forget that this is essentially an issue of what weight to give science in wikipedia. I have fought to make it central but am painfully aware that this view is not unanimous.

Nishi, the link you provided states, inter alia, "keep in mind that the topic ban and probation is, naturally, subject to future community discussion--that is, if you can demonstrate an ability to work on other topics with fellow editors in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this restriction can be lifted or reduced. Your future here is up to you." As I have said I was notified of a six month ban. Do you think my edits in the last seven months have failed to demonstrate an ability to work with fellow editors? Indeed perhaps some others are having problems in this regard. I have now asked Jim three times to explain his |bulk revert. Perhaps, Nishi you would care to comment on the substance. We are here after all to work on an encyclopedia not try to prevent others whom we disagree with from doing so. Mccready (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me taking up time again but here is the nub of the problem which has yet to be addressed. Thank you Vassyana. Please post this on for consideration. I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. Mccready (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) No problem at all. I have no problem putting this up for review and also no problem making sure your responses and concerns are heard. I'll post this to thread immediately for you and keep an eye on your talk page, in case you have additional comments or responses to make. Vassyana (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thanks much appreciated. Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history.

Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me. Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006 Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked) Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised. Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. Mccready (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mccready (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mccready, are you truly in deep denial, or just pretending to be? This isn't the venue to renegotiate, let alone attempt to wish away, your sanctions.  That's water under the bridge.
 * "the topic ban is now indefinite"
 * "Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban."
 * If you want the community to overturn those sanctions, showing some acknowledgement that they exist, let alone that you understand why they were made and how you have changed, would be an excellent start. (Not to mention avoiding the appearance of sneaky IP impropriety.  Protestations of AGF don't fly when you've frustrated the community with disruption of all sorts, including this weird WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT business about your bans.)  IOW, to regain trust, try just about the exact opposite of your approach above.
 * --Jim Butler (t) 10:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you all pursue this discussion on a more appropriate noticeboard? -- lucasbfr  [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk ]] 12:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)