Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Thanks. Could you say when? And why would not the option of reinstating with a statement that ban will be reintroduced if necessary not be quick and simple?] (]) 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. Could you say when? And why would not the option of reinstating with a statement that ban will be reintroduced if necessary not be quick and simple?] (]) 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
===Important links===
*]
*], ANI topic ban discussion
**topic ban 4 days later ()
*], ANI discussion that led to a block and ]: , "from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed"
**I later extended this to based on the
**A during this case was also given
*], ANI discussion of topic ban violation, with a request to lift that didn't really go anywhere...
**...but further discussion occured at on my
**...and led to Mccready's independent ], which closed on December 20, 2008, clearly supporting the topic ban
===Notes===
*Mccready has made statements such as:
**"I think we'd all be doing the project a favour to focus a lot more on '''content'''...I have learnt a lesson and will be responsive to community concerns" ()
***These are good statements, indicating a willingness to follow community conventions
***...However, Mccready has made, since the 13th, comments that don't fit the spirit of "focus on content" (i.e., ])
**"Scientizzle has also said my recent edits, reverted by Jim, were ok" (])
***I was referring to the edits that were made in violation of said topic ban. I had ] "the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay ( and look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation, and why those edits were isn't far out of line)"
***] () was the detailed response from the reverting party
***I find that Mccready is overstaing what I meant by my comment; the edits in question weren't ''overtly disruptive'' and Mccready had expressed a keen interest in a review of the topic ban, thus I chose not to block for the topic ban violation in the interest of giving Mccready a chance. I was not endorsing the content of the edits ''pre se'', just noting that they were not obviously disruptive. I don't think Mccready's interpretation is in any way bad faith, I just want to set the record straight regarding this.
The topic ban has been supported by a large number of editors, over various threads, with different editing alignments. What's clear is that Mccready's topic ban has been supported by a number of editors that would, presumably, generally agree with the content ''ideas'' behind Mccready's editing pattern, but disagree with specific edits and behavioral choices. Enough of a pattern was established that near-unanimous frustration was noted.
Outside of three September edits, Mccready did not edit from mid-May (just after the topic ban extension) to late November. On December 4, Mccready edited via IP at acupuncture. Mccready's overall mainspace edits during the topic ban (a few dozen prior to the IP edits, a greater amount since) seem to be generally positive and uncontroversial.
===Conclusion===
The ''recent'' community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand. Given the general evidence and tone of the community, I think it would be inappropriate (''too'' ]) to overturn it. To respond specifically to Mccready's suggestion that "any ban can quickly be reinstated if needed", I do not think a few weeks of generally-good editing (with a questionable use of IP editing on acupuncture) are yet enough to re-earn the community's depleted confidence and merit such an action.
That said, I want to offer at least a bone...
Mccready's general pseudoscience probation ends May 7, 2009. If there are no further incidents between now and then, and a history of civil, productive interactions, I would be happy to end the topic ban myself. I cannot see removing the topic ban without a few solid months of quality editing ''demonstrates'' a responsiveness to community concerns. — ]'']'' 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:02, 13 January 2009
Welcome!
Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page. You can click here to add a new message at the bottom of my talk page... Don't forget to sign your posts with "~~~~"!
I can no longer contribute to Misplaced Pages like I used to...this is a good thing: life in the real world is keeping me very busy, with important new research to perform. As such, I may not be very responsive to messages here. -- Scientizzle
FYI, at AN/I.(section); (diff). You and Vassyana (CC'd) were the blocking admins. Thank you for your efforts back then, and for any you may see fit to undertake now. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 16:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Somehow or other I can't find any discussion in response to my request on the topic ban at AN/I. It seems to have disappeared in other updates (if it's still listed as unresolved should this happen?). I wrote as I promised to do and concluded by suggesting the topic ban be lifted. I said it could be swiftly reinstated if needed, that I had definitely learned a lesson and would respond to community concerns. Could you let me know what's happening. Thanks Mccready (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for chiming in. (Yes, the discussion was archived.) You've stated in the past that you've learned a lesson. Then this happened. (There have also been episodes of WP:GAME... admin shopping (repeatedly, for block reductions), canvassing, "interesting" IP edits, and posting to AN/I that I'd ignored a message on my talk page that you had posted a mere half hour before.) Sorry if this seems bluntly put... but why should we trust you at this point? Since the sanctions were imposed for a longstanding pattern of poor behavior, why wouldn't a reasonable person ask that you demonstrate the ability, over a fairly sustained period -- as Guy put it -- "to engage properly with those of an opposing point of view"? There are plenty of articles to do that. --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like this user wants to defend the acupuncture page and his extreme views rather than improve the project. Despite acknowledging my good edits he has failed to revert his reverts. McCready 123.200.168.233 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The facts say otherwise:
Several days ago, I addressed your recent edits at the article's talk page.
My "extreme views" are completely in line with notable sources such as the WHO and AAMA, according to sources in the article. Anyway, it doesn't matter what my views are if I wear my Misplaced Pages hat, instead of some sort of advocacy hat, when I edit. Which I do, as the record shows. (Compare to your likely COI and other misadventures.)
I won't engage further on this topic unless an admin indicates to me that your sanctions are actually under reconsideration. I believe they were justified, and have no wish to keep arguing. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mccready. You know perfectly well that my words, on- or off-wiki, have nothing to do with the question I and others have posed: when you say you've learned a lesson, how do we know you can be trusted? I suspect the reason you insinuate stuff about me is because you don't have a satisfactory answer to that simple question. Instead, you seek to portray me as some kind of extremist (which is false equivalence, or more like WP:KETTLE)... and guess who, alone, can save the acupuncture article from said extremism, if only he were taken off the leash....
So, sorry dude, but you're not going to succeed in sliming me with bullshit accusations of COI. Nor are your inaccurate assertions that I don't respond to your edits, or that nobody ever warned you of an indefinite ban, etc. etc., going to fly. Nice tries, but the plain facts contradict you, and all you do by ignoring them is portray yourself as (at best) dense, and (at worst) untrustworthy. None of which advances your cause in the least, of course.
Scientizzle, sorry for the argument here. I shouldn't have responded initially at all; Mccready took it as baiting, whereas I just wanted you to be fully aware that this guy is a bad actor. Still, Mccready seems convinced that I'm his nemesis or something, so his attacks were bound to come out somewhere. Back to our usual programming. Happy editing! -- Backin72 (n.b.) 04:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)(addenda - 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC))
The timing...she is no good
Sorry guys...inclement weather+pending manuscript deadline+upcoming holiday vacation=Scientizzle has to sign off for the rest of the year.
I should be back around the New Year, but I'm not sure exactly when. I hate to leave this dispute unmediated, but I have to. In the meantime, here's a few things:
McCready, please consider your topic ban still in effect. The fact that your ANI post was generally missed is unfortunate, but we shouldn't consider anything to have substantially changed in this regard.
That said, upon my return, I'll be willing to work with you in some capacity to get a fair and clear re-evaluation of the topic ban as you wanted. You are, of course, welcome to pursue this in the mean-time without my input (i.e., start a new thread on WP:ANI).
Users opposing the use of College Football team logos being used in articles through out the College Football project have filed a Request for Comment trying to ban use of team logos. As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy. It would be appreciated if you could take a moment and voice you opinion on the subject here: RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. Thank you in advance and thank you for your contributions to the College Football Project. Rtr10 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Very cold, must type about the Oregon COTW to stay warm
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
O'Hai there Scientizzle, Merry Christmas!
Scientizzle, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Misplaced Pages this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Misplaced Pages has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
Welcome back. I'd be grateful if you could focus on this when you get a chance. If you still have doubts please contact me. My point was and remains that any ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you say when? And why would not the option of reinstating with a statement that ban will be reintroduced if necessary not be quick and simple?Mccready (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
December 11, 2008, ANI discussion of topic ban violation, with a request to lift that didn't really go anywhere...
...but further discussion occured at on my talkpage
...and led to Mccready's independent topic ban review, which closed on December 20, 2008, clearly supporting the topic ban
Notes
Mccready has made statements such as:
"I think we'd all be doing the project a favour to focus a lot more on content...I have learnt a lesson and will be responsive to community concerns" (13 December 2008)
These are good statements, indicating a willingness to follow community conventions
...However, Mccready has made, since the 13th, comments that don't fit the spirit of "focus on content" (i.e., "He is an extremist acupuncturist")
"Scientizzle has also said my recent edits, reverted by Jim, were ok" (20 December 2008)
I was referring to the edits that were made in violation of said topic ban. I had stated "the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation, and asking why those edits were reverted isn't far out of line)"
This (permalink) was the detailed response from the reverting party
I find that Mccready is overstaing what I meant by my comment; the edits in question weren't overtly disruptive and Mccready had expressed a keen interest in a review of the topic ban, thus I chose not to block for the topic ban violation in the interest of giving Mccready a chance. I was not endorsing the content of the edits pre se, just noting that they were not obviously disruptive. I don't think Mccready's interpretation is in any way bad faith, I just want to set the record straight regarding this.
The topic ban has been supported by a large number of editors, over various threads, with different editing alignments. What's clear is that Mccready's topic ban has been supported by a number of editors that would, presumably, generally agree with the content ideas behind Mccready's editing pattern, but disagree with specific edits and behavioral choices. Enough of a pattern was established that near-unanimous frustration was noted.
Outside of three September edits, Mccready did not edit from mid-May (just after the topic ban extension) to late November. On December 4, Mccready edited via IP at acupuncture. Mccready's overall mainspace edits during the topic ban (a few dozen prior to the IP edits, a greater amount since) seem to be generally positive and uncontroversial.
Conclusion
The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand. Given the general evidence and tone of the community, I think it would be inappropriate (toobold) to overturn it. To respond specifically to Mccready's suggestion that "any ban can quickly be reinstated if needed", I do not think a few weeks of generally-good editing (with a questionable use of IP editing on acupuncture) are yet enough to re-earn the community's depleted confidence and merit such an action.
That said, I want to offer at least a bone...
Mccready's general pseudoscience probation ends May 7, 2009. If there are no further incidents between now and then, and a history of civil, productive interactions, I would be happy to end the topic ban myself. I cannot see removing the topic ban without a few solid months of quality editing demonstrates a responsiveness to community concerns. — Scientizzle03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Scientizzle: Difference between revisions
Add topic