Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mccready

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, which was 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Mccready (talk · contribs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Continued placement of POV material in Chiropractic article. Mccready has repeatedly inserted his own POV edits into the article Chiropractic.

He has been asked on repeated occassions not to make massive edits and reverts which represent his POV and to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page. He has refused to comply, instead placing unencyclopedic material on the article page to justify his edits.

He has repeatedly engaged in massive reverts, threatening to escalate disputes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=44742354&oldid=44729105 )

In my view user lacks the basic understanding of neutrality. On many occasions, users work together in making similar biased edits which could be viewed as systematic bias.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Repeated addition of POV material to Chiropractic article.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:NOR
3. WP:DR
4. WP:3RR (previously dealt with)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mccready

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Ombudsman 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
—Ruud 18:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Loves arguing for the sake of it, is rude, and adds blatant POV and strange original research to articles. His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." [1] He added to Animal rights that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family! [2] When challenged over that, he decided to rewrite the consensus intro instead, and when I reverted, he threatened to open an RfC on me, and proceeded to revert every day while issuing a second warning and third warning, accompanied by more threats on the talk page. He then complained about me on WP:AN/I, [3] because inter alia I had "introduced [my] views on Israel into the animal-rights page" by referring to the State of Israel, and had violated 3RR by reverting four times in 60 hours. [4] [5] I requested protection for Animal rights, which left him with nothing to fight about, so he stalked me to Lauren Slater [6] (which I was working on and he had never edited); New anti-Semitism [7] (which I was working on and he had never edited); and Rat Park [8] (which I'd created and he had never edited), and likely would have continued but someone had a word with him at that point. He kept citing WP:LEAD as policy (though it isn't), while at the same time totally misunderstanding it himself. And after Animal rights had been protected for around 10 days, and he refused to say whether he had outstanding objections, but continued to post argumentative posts about me, I dared to suggest he might be trolling, and he immediately demanded an apology from me, [9] because he is, of course, the only person who is allowed to be impolite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just noting here that Mccready has complained about me again on AN/I, [10] this time because I reverted him on Lauren Slater. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And again. [11] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ 21:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Levine2112 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
· Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Needs to slow down a bit, way too tendentious and aggressive. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Per Katefan0. AnnH ♫ 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Comment: Alternative health articles often have considerable discourtesy in the discussions and this one is no exception. I notice that user:Steth's comments include personal attack on McReady. Midgley 13:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

-- Midgley 13:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Fyslee 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User:Steth is being very hypocritical here. Of all people, his personal attacks and comments have been very unpleasant and aggressive. A quick look at his edit summaries reveals a very POV agenda. The rest of us (who aren't perfect either) have simply tried to deal with things, while he/she pretends to be some kind of angel and runs for help. He seems to be unable to recognize that he himself has a POV that needs balancing. One shouldn't cast stones when one lives in a glass house. This kind of thing (Rfc) is necessary, but should not be initiated by someone so guilty of doing the same things he accuses others of doing. -- Fyslee 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For those of us not directly involved in the dispute, specific difs might be useful. JoshuaZ 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I had retained that impression, but in response to that comment I reviewed a sample. It is a nasty argument and Steth actually keeps to a standard of behaviour better than several. I've previously suggested to MccReady that he'd do better not to push so forcefully, though I think not to the point of putting myself up in the mediation section of this RFC. Midgley 21:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.