Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:34, 2 April 2008

/Archive 1

Campaign to discredit a scientific chiropractor

I have recently been the target of a campaign by a group of skeptical chiropractic editors who have made accusations that is tantamount to character assissination. I have been called an "anti-scientific" editor, "sockpuppet" and accusations of being engaged in an edit war. I appear to be getting stalked as well, no doubt that I am on the skeptics watch list. I have already mentioned several times that some edits made by myself, under a 208 IP it was because I was away from my computer and it timed out and hadn't noticed that I was not signed in. Anyways, I am here to state equivocally that I have not engaged in any edit war or sockpuppetry at Chiropractic and genuinely want to be a valuable contributor to the Misplaced Pages project. It's too bad these experienced editors are using WP:BITE tactics as a source of intimidation, but I know that the accusations labelled against me are untrue and is likely part of a smear campaign against myself. EBDCM (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block reinstated

Raymond Arritt, please explain how you consider me defending myself against attacks from the anti-chiropractic bandwagon is spurrious and or disruptive. Unbelievable. EBDCM (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin used a Twinkle to revert the anons edits which, according to my understanding, is a usedto help deal with acts of vandalism. If it was not vandalism, then why use this script? Is this not a miuse/abuse of of a util? EBDCM (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not infallible. You're welcome to get another admin to review the block and my actions in this case. If they feel the block should be overturned I won't fight it. Just for the record, I don't have any interest or knowledge of chiropractics as a topic other than that some people in my family have used it for relief of back pain. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it very disheartening the way this has all transpired. Anon engages in an edit war lives in the same province as myself and I am accused and sentenced of edit warring and sockpuppetry. Spurrious allegations? I was called anti-scientific (look above) by OrangeMarlin (a personal attack nonetheless) and I get banned for telling him to tread carefully. Common, Raymond let's look at the whole picture here, not simply Fyslee's original research. Please reconsider and let's take this to a panel, jury or something. EBDCM (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

See below

Decline reason:

There is no consensus to unblock you at Misplaced Pages:ANI#EBDCM. Explaining how others supposedly misbehaved does not justify any misbehaviour on your part. — Sandstein (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2008 (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.

Moreschi calls me a quack for no good reason, another PERSONAL attack and uncivil comment against me. I get called anti-scientific twice by OrangeMarlin, (a PERSONAL ATTACK or at the very least an uncivil) one, ask him to tread carefully then I get slapped with a WP:LEGAL for threats. This is tremendously upsetting. Then, there is a snide comment about "snowmobiling and using sled dogs" by OrangeMarlin, like I can somehow drive 1 hour from home, engage in an edit war, and drive back another hour, all this in the middle of work week, nonetheless. Let's look into this matter a bit more, you'll see that it doesn't add up. Lastly, OrangeMarlin used a Twinkle to revert the anons edits which, according to my understanding, is a usedto help deal with acts of vandalism. If it was not vandalism, then why use this script? Is this not a miuse/abuse of of a util? This is the reason, alone, I accused OM of vandalism. If my interpretation is incorrect, then it was an honest mistake. EBDCM (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Locator as evidence

So, like I had already mentioned several times before; we in Northern Ontario have only 1 Internet provider. This provider covers a huge geographical area and many residents. The central server appears to be based in Timmins, ON. I do not live even live in or near Timmins, ON. An anon user who was engaged in an edit war on chiropractic appears to also be from Northern Ontario, which, incidentally, stretches from Thunder Bay (West) to Virginiatown (East). There are over 100 000 residents in the North who use Northern Telephone as it is the ONLY INTERNET PROVIDER IN THE NORTH. So ANY IP from Northern Ontario will be directed to Timmins. Give me a break. The evidence presented against me was "similar indentations". Gee, let's see now, how looking at tone, language, grammar, etc. "evidence". One can clearly look and see that is definitely not my writing style. Let's have some level-headed admins look into this; Mr. Arrit's indefinite block is in itself "spurrious". EBDCM (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This editor is clearly getting a bum deal here. . . he has been banned with little to no evidence of wrongdoing. If all this is about is civility issues then this extended block is not justified. . . this editor has been provoked and has reacted as many newbies do. If this is a vote I move to unblock him.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, I'm beginning to really lose faith in the systems here. I get harassed, attacked, accused and now blocked indef for "vandalism". If all that had to be done was to insert quotation marks to make the edits stick; why not just do that rather than engage in an edit war? I can appreciate Eubulides' expertise on medicine (he has made good contribs to those articles) but it seems like the same respect for my expertise on chiropractic/physical medicine is not being reciprocated.

According to Fyslee my contributions "aren't worth it". If you look at the Chiropractic article prior to Jan 22/08 and where it is now you can see the impact that I have made. The article, though apparently "stable" was a POS compared to where it is now and where it's going to go. The chiropractic skeptics here at Misplaced Pages can't silence scientific chiropractors forever. As it stands I'm going to re-evaluate whether or not it's really worth being here because I am "working" for free and spending valuable time contributing to the project but all I seem to get in return are false allegations, unjustifiably long blocks (indefinite both times) whereas users like Quack Guru get off scot free (supposed to be under a 1RR; reverted 3x the day of the edit war) and OrangeMarlin who get away with making nonsense claims "He advocates for a procedure that is unsupported by science or clinical studies" suggesting I'm one dimensional, anti-science practitioner. Anyways, thanks for the words of encouragement, and feel free to add quotation marks to the WHO stuff I added under education, and scope of practice. Those 2, at the very least, should stick. Hopefully we can get an agreement on safety; but it seems the medical brigade wants to dictate all the terms and make it look and sound a lot worse than it really is. Happy Easter. EBDCM (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Still playing the victim. Until you understand why you got blocked and learn from it, you'll forever feel the victim. You were not blocked for vandalism. You were blocked for evading a block and for continuing the behavior that got you indef blocked in the first place. IOW you violated an agreement, thus breaking your "probation" and got busted for it. You also are misquoting me. I wrote: "his dictatorial and uncollaborative spirit have made him more of a liability than he's worth," . -- Fyslee / talk 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Fyslee: I was not evading ANY block. You keep on spreading lies about me. Your witch hunt is probably the lowest thing I've experienced since high school. Look at my history, EBDCM, 208IP and my limited account from spring 2007. You are passing judgement on me, and you have absolutely no right to do so. We all know you are the "chiropractic quackbuster" and what you really want here. To silence the credible, scientific wing of chiropractic. But, you're going to do nothing except make a matyr of me. I've let some of my classmates know about this situation here. Expect a nice influx of evidence-based chiropractors to come here and finish the job, making Chiropractic completely NPOV and the best damn alternative med article around. Peace, Fyslee. EBDCM (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

More: You claim I was not banned for vandalism, but look at the indefinite block: abusing editing priviledges and it goes to a vandalism article. Anyways, another point: users/editors can do what they want to; it's called FREE WILL. Suggesting that I can somehow manipulate other editors against their will as a 'proxy' is ridiculous. It also shows how I'm being completely throttled by users such as yourself who know the rules/policies much better than I, and rather than telling me about you go whine to Sandstein to protect this page. Grow up, Fyslee. Uncollaborative? Is that why I've asked Eubulides and Quack Guru for their input, both skeptics? Is that why I discuss things on Talk? You know what YOUR problem is? You seem to embrace mediocrity; you would rather play it safe and have 0 progress than deal with issues head on. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You've lobbied extensively to kick me off, you've made allegations that I was using a sockpuppet to engage in an edit war; you've used an IPtracer which proved that all of Northern Ontario uses NorTel as their ISP which explains why the 2 editors looked like they were "down the street". You defend OM who calls me anti-scientific and makes references to snow dogs and sleds. Way to stick to the high ethical ground, Fyslee. You've been nothing but a thorn on my side since Day 1 and I know that you keep tabs on me at other chiropractic sites... which is suggests some kind of stalking behaviour. You exposed a former users name on the ANI page yet plead on your very own talk page to please not to use your real name. Why don't you extend others the same courtesy? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Consider any professional courtesy that we shared to be absolutely gone. I won't be uncivil towards you; but if and when I chance comes to kick you when you're down, like you've done to me, let's just say it'll be lex talionis. Now, I'm off to an Easter party and am going to rock out. I have a life outside wikipedia. Ta ta. EBDCM (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic Scope of Practice

According to Eubulides "The inserted material was duplicative (how many times is the article going to say chiropractic doesn't use medicines or surgery) and somewhat out of place; most of it was about diagnosis and treatment rather than scope of practice. My question is this: What do diagnoses and treatment fall under? It's scope of practice, period. There is an ongoing attempt to "play down" any information which would seem to make DCs look like legitimate health care providers. Taken from page 26/51 of the World Health Organization guidelines you can clearly see that chiropractic practice involves "a general and specific range of diagnostic methods including skeletal imaging, laboratory diagnostics, orthopaedic and neurological evaluations as well as observational and tactile assessments. Patient management involves spinal adjustment and other manual therapies, rehabilitative exercises, supportive and adjunctive measures as well as patient education and counseling". This is EXACTLY what the scope of practice is for chiropractic, and do not let Eubulides or anyone else say that it's not true or does not belong under scope of practice. We are legitimate health care providers and deserve to be treated as such. Whomever may read this, add the quotation marks and then the edit should stick. It's from the WHO therefore is representative all of chiropractic jurisdictions. EBDCM (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who follows your advice can get blocked for acting as a proxy for a banned user. Since you seem to intend to exert an influence on Misplaced Pages through your talk page, I recommend you be totally blocked from access to Misplaced Pages. -- Fyslee / talk 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, please leave me alone. EBDCM (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef Blocking

What is the standard protocol for these types of blocks? Do we perform some kind of wikipedia exorcism and I repent? Interestingly enough, I am catholic. EBDCM (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of options to appeal the block further, spelled out in more detail here. You can email the unblock list - I believe it's unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org - to request others to review the block. Ultimately, any block can be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. These sorts of appeals work best if you directly address the reasons for the block without casting unecessary aspersions. MastCell  06:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for responding to my question, MastCell. There's seems to be a bit of confusion as to the 'official' reason for my block; technically, according to Mr. Raymond Arritt it's because of 'vandalism' whereas Fyslee and others have suggested it was because of a supposed edit war/sockpuppetry/incivility/legal threat issue. So it seems like that my alledged misgivings include everything but the kitchen sink and I would need some clarification as to what 'charges' I'm accused of so I can best prepare my 'defense'/mea culpa. Hope you had a good Easter. EBDCM (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "repeated use of editing privileges" should not have been linked to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. That was an error, which I have now corrected and for which I apologize. To my knowledge you did not engage in vandalism. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Raymond, innocent mistake. Since I have you here, to you mind clarifying the allegations so I can begin to prepare for the arbitration process? I'd like to get everything organized so I can present my case. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here. Before heading to arbcom, it's usually best to exhaust all other possibilities per WP:APPEAL. You may want to try another review using the {{unblock}} template (advice: you'll have better luck if you don't simply repeat what you said in the first unblock notice). Alternatively, you could email the unblock mailing list using the web interface Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Raymond. One last question; the blocking description you gave seems to differ from the major allegation of edit warring under a sockpuppet. These last few weeks have really been the school of hard knocks! I suppose I could be like Michael Jackson and Beat It and I'm hardly a Smooth Criminal given all the ruckus on the ANI. EBDCM (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Application

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

Request reason:

Given that it has been over a week that I have patiently waited for an outcome; I am requesting that I be unblocked given that the allegations against me have not been proven and that I have not had the ability to respond to queries that had been made prior to the, IMO, unjustified block. Thanks for the consideration. EBDCM (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the length of time this request has been up without a response, I think it's fair to say that it isn't going to be granted. Since your block has already been discussed at WP:ANI, so I recommend that if you want to continue to appeal this, you appeal to WP:ARBCOM by emailing one of the current members. Mangojuice 22:02, 1 April 2008 (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.

This has become a total farce. How this situation could be any more messed up I don't know. So, you're declining because it hasn't been granted? Good logic. Did you even read the evidence I presented? Where the hell is the consistency in these situations? user:QuackGuru user:ScienceApologist and user:Mccready have done way worse, way many more times and have not received this severe of punishment for this weak of a case. This is a country club here. If you're friends with admins, you're in, if you're new and not, you're out, that simple. You guys can keep blowing each other on the sidelines and giving each other high fives, but as far as I'm concerned, you're all very crooked and there is not even close to any justice occuring here. Just a damn witch hunt. Good riddance. EBDCM (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MangoJuice, you're on vacation and you've declined my request? How am I to assume that you've dilligently went through the case and reasoned your way through it? Furthermore, the ANI you've mentioned is the original one of March 20/08 and has no bearing with my current unblock request which I have prepared a more than adequate defence here on my talk given it's the only place I can write. This situation is getting more and more perverse each day. MastCell, oh neutral one, please give us some 2c here, this is so incredibly frustrating I'm about the blow a gasket. EBDCM (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not on vacation; I never got around to removing that tag after I came back. I did start to look into your request, but became daunted by the sheer volume of material. But since I've seen this request up continuously over several days while reviewing other unblock requests, I have come to realize that this is just not going to happen. However, point taken about the ANI discussion being old. I will start a new thread at ANI to see if we can get some attention on the issue. But if that doesn't work, arbcom is really your best option. Mangojuice 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the candor, Mangojuice and quick reply. I think it would be best advised to stay clear from the mess here, I fear that it's going to get ugly at Arbcom. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Due diligence? EBDCM (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You might say that. Since I'm not familiar with the situation here, I don't feel comfortable handling this request myself. I'm contacting the admin who most recently blocked you to get some experienced perspective in here. Hersfold 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. IMO, decisions were made in the heat of the moment and there wasn't ANY due dilligence prior to the block which is a tad ironic. Nonetheless, I would appreciate some kind of dialogue. EBDCM (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity; is the length of this block not somewhat long for an ALLEGED transgression which has not even been close to proven? Also, it seems very long compared to some of the much more tame blocks for chronic recidivists as seen here. Given the lack of communication and the haphazard way my situation has been dealt with I'm becoming disappointed in the resolution mechanisms here at Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate some feedback, by perhaps MastCell who seems to have a decent idea of the overall context of my short, but unfortunately somewhat polarizing stay here at Misplaced Pages. I kinda feel like I'm being left out to dry here and my investigations into how blocks/bans are implemented suggest that my case has been grossly unjust and unfair in both the length but speed at which it has been given. Far more serious transgressions have been much less penalized and I don't know if I'm caught up in some kind of political powerplay here but this status quo here, well sucks, for lack of a better term. EBDCM (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

What is the protocol here for an editor who continues to misrepresent and seems to be prone to wikistalking in this case. I am concerned that I am not being given a fair 'trial here given that I cannot present my case on other pages where I am being actively discussed. Also, this editor in question seems to have orchestrated an ongoing canvassing campaign to get my indefnitely booted off for an infraction which has come up as 'inconclusive'. What's going on around here? Something is not right... EBDCM (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

State your concerns here, being as specific as you can. A number of people are watching this page. If it appears there's a well-founded concern, it will be taken up at the appropriate venue. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. State your case using extremely precise statements backed up by good diffs and no diversionary personal attacks. If you have a case, then I hope you will get a fair hearing. We have all tried to do the best we could in an honest manner during all of this, but if any errors have been made, they should be corrected. Convince us. -- Fyslee / talk 04:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, since it was you who blocked me, please state and present the evidence that you used that I have made spurious allegations and disruptive editing that justifies an indefinite block. Fyslee, you are directly implicated in this broohaha. You're suggesting that you've taken an honest approach? How about your persistent false allegations and witch hunt which began March 20/08 starting by presumptuously declaring me guilty of sockpuppetry here still persisting here and again here (if this is not some kind of lack of WP:AGF or harassment I don't know what is). Then the witch hunt began in earnest here and here and here and here (note more hyperbole and false allegations, and more special pleading here not allowing me to reply to the allegations again here more canvassing by Fyslee here and here to another admin; more 2c to another admin here. Is this normal behaviour for a very experienced editor, to be so actively and keenly pursuing to a new wikipedian? Others disagree with your tactics Fyslee. This has also been raised which cites NO evidenceeither.

Interestingly, this all began after I had already been targeted by an anon user who was admin shopping and I let my concerns be known to admin Jehochman here on March 16/08 and then to MastCell here and again on March 20/08 here.

So to review: I get blocked first ever, on March 9/08, I resolve the issue with Jehochman on March 15/08 one day later I am the target on a smear campaign by anon then again on the March 20/08 Fyslee et al. pursue some kind of witch hunt citing everything but the kitchen sink. If I wanted I suppose I could bust out the Chewbacca defense, but a careful look at the history and trends suggests "this does not make sense". Not only are the various allegations and evidence weak at best; but the punishment here was both excessive, unjustified and not consistent with previous precedents.

So, as it stands, the indefinite block, which has already lasted 11 days; for 'spurious allegations' (when, where, what, btw; none have EVER been listed) and 'disruptive editing' (when, where what). Here is Thatchers CU here. It states 'possible', which also means 'not possible' or 'inconclusive' or 'not definite'. All that was 'proven' was that my ISP covers over 100 000+ users in Northern Ontario. And an indefinite block results from this? Common guys, let's fish or cut bait here. I've been patiently waiting and it's time we get to work. EBDCM (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to call my diligent and dutiful presentation of evidence a "witch hunt", and impugn my honesty, then it looks like you haven't decided to change your attitude and there isn't much use in trying to help you. You were advised to avoid personal attacks, but you just have to go and weaken your case. Too bad. You need to look at things from our perspective, AGF, and then present counter arguments for why an IP closely related to one you have previously used, and which a CU placed in the same spot, was used to defend rather unique edits you had immediately previously made. When that IP got blocked, you logged in and started editing as EBDCM, even though the IP you had just used was still blocked. That's called evading a block and using an IP as a sock puppet, and apparently the evidence was strong enough that everyone (but a couple of your chiro friends who hadn't followed along and came in late) was convinced. I have acted totally honestly in this matter. If I have been mistaken, then I apologize, but I have not seen any evidence that things did not transpire as the evidence seems to indicate. You will get nowhere fast by impugning my motives. You must AGF and not make any personal attacks. Violating those policies can be used as good justification for not unblocking you. Stick to the diffs and avoid any conspiracy theories. -- Fyslee / talk 05:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Fyslee. Dutiful? No thanks. NO personal attacks were made, more false allegations by you. If you have them, then show 'em, Fyslee. There are none. Spurious again. Weaken my case? 2 editors agree with me that your 'case' was indeed very weak. Impugning your motives? The evidence speaks for itself, Fyslee. You've gone and made this personal and it shows. I'm not making personal atacks, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. Maybe I'm unclear here, but what SPECIFIC STATEMENT did I make in the above a personal attack towards you? I'm merely presenting a case, a case which shows a certain editor pursuing this with a certain degree of vitriol. Also, for the record, the block, as described by Mr. Arrit mentions NOTHING of any sockpuppet so I'm not even sure your complaint is valid in this case. Also, calling them "chiro friends" is in poor taste; I could easily suggest that your "skeptic" friends came in and assisted you in your case. Regardless, I find your comments and general presence here to be antagonistic and you're using tons of red herrings which is detracting from my concerns addressed to Mr. Arrit. Namely, what specifically are and what are the disruptive edits in question. Because as I see it; there has been somewhat of a gaming occuring here and since I'm not familiar enough wikipedia policies and politics it's hard to come up with an adequate defence. EBDCM (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to discuss "the 'charges' (i.e. spurious allegations)" with others, specifically Raymond Arritt and Orangemarlin. I have found these parts of a discussion that are relevant to that matter:

• Nothing funny about it. Yesterday I added material to the education, scope of practice and history section. It got deleted citing vandalism which resulted in an edit war that you were part of. Why did you claim that the material I added with a)anti-scientific and b)cited as vandalism in your edit summary. EBDCM (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and this:

• Apparently, you are mistaken. I have reverted Chiropractic three times in the last month. Edit 1 was a reversion of two edits by an anonymous editor, and the edit summary makes no mention of vandalism. Edit 2 was a reversion of one edit by anonymous, with no mention of vandalism. Edit 3 was a further revision of same anonymous editor, with a request that the editor get blocked for 6RR with not a single mention of vandalism. Therefore, I am posting this statement, your false accusation, and a request to have you blocked from the community. Thank you for your time. OrangeMarlin 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and this:

• I've looked at all edits on Chiropractic since February and the record shows that OrangeMarlin has never used the word "vandalism" in an edit summary. The indefinite block of EBDCM is therefore reinstated as a result of making false accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Other edits where you accuse others of charging you (in your IP guise) with vandalism:

You keep insinuating that I have used an IP guise. Stop it Fyslee. It's getting very annoying and tiresome; IMO it completely is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You should know better. I will not ask you again; stop saying I used a sockpuppet when the CU was inconclusive. EBDCM (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This all makes sense if you were editing as that later-blocked anon IP which you claim was not you.

Maybe that can provide some insight about that matter? My only concern in all of this was the evading a block and using a sockpuppet issue. Whenever an editor discovers what appears to be policy violations, it is up to them (duty) to do what they can to stop it or at least bring it to the attention of the right people. That's what I did. Since others were getting interested in the matter before I was (which is what first alerted me to something going on, since I was occupied elsewhere), and evidence seemed easy to find, I collected and submitted it. Many others seemed to be quite convinced (so take it up with them) and the CU added more confirmation to the matter. Many were involved with their various charges and accusations against you, both before and after I got involved, and many of those charges made by numerous people were the background for your getting reblocked... REGARDLESS of the final wording of that reblock. That's all there was to it (and it was quite a bit!).

If any errors in procedure or presentations of evidence occurred, then you will need to take it up with the various involved admins, blocking admins, CU clerk, and the specific people who made specific charges, to see if they can be convinced that something went wrong. If so, then of course the matter should be reviewed and your block possibly be overturned. The matter was quite complicated by your repeated edit warring (under what seemed to be two guises - User:EBDCM and User:64.25.184.27) and your blocks, and then what appeared to be a violation of the agreement you made (which had got you unblocked). Such a violation of an agreement to stop edit warring weakens your case enormously, regardless of any sockpuppet charges. Even without those charges, the edit warring and violation of an agreement would be sufficient to reblock you.

If you want to restore our trust in you, a good place to start would be this statement of yours:

• Nothing funny about it. Yesterday I added material to the education, scope of practice and history section. It got deleted citing vandalism which resulted in an edit war that you were part of. Why did you claim that the material I added with a)anti-scientific and b)cited as vandalism in your edit summary. EBDCM (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the specific diffs that prove these points:

• "Yesterday I added material to the education, scope of practice and history section." Where did you do this? Please supply the diff(s). -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffs provided here and here.EBDCM (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• "a)anti-scientific" Where does Orangemarlin state this? Please supply the diff. -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• (diff) DigitalC (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a current diff. I'm (still) asking EBDCM to supply a diff to back up his statement at that time. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• As for OrangeMarlin calling me anti-scientific? I consider this a personal attack; he has done so already TODAY April 1/08 here and here and here and here a demeaning edit summary here claiming I use treatment methods that are anti-scientific AGAIN and a disparaging remark regarding snowmobiles and sled dogs here more anti-scientic suggestions here. I know that Orange Marlin has befriended a few influential admins which, IMO, is probably why all this has been overlooked. Yet, he has called me anti-scientific, a POV-pusher (diffs, please) has made disparaging personal attacks, claims that I do not citations that are verifiable and reliable sources here. This is completely BS. And I get blocked for supposed personal attacks? Double standards. I fail to see how anybody could not see that OM has portrayed me as some kind of Northern, anti-scientific, POV-pushing hick and I get blocked. Very strange indeed. Clearly wikipedia values health care professionals, certain ones MUCH more so than others. I guess I should have went to medical school and been a physiatrist, eh? What a crock. EBDCM (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with him. I haven't sided with him on that matter. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• "b)cited as vandalism in your edit summary." Where does Orangemarlin make this edit summary? Please supply the diff. -- Fyslee / talk 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• is my understanding, that when one uses the Javascript program TWINKLE, it is done to revert/undo acts of vandalism. Indeed, according to the Twinkle description it says "Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Misplaced Pages maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. OrangeMarlin, used Twinkle on March 19/08 with respect to the Chiropractic article here and here (notice the potentially misleading edit summary with suggested that NPOV, WEIGHT AND VERIAFIABILITY issues with a World Health Organization document) again here. Thus, if an editor uses TW to revert, by the very definition of TW it implies that the edit in question is vandalism. A similar case occurred here where Levine2112 was chided for abusing "semi-automated tools to participate in an edit war", and was consequently "detwinkled". I had already cited my concerns here regarding why Twinkle had been used to revert in this case (again, with the understanding that is should only be used to remove acts of vandalism) with a discrepancy regarding why 1 editor gets blocked for engaging in an edit war whereas a very similar case (OrangeMarlin) goes unpunished. Also, the "vandalism" which was being reverted was an contribution I made earlier that night. Here is one in question. Interestingly, the same point in made in Physical Therapy (Despite this, various alternative health professions continue to employ the use of some physical therapeutic modalities in practice) but this cannot go into chiropractic? Double standard, again. is the scope of practice bit I added that was reverted using Twinkle. Again, if not vandalism, why use twinkle, and the piece in question was NPOV, and met V:RS. So, I'll ask anyone again: IF the edits I listed above were NOT vandalism (and I believe they were not when I made my contribution) why did OM engage in an edit war using TW? For the record, so we're all clear here, that was the ONLY reason I accused OrangeMarlin of 'citing vandalism' in his edit summary, was because he had used TWINKLE to do it, and Levine2112 was 'detwinkled' for 'abusing' this tool to 'engage in an edit war'. Hope that provides more clarification. EBDCM (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather convoluted clarification. I understand your reasoning, but it doesn't explain your original accusation. If this was the case, why haven't you provided this explanation earlier when it could have helped you? It smacks of a very delayed rationalization. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Two quick points (I'm at work and do not have time to reply in full, but I will). 1) As you are not an admin do you have the authority to be making such requests? 2) The comments regarding vandalism towards OrangeMarlin were made because he was reverting using Twinkle, an anti-vadalism script. I know about this issue because Levine2112 was issued a stern warning or a block for using Twinkle to make reverts that were not vandalism. It was my understanding that Twinkle was to only be used to undo vandalism. Besides, I already apologized to OrangeMarlin regarding that mix up. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't have time right now to provide diffs but will this evening. I am confused though as to why you are making these demands as opposed to an adminstrator; preferably a neutral one who is not involved in this case and would have no WP:COI. I'd also have not heard back from Mr. Arrit whom I have requested to clarify what the exact reason is for the indefinite block. Lastly, it has been 4 days since my unblock request that does seem rather lengthy without some kind of formal response from an administrator. EBDCM (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the same "authority" as any other editor here. I can request, and you can collaborate and reply, or you can refuse. IOW you can choose the end result. If you are collaborative and cooperative, you win points with me and all the dozens of other people who are following this conversation. If you are evasive or refuse, you lose even more points. Misplaced Pages functions on confidence, trust, and reputation. They will trump all kinds of charges of various kinds when you are in trouble. They are your capital here. Invest and develop it wisely.

As I understand the Twinkle issue (and I don't understand all of it), it's not proper to use it (especially to give oneself an advantage) while edit warring. It is commonly used for many other purposes than fighting vandalism. You'll have to discuss the matter with some admins to get more clarification. You'll probably get as many different replies and opinions as the number of admins you ask. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So, let's make something clear here. I'm not going to exchange editing privileges for pleading guilty to something I have not done. That is something I simply will not compromise on; i.e. appeasement. If that the 'resolution' admins are looking for than we had better just call it a day. Looking back at my entire history, first as a proper named used (disclosed to MastCell) and then as my IP 208 I have never had any history of evading blocks and using puppet accounts. Now, Fyslee suggests that after 5 days of my first block (which was controversial) I decide to a) drive 1 hour in the middle of a work week and b) engage in an edit war and c) drive back one hour and resume in an edit war? I'm a professional; I have 2 degrees in physical medicine specialities and have a very strong sense morality and ethics. I have recent and expertise, whether or not our medical doctors editors acknowledge it or not, in physical medicine which includes manipulative and manual therapies. I consider myself also an expert in the exercise sciences, very strong in neurolgy, orthopaedics and rehabilitative sciences. I have founded the Kinesiology article take an active interest in anything related to Chiropractic since it has been the target less than forthright and incomplete editing. Once our work is done with chiropractic (and it's getting close) we can all move onto less controversial and subjects, sing and dance and embrace unicorns. For now, we need to get to work. 208.101.89.150 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sacred Cow

So, upon further reflection, it seems like I've pissed off a few influential editors who have subsequently ganged up on me and have made comments which I completely deem to be personal attacks and unfactual here. I find these comments, by this editor completely incidentiary, in poor taste, completely untrue and completely does not abide by WP:AGF and could easily be construed as slander in many legal circles. I would suggest that OrangeMarlin, a seemingly bright individual, take a bit more time to read physical medicine journals such as JMPT, JOSPT, AJSM, Spine, JMMT, JBMT, Physician and Sporstmedicine and other very good, peer-reviewed scientific journals in the field of physical medidine so he/she can educate him/herself on the latest literature on manual therapy (including manipulation) rather than spouting off invalid arguments. Perhaps OrangeMarlin could look at his very own Clinical Practice Guidelines for Managing of Low Back Pain here and be abreast of the latest conservative, non-medication approaches to dealing with mechanical pain syndromes which includes spinal manipulation. EBDCM (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, I am calling you out now. I have asked you several times now and you are ducking the issue. 1) What are the charges against me, you did not state them in your indefinite block 2) what was this based on (diffs, please) 3) I have inquired about misuse of the Twinkle javascript and you have not replied. It looks like I may have little choice but to take this to ArbCom and I am giving you an opportunity to clarify your position here so we can save the drama there. Please respond within 24 hours; I have been very, very patient with you so far (12 days without an adequate response) and I am asking you that you please answer my queries above and also look very carefully at the evidence I have provided in the canvassing section above. Lastly, since admin Thatcher said that the CU was inconclusive why am I still being blocked for an alleged puppet violation? I would appreciate that YOU answer me these questions, I want to speak to the horse's mouth and not Fyslee about this. Thanks in advance. EBDCM (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

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

Request reason:

Please, anyone who is impartial review this situation and get back to me. This is absolutely a raw deal and admins have been evading my questions now for close to a week. Dodging the issue and admitting a mistake (yes, admins make mistakes too) would be a good start. I'm not going to ArbCom, we're not at that frontier yet. Let's handle this the right way and present the facts because I'm debunked a lot of BS that has led us up to this point. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Useful contributions or not, rampant incivility and personal attacks are never warranted and you have a clear disregard for other editor. This leads me to believe that you cannot and will not work with others, despite numerous notices that have tried to shape your poor behavior. — seicer | talk | contribs 12:34, 2 April 2008 (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.

Just to expedite things: the above request doesn't really explain what was wrong with the block, other than that you are pissed about it. Your reasoning, I think, has been variously explained in the comments above, but for the sake of ease in reviewing, could you summarize your argument against the block in a few lines? Mangojuice 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice, I think you could have choosen better wording then "pissed". It certainly isn't helping to reduce the flames of this fire. IMHO, this block should be lifted. The editor has learned every lesson including how to use the unblock template. Bstone (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock review (again)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:EBDCM_unblock_review <-- You unblock request is being reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages