| Revision as of 22:10, 21 March 2008 editCorticoSpinal (talk | contribs)1,880 edits comment to PL← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:56, 24 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (300 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Prior discussion: ] • ] • ] • ]<small>; Previous threads archived. ] 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="padding:5px; width:auto;" | |||
| == Campaign to discredit a scientific chiropractor == | |||
| | ] | |||
| | '''This account has been ] from editing Misplaced Pages.'''<br /><small>(info: • ] • ] • • )</small> | |||
| |}{{#ifeq:historical|historical||]}}<!-- Template:Indefblockeduser --> | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| 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 ] 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. ] (]) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| CorticoSpinal, your behaviour after I extended a conditional unblock to you has reached the levels of disruption: your continuing ability to edit is evidently not a net positive for the project. To outline briefly: | |||
| ==Indefinite block reinstated== | |||
| *References to editor's ethnicity with a view to heating the discussion up (viz., "''You're Jewish, eh Jonathan? I'm sure you understand what's its like to be judged...''"); | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{#if:|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. See the thread at the ] page. The spurious accusations against another editor were the last straw. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->] | |||
| *"fanning the flames" (), rather than keeping ] to a minimum; | |||
| *interjecting inappropriate allegations (viz., ), rather than ]; | |||
| *Edit warring: you've been for that in the past. | |||
| I'm not currently convinced that allowing you to edit is beneficial to the project at all. To that end, I've placed an '''indefinite''' block on your account. Whilst I am not opposed to an {{tl|unblock}} at a later date, on the condition that you can demonstrate both a reform in editing habits and attitudes (that is, that you won't repeat the behaviour detailed above, and on the relevant ] ), but at the moment, blocking your accounts seems the only option left open. | |||
| Raymond Arritt, please explain how you consider me defending myself against attacks from the anti-chiropractic bandwagon is spurrious and or disruptive. Unbelievable. ] (]) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| ] 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| OrangeMarlin used a 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? ] (]) 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have archived this talk page, as it should really only be used for appealing the block. That's been done, so it's time to adhere to the block, please. ] 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I did not realize that I was not adhering to the block restriction by replying to comments left on my talk page by other editors. I apologize. ] (]) 19:11, 2 June 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. ] (]) 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::"A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page. Users are allowed to retain editing access to their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, '''and''' so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Misplaced Pages, whilst the block is active." - ]. But Anthony is probably doing you more good at the moment by archiving that discussion that was continuing. | |||
| :::In any case, note that ArbCom do not handle content disputes. Only Article RFC and mediation do, and the latter requires the willingness of all those involved. ] (]) 17:07, 4 June 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. ] (]) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was my understanding that ArbCom handles behavioural/editing problems, is this correct? ] (]) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=See below|decline= There is no consensus to unblock you at ]. Explaining how others supposedly misbehaved does not justify any misbehaviour on your part. — ] (]) 09:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| From ]: ''The Arbitration Committee is a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Misplaced Pages disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve, and to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing.'' | |||
| 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 ] 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 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. ] (]) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process–it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.'' | |||
| == IP Locator as evidence == | |||
| Note, this doesn't say anything about content or behaviour as such, but ''disputes'' and ''rule-breaking''. ] (]) 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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". ] (]) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The principle that ArbCom avoids content issues and deals with user conduct is unwritten (so far as I know), but still carries quite a bit of weight. With a few notable exceptions, the Committee takes pains to avoid making content-based rulings - in fact, you'll see quite a few proposed findings rejected with the rationale that they are "content matters". In practice, the line between user conduct and content is a bit blurry, of course. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| This editor is clearly getting a bum deal here. . . he has been banned with<s> little to</s> 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.] (]) 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. | |||
| ::Certainly it is in the best interest of everyone editing at ] and the poor souls that have to deal with the fall-out to get the content and rule breaking issues resolved ASAP. Is there a way to proceed forward; I'm willing to put my wiki-career on the line for this which would make a lot of people happy. I believe the arguments have crystalized (on both sides) and I've come up with 3-5 fundamental questions that ArbCom or mediation can address which will go a long, long, long way until resolving the drama that surrounds myself and ] overall. There's been a POV tag up there since February 08 so we might as well get the show on the road. As an indef-blocked user could I still speak at the hearing? I would give you my word that I would not edit any article or participate in any talk page. It would be strictly to present the case. Thoughts? ] (]) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Content disputes are rejected regularly by ArbCom, and I have no doubt this would be one of them if presented - particularly when conduct issues can be handled by the community or individual admins. As for your request, Anthony is a mediator so you may wish to contact him - or another mediator at ]. If you can follow the conditions of a temporary unblock, then you might be unblocked. You haven't been banned yet by the community and attempting to resolve disputes through the proper channels might be a step in the right direction, although I found part of what you said concerning. Remember, significantly breaching those conditions can lead to a ban. But if you follow those conditions and conduct yourself appropriately, then the unblock may become permanent. ] (]) 17:43, 7 June 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,"'' . -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| ==Chiropractic Scope of Practice== | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fyslee, please leave me alone. ] (]) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:56, 24 February 2023
Prior discussion: /Archive 1 • /Archive 2 • /Archive 3 • /Archive 4; Previous threads archived. Anthøny 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
|
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. (info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks) |
Blocked
CorticoSpinal, your behaviour after I extended a conditional unblock to you has reached the levels of disruption: your continuing ability to edit is evidently not a net positive for the project. To outline briefly:
- References to editor's ethnicity with a view to heating the discussion up (viz., "You're Jewish, eh Jonathan? I'm sure you understand what's its like to be judged...");
- "fanning the flames" (), rather than keeping drama to a minimum;
- interjecting inappropriate allegations (viz., ), rather than focussing on content, not the contributor;
- Edit warring: you've been blocked for that in the past.
I'm not currently convinced that allowing you to edit is beneficial to the project at all. To that end, I've placed an indefinite block on your account. Whilst I am not opposed to an {{unblock}} at a later date, on the condition that you can demonstrate both a reform in editing habits and attitudes (that is, that you won't repeat the behaviour detailed above, and on the relevant administrators' noticeboard for incidents thread), but at the moment, blocking your accounts seems the only option left open.
Anthøny 18:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have archived this talk page, as it should really only be used for appealing the block. That's been done, so it's time to adhere to the block, please. Anthøny 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not realize that I was not adhering to the block restriction by replying to comments left on my talk page by other editors. I apologize. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- "A usual block prevents users from editing all pages except their user talk page. Users are allowed to retain editing access to their user talk page, in order to have a chance for appeal, and so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Misplaced Pages, whilst the block is active." - WP:APPEAL. But Anthony is probably doing you more good at the moment by archiving that discussion that was continuing.
- In any case, note that ArbCom do not handle content disputes. Only Article RFC and mediation do, and the latter requires the willingness of all those involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that ArbCom handles behavioural/editing problems, is this correct? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
From WP:ARBCOM: The Arbitration Committee is a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Misplaced Pages disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve, and to consider certain cases where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing.
Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process–it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.
Note, this doesn't say anything about content or behaviour as such, but disputes and rule-breaking. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- The principle that ArbCom avoids content issues and deals with user conduct is unwritten (so far as I know), but still carries quite a bit of weight. With a few notable exceptions, the Committee takes pains to avoid making content-based rulings - in fact, you'll see quite a few proposed findings rejected with the rationale that they are "content matters". In practice, the line between user conduct and content is a bit blurry, of course. MastCell 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly it is in the best interest of everyone editing at Chiropractic and the poor souls that have to deal with the fall-out to get the content and rule breaking issues resolved ASAP. Is there a way to proceed forward; I'm willing to put my wiki-career on the line for this which would make a lot of people happy. I believe the arguments have crystalized (on both sides) and I've come up with 3-5 fundamental questions that ArbCom or mediation can address which will go a long, long, long way until resolving the drama that surrounds myself and Chiropractic overall. There's been a POV tag up there since February 08 so we might as well get the show on the road. As an indef-blocked user could I still speak at the hearing? I would give you my word that I would not edit any article or participate in any talk page. It would be strictly to present the case. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Content disputes are rejected regularly by ArbCom, and I have no doubt this would be one of them if presented - particularly when conduct issues can be handled by the community or individual admins. As for your request, Anthony is a mediator so you may wish to contact him - or another mediator at WP:MEDIATION. If you can follow the conditions of a temporary unblock, then you might be unblocked. You haven't been banned yet by the community and attempting to resolve disputes through the proper channels might be a step in the right direction, although I found part of what you said concerning. Remember, significantly breaching those conditions can lead to a ban. But if you follow those conditions and conduct yourself appropriately, then the unblock may become permanent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/CorticoSpinal for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. OrangeMarlin 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)