User talk:CorticoSpinal/Archive 2

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 Wikipedia 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

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. See the thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents page. The spurious accusations against another editor were the last straw. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 Wikipedia: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 [1] for no good reason, another PERSONAL attack and uncivil comment against me. I get called anti-scientific twice by OrangeMarlin[2], [3] (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" [4] 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 Wikipedia 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"[5] 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," [6]. -- 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 [7] 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 Wikipedia through your talk page, I recommend you be totally blocked from access to Wikipedia. -- 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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.[8] 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 [here. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l] 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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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^talk 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. 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^talk 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 ^(t/a/c) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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; perhaps more canvassing again here 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 evidence either.

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) [9]

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 ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) [10]

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) [11]

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

• [12] [13]

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) [14]

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) was asking EBDCM to supply a diff to back up his statement at that time. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Many diffs were supplied Fyslee, look below. Many of them are on March 20/08 and have continued in some form over the last 2 weeks. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I hadn't noticed the diffs below because DigitalC had interjected his comment above yours, making it appear that you replied later, when in fact you had replied before he did. Sorry about that. I'll have to check out your diffs. Thanks for providing them. -- Fyslee / talk 14:07, 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)

As a blocked user, Fyslee, how to you propose I 'take it up' with him? I mean, this is pretty straightforward. OM has called me anti-scientific, in one form or another, no less than 5 times. This is hardly WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL and is another example of a double standard being enforced here. This is in addition to what I perceive as abuse of automated tools which resulted in a block and a "detwinkling" of Levine2112. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 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 Wikipedia 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. [15] 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)

Actually, it's rather detailed and it's what you wanted. I had ALREADY mentioned this twice, first on March 20/08 here and then again on March 21/08 here. Delayed? Hardly. Overlooked? Definitely. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 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. Wikipedia 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. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have provided more than enough diffs, evidence and information to more than satisfy your request(s). I feel that you have no moral high ground here and your choice of language (...and lose even more points) is again misleading and I deem it unncessarily inflammatory. It's subtle (you're good at this) but it's there and I notice it. So, let me be the first to state that I do not trust you, do not have confidence in your ability to negotiate yourself through this case and your reputation; well let's just say in many circles it's no better than mine. Also, the "dozens" of people following this case perhaps should chime in from time to time so this can be resolved here rather than taking it higher up where not only my actions will be scrutinized but other editors involved in this case as well. And, based on my preliminary investigation I strongly suggest that a few editors here should proceed with caution in QUICKLY resolving this case here because who knows what can and will happen if and when this goes higher up and all the cards are layed on the table. I have explained my actions and reasoning rather elaborately now, and it's time that Raymond Arritt, Orange Marlin and yourself clarify your actions. EBDCM (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your combativeness and assumptions of bad faith are quite evident in these comments of yours, and if this is what we have to look forward to if or when you return, it doesn't bode well for the editing climate here. We don't need more of the same that got you blocked both times. -- Fyslee / talk 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Combativeness and assumptions of bad faith? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Can I not defend my actions and character without you suggesting it's combative? Have you assumed good faith here with me, Fyslee? Have you not been combative by doing excessively lobbying at various talk pages to keep me blocked despite the fact that it's becoming increasingly apparent that this case was handled poorly; that the evidence in question is weak at best and there have been allegations of personal attacks without any evidence or diffs? And now we're going on 2 weeks? Lol, please spare me the theatrics, Fyslee. I get along fine with the majority of editors. What disruption was I causing specifically, Fyslee? No evidence was ever presented anywhere in fact despite the fact I've been asking for this for 2 weeks now. Anyone in my situation would be frustrated with the dysfunctional way this has been handled and for better or worse, you've chosen to be the centre of it. Well, that's all fine and dandy with me, but you will have to do some explaining why you keep on misrepresenting my views and take subtle shots at my character. And given your tumultuous history here at Wikipedia, especially with CAM related pages such as Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, Barrett vs. Rosenthal et al. I seriously doubt you have any ethical or moral high ground here. I have nothing to hide and know that once a serious inquiry takes place there will be a lot of procedural flaws noted in this case (I'm been doing some homework) and a lot of vague allegations with 0 evidence to back it up which would warrant any block especially an indefinite one.

More misleading edit summaries from Fyslee noted here despite I obliged his request to provide information of being called anti-scientific. Yet another part of a smear campaign to suggest that I am "combative" and do not "assume good faith". I've demonstrated why I do not trust your judgement in this case. It's getting obvious now that this has little to do with any puppetry allegations, but moreso to permanently silence an editor who brings strong contributions to wikipedia that fundamentally disagree with your own (except I bring peer reviewed literature to the table and have dramatically increased Chiropractic scientific content and standards since my arrival. I also strongly object to your mischaracterization of me here where you suggest I have some kind of identity crisis. Actually no, I know exactly who and what I am, both personally and professionally. I know my profession much better than you hope to, Fyslee, because after all, I'm actually living it and practicing it, researching it. Also, unlike yourself, I have attended chiropratic school (in Canada) and know very well the ins/outs and controversies. I keep abreast of the majority of physical medicine literature (not just spinal manipulation) and would consider myself expert in the exercise sciences given my Kinesiology background and Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist and Certified Exercise Physiologist designations. Also, you suggest that I got blocked for edit warring here and I have NEVER been blocked for edit warring, ever. So, you are either misinformed or are deliberately misinforming admins, and other users who may be reviewing this case. To suggest that DigitalC is speaking of ignorance does not help matters; rather it's more or less an aggravating statement which is neither factual nor valid. You speak of me being evasive with my replies with respect to sockpuppetry allegations? How about this and this and this and there are more. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things around, Fyslee and I'm getting very annoyed that you keep seem to be trying to discredit me in some form whether or not through allegations of sockpuppetry; to claims that I am uncivil and make personal attacks. I have engaged in a heated debate previously with Eubulides where it was noted on MastCell's talk page and I apologized for using inappropriate language and have since directed my comments to the edit and not the editor. Somehow; Seicer, Raymond Arritt, OrangeMarlin and others whom I've NEVER DEALT WITH BEFORE jump in and claim and some vicious editor who bites heads off and people who have worked regularly with me know that is not true. I can supply tons and diffs and defintely will at ArbCom since I'm getting the shaft here. EBDCM (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

“ He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither. -Benjamin Franklin ”

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 poor behavior is never warranted and you have a clear disregard for other editors. 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. In addition, I see no pressing need for an unblock; nor do I see a fully stated reason for an unblock outside of the fact that you are just very angry. Making baseless comparisons to your poor behavior to that of administrators is an easy play at best. We make mistakes, and there are consequences. Much like that are consequences for your actions. — 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^talk 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)

Raymond Arritt made comment of my comment here which I am clearly frustrated at being jerked around for so long without any adequate replies to the long list of evidence I presented. Given the fact that Mr. Arritt continues to dodge the questions I presented to him and endorses what is amount to a ban I feel that I have no choice now but to pursue this at either at WP:DR or ArbCom. I sincerely feel there have been very severe egregious errors in this case; and that the comments by Seicer et al. are severely out of proportion and are really no worse than chronic offenders like Mccready and ScienceApologist who have not been hit this hard for much, much less. Also, it seems like the large amount of evidence to requests by Fyslee and Raymond Arritt in the aforementioned canvassing section on my talk page seems to have been neglected which explains EVERYTHING and provides much support for my actions and you can definitely see a lot of incivility and personal attacks from certain editors which to do even draw any kind of rebuke. Given these circumstances and what I feel is a perverse case of justice. Lastly, I am very troubled how Raymond Arritt continues to dodge my "evidence" and does not even comment on it, but has no problem continuing endorsing an indefinite ban based on a frustrated reply which I posted on my talk. Looks like we're going to ArbCom, buckle up, boys! EBDCM (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Users like SA have been sanctioned numerous times in the past. The time has come for editors to take responsibility for their actions, and that repeated violations will simply no longer be tolerated or dusted under the rug. I'm tired of seeing [insert violator] at AE every other week, or at ANI, or elsewhere. Actions to clean up these messes require bold moves, and if it removes one disgruntled or a poorly behaving editor, then the project is better overall. We may have lost a contributing member, but if it prevents editors from leaving or from becoming disgruntled or disenfranchised with the process, then it is worth the effort.

It should be noted that I have been (falsely) accused of being lobbed in the "anti-science" fringe many times. My comments or actions here do not reflect my ideals or values in any way, and that they are based solely on a user's performance in regards to other editors. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Seicer. I am the one being disenfranchised and disgruntled, particularly over the way this has been handled. I have made many, many strong contributions in fact I almost always bring peer reviewed research to the table unlike, say, QuackGuru and Mccready who do not have the same inclusion standard for edits that I've brought to the project. Chiropractic's scientific quota has gone through the roof, I have authored Kinesiology and Chiropractic Canada. I have discussed many edits thoroughly on Talkpages. I have collaborated with skeptics. I write for the enemy. These *supposed* allegations of incivility/personal attacks are completely blown out of proportion as is the allegation that I am "hard to work with". Diffs, please, Seicer, otherwise I lament that your input and dialogue here will not be fruitful in helping move this case forward. I look forward to your reply. EBDCM (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, can you please tell me where you are basing your conclusions from in your allegations here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=prev&oldid=202798425 here. I am not at all pleased with your hasty generalizations and conclusions here, and would appreciate if you apologize for what I consider to be a slight on my character and a gross overgeneralization of my alleged incivility and personal attacks. EBDCM (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock review (again)

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

Thanks, QG. You're honestly an enigma wrapped inside a mystery sometimes!

So Seicer and Raymond insist that I do not "play well with others" but that's really not the case; the truth is I've collaborated VERY well with many editors 1 or 2 I have not (Mccready, Eubulides) though Eu and I were have much more productive exchanges (IMO). Also, is uncollaborative why I consistently used Talk at Chiropractic and other pages I've edited? Your claims are unfounded, Seicer and Raymond and my contributions far outweigh the rookie mistakes I've made here to this point. Far more experienced editors have traded barbs with me and I'm the one who get's called uncivil and accused of making personal attacks. Let me clear so I can tell you what I really think is going on. I think there are a certain number of individuals here who have a vested interest in PREVENTING progress on certain CAM pages, Chiropractic being one of them. I think that there are certain mainstream medical editors who have insulated themselves by being buddy-buddy with admins are are cashing in favours. I think that any incivility in my case has been quite mild and is no more out of proportion than that I have received. I think that Seicer and Raymond's insinuations that I cannot and will not collaborate are not only untrue and unfounded, but are really a red herring now detracting us from the bigger issue at play: was this current block justified based on the evidence and 2)was this case handled in the most appropriate, neutral and constructive manner? I would say definitely no on both counts and I look forward to presenting my case. EBDCM (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi who previously called me a quack here and suggests here that the sockpuppet allegation should still hold even though it was deemed inconclusive. If User:Moreschi would care to come to my talk page and investigate for himself/herself s/he would clearly see that I have adequately explained all allegations against me whereas the "prosecution" has not come up with any rebuttals or rebukes (maybe because there are none?!). Have the same admins look into this case as before doesn't make much sense to me; and given the fact that Moreschi has already directed a personal attack against me (quack) despite my scientific background and practice style, I don't see how s/he can objectively make the appropriate recommendation in this case. More: Moreschi says I have a 'history of disruptive editing' could he/she or anyone please provide ANYTHING that suggests this is even remotely true? I see a lot of smoke being blown here and very little evidence or facts to support the inflammatory language being used. EBDCM (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin MangoJuice has acknowledged here what I've been trying to ask for nearly 2 weeks now: where is the evidence of disruptive editing practices? There have many allegations thrown here in this case (like I mentioned earlier, everything but the kitchen sink or so it seems) but no real evidence of any wrongdoing, especially anything that justifies the length of this block (or even it in the first place). Like I mentioned earlier, I would rather not go to ArbCom to resolve this; but I'm being left with little choice given the fact that my 'accusers' do not present any evidence that I've long asked for and have not received. EBDCM (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me just briefly try to clear up a misunderstanding: Moreschi wasn't using the word "quack" in the pejorative sense of an unqualified medical practitioner, though I can see why you might have interpreted it thus. He was referring to the "duck test", which is Wikipedia parlance for the idea that if an account acts like a sockpuppet, then it likely is a sockpuppet (that is, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck). By "quack", he meant that he believed the evidence of IP sockpuppetry seemed to him to meet this "duck test". I can assure you he wasn't calling you a "quack" or questioning your professional credentials. Not sure if that makes it any better or easier, but I wanted to clear that up since it seems like a straightforward misunderstanding. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that does clear some things up! Given my professional background, I thought he was referring to that, so that was an honest misunderstanding. Thanks MastCell, I do hope you do share your 2c on some of the issues I've raised here on my talk page as it is the only place that I can provide my thoughts on ongoing discussions about me. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Outcome

1. Provide diffs or evidence of "history of disruptive edits" if none, then these allegations should be permanently dropped
2. Warn other editors who continue to bait me with sockpuppet accusations despite the CU came back inconclusive and there is a growing consensus that the evidence presented was weak. It also should be formally acknowledged that I share an ISP with many in Ontario (Nortel) and the geolocation tracer thingmajig routes it back to Timmins, ON where the central server is
3. Clarification and apology for OrangeMarlin for calling me anti-scientific numerous times, making fun of my Northern heritage (snow dogs, sleds, etc) and explanation why TWINKLE was used (see case of Levine2112 above who was "detwinkled" by an admin for a similar act
4. Immediate lifting of indefinite block
5. Voluntarily limit self to 1RR for 30 days to Chiropractic
6. Contribute to other physical medicine and CAM articles to help prove expertise in these fields
7. Apologize to any editor who genuinely felt slighted so long as a mutual apology is issued if I felt attacked as well
8. Anything else that is mutually acceptable to involved parties.

I hope this generates positive discussion and please someone keep me in the loop. Many thanks in advance to those who have objectively looked at this situation and are genuinely interested in moving forward, learning lessons in this case so that similar situations do not occur with other new wikipedians. EBDCM (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're making this much too complicated. I would refrain from demanding apologies, for one thing. The more things you post like that the more it looks like you intend to dwell on the block situation rather than return to valuable and productive editing. I would also refrain from demanding remedies against other users. Just focus on yourself - what kind of behavior you intend to have if you are unblocked. Mangojuice^talk 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Point noted, Mangojuice. I won't dwell on it; I'd just rather this not happen again in the way that it did. I have every intention of resuming productive edits again and will voluntary limit myself to 1RR indefinitely as a sign of good faith. Regarding my behavioural indiscretions, I do admit, and have done so previously that I overreacted in my case with Eubulides; but really do not see the incivility/personal attacks that are mentioned since the original block. Comment on the edit, not the editor, right? I believe I've abided by those rules and if someone can show a diff that I have not then I apologize, but do believe I was acting within reason, for the most part, in my discussions. It does not help when a group of experienced editors seemingly 'gang up' on me and rather than correct any supposed bad behaviour they spout off wikilaws and report me to ANI. It just seemed like a very swift declaration and judgment of guilt and to this day I still don't exactly know what the charges were and what the evidence was (besides the sockpuppet allegation). Anyways, I really don't feel like I need another 1-2 weeks to "cool off" (it's already been 2 weeks anyways) but perhaps until this coming Friday (April 4/08) where I disappear if that's what is asked of me. Please let me know. Thanks again. EBDCM (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, a lot has been said about 'behavioural' issues. I would like to see the evidence (diffs) where I have made incivil or personal attack comments. I don't think I made any; however I could be wrong. If I am to learn from this situation, which I have every intention on doing, I need to know WHAT exactly I supposedly did wrong. I'm paranoid now that if I ever disagree with an editor that I'll be labelled as "uncivil" and a "recidivist" and get a swift kick in the pants. I would also like to state for the record that there are really only 3 users that I have had strong disagreements with a)User:Mccready b)User:QuackGuru and c)User:Eubulides. The first two I think I was suckered into stuff by perhaps trolling type comments, Eubulides and I differ significantly as to what studies and their weight should be included in Chiropractic. I would say our differences are probably more intellectual and ideological and come from very different POV, i.e. an MD and DC. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we disagree, I do think, for the most part, especially after the original block (which I agree was justified though IMO a little lengthy for a first offence, but that is water under the bridge).

As a last comment on this issue (hopefully) I do feel that Mr. Fyslee's actions (moreso after the block) were questionable and I personally have serious reservations given that his website is still up and running (who pays those bills anyways?) that pretty much states that the chiropractic profession should not exist. It's not that I don't try to WP:AGF in his case, but I felt like the manner that he was canvassing for more punishment and mischaracterizing myself (he's young and seems confused) regarding my professional identity is purely speculative (at best) and probably should not have been said in the current context of things. Regardless, for closure (for all of us) I really would like to see the "incivility/personal attacks" in question listed (I have asked for these for 2 weeks now) because the last thing I want to do is come off a some thug. I was hoping to be mentored by User:Dematt but it seems as though he has taken an indefinite wikibreak and if someone (unrelated to the Chiropractic circle) could offer me a few tips (i.e. work constructively with me) rather than sh*t down my throat if I make an error in judgement we will all be better off. I'm 29 (a pup), I'm a big geek in terms of reading literature and am feel that I can definitely help improve Wikipedia's medically/CAM related articles by bringing in solid citations, by writing well, by collaborating with good editors and hopefully being on the other side of the fence rather than this side. Anyways, I believe that is all I have to say unless anyone would like any clarifications or suggestions. I patiently await the verdict. Merci beaucoup. EBDCM (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"who pays those bills" ? There are no bills. My two websites are free and not even maintained. They're just sitting there. -- Fyslee / talk 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be support for unblocking you, but with some restrictions. Not sure if anyone is willing to do it yet, but it only takes a single administrator to approve the unblock. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a sincere attempt to give you a chance to convince me and others you should be unblocked.[16] Instead, you falsely accused me of spamming your talk page.[17] Again, please convince us why we should unblock you. Please specifically give us answers to the questions presented in my previous good faith post under the title "please convince us."[18] If you are unable to provide answers to these simple questions I think you should remain blocked. At the moment, you have not provided any legitimate reason for anyone to unblock you. Please expalin your poor behaviour and give us a reason to unblock you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This needling of EBDCM needs to stop now. I agree with MastCell that EBDCM should take a Wikibreak for a week or two and then come back striving not to take the bait from those trying to elicit a poor response from him. I encourage QuackGuru to leave EBDCM alone. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See you all soon, I'm taking a wikibreak, as suggested by MastCell and Levine2112 till Monday, April 7/08. EBDCM (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get the ball rolling now? EBDCM (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I am requesting to be unblocked as I would like to return to productive editing. I promise I will use the Talk pagepages prior to making any significant or potentially controversial edits and will work, in the best of my ability, to try to resolve any conflicts that may arise. Furthermore, I promise to continue to engage in meaningful and constructive discussions and avoid any personal attacks. I promise to continue to bring high quality, peer-reviewed research to help improve the standard of the articles here our Wikipedia project. As previously mentioned, I will voluntarily limit myself to 1RR. From hereon in I promise to log in and sign all my posts as to avoid any confusion in the future. I apologize the unproductive comments on my talk page and qualify that they were made in a period of frustration and should be taken as such. It has been demonstrated that I have historically been a valuable editor to the project and I look forward to being a good contributor to the project. Regards, EBDCM.}}

I'm not sure on the fine details on what your editing restrictions would be, but since blocking is a last resort, consider me someone who supports your unblock. However, there might be further discussion on what these restrictions might be, so keep in mind your unblock request above isn't a contract or anything like that. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this request for unblock. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the third unblock request. The first two were denied. Here is a link for any admin to review when reviewing EBDCM's request.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#User talk:EBDCM unblock review What is most striking is that EBDCM is unwilling to explain the reasons for his past poor behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that QuackGuru has been asked to leave EBDCM alone. I don't think that his meddling above qualifies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my opinion in the negative. The user has truly earned his block through actions in the past, and nothing has changed since the last time his block was reviewed. I think he should stay blocked. --Liempt (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearing my userpage

QuackGuru, I'll ask that you DO NOT clear my userpage in the future and stick an indef template like you did here I find it in very poor taste. Thanks. EBDCM (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are indef. blocked. We generally do that to userpages of users that have earned an indef. block. I don't see a problem with it. SQL^{Query me!} 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit dramatic, but if that's the norm, then so be it. EBDCM (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the content of your userpage, per the outcome at #Unblocked. Anthøny 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)