CorticoSpinal

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 Wikipedia. (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., [1] "You're Jewish, eh Jonathan? I'm sure you understand what's its like to be judged...");
• "fanning the flames" ([2]), rather than keeping drama to a minimum;
• interjecting inappropriate allegations (viz., [3]), 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CorticoSpinal for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)