User talk:CorticoSpinal/Archive 4

Anthony; I was not judging Jonathan as a Jewish person, I was illustrating how I am being discriminated and stereotyped against. I oppose this block and it comes at the most critical juncture in the history of the article. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you understand how disruptive it is to make any assumption about someone based on a characteristic like religion, race, gender or nationality? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's clearly one of a huge number of concerns. I'm afraid you simply can't edit constructively at the moment, hence my block. Anthøny 18:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whoa, whoa whoa. I'm part Jewish too. You've misunderstood my point: My comment to Jonathan was that we shouldn't judge people based on religion, race, gender, nationality nor professional designation. I'm not a racist. I'm a bloody French-Canadian Jew! There's no way my comment should be misconstrued. If it was taken that way than I severely apologize, that was not my intent whatsoever. The message was, we shouldn't discriminate based on differences that are used as straw man to discredit others views. That was all the comment was referring to. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you meant, then why didn't you just say that? Why do you insist on being inflammatory? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I did say that. The fact that Jonathan did not reply or block me (as he would have done if he thought I was taking a swipe at OUR ethnic background) led me to believe the comment was kosher. Also, because you and other chiroskeptical editors view me as fringe practitioner a lot of stuff I say is likely to be perceived as inflammatory as though I am defending an extremist position. I'm not. I really don't see myself anything more than a doctor of musculoskeletal medicine who primarily uses a manual medicine approach. I've said I was an evidence based medicine practitioner, no one listened or care and still called me "anti-science" "fringe POV warrior". So after 5 months of taunts, baits, attacks, slights, amazingly civil disses, I am always on DEFCON alert. Let me ask you a question that will likely illustrate my point: Do you believe the evidence-based chiropractic is possible, or do you see them being mutually exclusive? CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You really didn't answer my question, but I will do you the favor of answering your question at the end of this post. You already know that I have experience being blocked, and so I speak from experience when I say that you need to have a thick skin and an even temper to work on Wikipedia (see WP:MASTADON). There are going to be people who think you are the worst sort of person, and if you cannot live with the taunts, innuendo, jibes, and occasional personal attacks without lashing out at everyone and anyone then Wikipedia is manifestly NOT the place for you. You'd be best to spend your time elsewhere.

You seem to me like you are on a crusade to redeem the image of your discipline from those who are disparaging it. This is a separate problem from your thin skin. In a way, we are very similar because I am also on such a crusade. Unfortunately for you, however, my crusade is about upholding the mainstream understanding of science and preventing innovative ideas from being promoted at Wikipedia without first being vetted at alternative locations. This puts me firmly in line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community consensus. Your hope to redeem the image of your chosen field is, unfortunately, not in line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community consensus.

I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio -- even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER.

But to answer your question: Personally, just as I think that there is a possibility that good posture may lead to certain health benefits, I think that aligning a spine might have some health benefits. But I'm no medical doctor, only someone scientifically literate enough to know that, while it is definitely possible to follow the scientific method to determine what, if any, of those benefits may be, the sourcing you were attempting at our chiropractic article is not only not convincing of your stance: it's decidedly outside of the mainstream understanding of your discipline. It is ultimately the mainstream understanding which Wikipedia must adhere to.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop it right there. You're misrepresenting me

1. I am not a crusader. Do not use religious terminology with me. I'm a scientist.
2. I am not here to redeem any image, I am here to present scientific papers indexed at PubMed and other reliable sources. Papers that have been prevented from their rightful and deserved inclusion at Chiropractic. Papers demonstrating the scientific advancement and maturation of the profession. Papers that demonstrate the mainstream view of chiropractic. So far, chiropractic gets straw manned by one aspect of theory that only minority adhere to.
3. I have not grandstanded in any way shape or form. I have not presented any breakthough or notable idea. I have presented scientific research which suggests that chiropractic medicine is MORE like Dentistry and Physical Therapy as opposed to fringe topics like Flat Earth, Creationism and AIDS denialism.
4. If you promote the status quo then you will always be opposed to changes in scientific thought and developments in the mainstream. It's a dynamic process. You favour a static one. Research, much like life, does not work that way
5. You have NOT answered my question: is evidence-based medicine and chiropactic care mutually exclusive. It's a straighforward question that deserves a straight forward response. Please. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your block. I think we're finished. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cortico, you said "If you promote the status quo then you will always be opposed to changes in scientific thought and developments in the mainstream", unfortunately, I'm afraid that this conflicts gravely with the no original research wikipedia policy and the fringe theories guideline about using the mainstream views. Research and life may work that way, but wikipedia certainly doesn't.

I'm not asking to promote any original research. I'm asking to including reliable scientific sources and have them weighed accordingly. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, notice that wikipedia is not "promoting the status quo", it is just compiling knowledge from reliable sources according to certain policies and guidelines. According to the the undue weight section on neutral point of view policy we are supposed to represent all significant views of point, with paying more attention to majority ones. This representation should not be confused with promotion of those views, specially since it attempts to be based on an objective basis, see "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties".

I have made the claim that chiropractic medicine, circa 2008, is moreso mainstream and like Denstistry or Physical Therapy than it is like Homeopathy or Flat Earth. I have provided reliable and undisputed sources that support such a claim. Chiroskeptics who claim chiropractic medicine, circa 2008, is more fringe than mainstream have provided 0 (zero) to suggest their position on the matter is correct. This is about science and sources. Nothing more. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get unblocked, then you should stop believing that wikipedia has somehow some obligation to report the bleeding edge of research and you should stop believing that people refusing to report non-mainstream research are somehow against you, your viewpoint, or the topic you are dealing with. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am providing mainstream research (i.e. published in peer-reviewed, indexed journals on PubMed). Wikipedia, as I understand it, requires WP:RS and WP:V. I believe the research I have provided more than meets those requirements to support the claims I've made. Skeptics who seem to not like it have not found any research to refute by point, or even provide some to support THEIRS (i.e. chiropractic=fringe). Again, this is about science and sources. Nothing more. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are claiming that we shouldn't support the status quo, then I doubt that you are interested on helping to represent the mainstream view, since at wikipedia the status quo happens to be the representation of the mainstream views (mainstream as in views from significant majorities) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:56, 2 June 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:

Reason: No consensus to support such an action and, given the context, it is far too harsh nor is it valid. See ANI

Decline reason:

reason —AGK has provided enough evidence for this block. As for your ANI diff, that is about bans, you haven't been banned-you were indef blocked, there is a difference. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 1 June 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.

With due respect, blocks are simple measures to prevent disruption; no prior discussion is needed, but only evidence of contributions which actively hamper the development of the encyclopedia. I've presented such evidence, and hence made the block on your account. The block is clearly warranted, and so I see no issue here. Anthøny 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your concerns, I have not been disruptive, no more so than the editing practices of QuackGuru and ScienceApologist who have failed to garner such attention because they're apparently defending the "mainstream" position despite the fact there is a plethora of scientific evidence that suggests their stance is incorrect. I lament the fact that I cannot even continue to debate the critical arguments being raised at chiropractic; I've only been trying for 5 months now to get attention to these issues and 1 day after there is a RfC on chiropractic I was brought to ANI. Coincidence, or a well-timed, deliberate attempt to censor my argument and the research I have presented that completely debunks the arguments held by Eubulides, ScienceApolgist, QuackGuru, OrangeMarlin, Jefffire and Filll. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The block is valid; although you have not exhausted the patience of the community to warrant a ban yet, it was needed. Disruptive edit-warring and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks and incivility are unacceptable. Until you agree to reform your behaviour, then it's unlikely your block will be reviewed.

I'll look into the other editor's conduct - alternatively, you may provide evidence here (or in the appropriate forums upon being unblocked) but you need to acknowledge the problem, and state how you will fix the problem, and that you will stay committed to fixing the problem, in relation to your conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice from Ncmvocalist, except for one thing - don't continue to use offense as a defense. If you come back and "provide evidence" of "other editor's conduct", you will just be repeating what got you blocked, indef blocked, and indef blocked again. Don't comment on other editors, their affiliations, or their private lives. Focus on the edits without impugning other editor's motives. THAT type of stuff is what you're being blocked for, not your content, your professional affiliations, or your POV, etc.. Forget ALL of that and focus on reforming your attitude and behavior. It's the continued personal attacks that are the problem, and THAT'S what is a violation of your probation. THAT'S why you're getting blocked. "Offense is [NOT] the best defense" here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee is exactly right. To get unblocked, you don't need to make any change to your POV about chiropractic or your attitude about chiropractic, but you do need to make changes in your behaviour, and I think the only feasible way to do that is to make deep changes in your attitude – not your attitude about chiropractic, not your opinion about what a NPOV article about chiropractic would say if you were the only one writing it, but your attitude about respecting others' opinions, listening to others as you would like them to listen to you, compromising, taking responsibility for your actions, and being aware of the cost to others in time and effort of your article talk page posts. And you have to actually be civil, not just try to and "let a barb slip" from time to time. If others do things wrong, I suggest ignoring it and leaving it up to others to handle that, especially when you're blocked or when the people doing things wrong are on the opposite side of a content dispute from yourself. I just think things will work out better that way. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you Coppertwig for your comments. I do understand where the concerns are coming from. However, perhaps a simple question of "why" are CorticoSpinal and the chiroskeptics not getting along? It's not about my "POV" it's about science. Plain and simple. I have made a claim, that circa 2008 chiropractic shares more attributes with mainstream health professions than it does with Homeopathy. Editors are currently editing Chiropractic as though it is fringe (even within its own article!) despite the evidence suggesting the contrary. Wikipedia, as I understand it isn't about truth, its about verifiability and reliable sources. I have sources to support my claim yet chiroskeptics have 0 evidence to support their contention that chiropractic is fringe. If, at mediation (where this should go) chiropratic is declared fringe I shall voluntarily retire. It would be a waste of time editing Wikipedia at that point; it will have effectively shunned scientific papers for the personal opinion of 5 editors. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, CorticoSpinal. By the way, my above comment is just my opinion; I don't actually know whether you can get unblocked at all or under what circumstances.

At this point in time, I'm not interested in discussing with you issues directly related to article content. However, if you're interested in discussing the behavioural concerns I raised in my previous message, I would be happy to discuss those with you. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Coppertwig. I am most interested in being mentored by you on some of the finer points of behavioural issues. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss them in a more private setting if you wish to be more candid. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I arrived too late

Damn, I'm late. I was going to give this editor a bad faith assumption warning for not checking his facts and not AGFing before accusing of disruptive editing (the "interjecting inappropriate allegations" item on your list), and give him advice on checking with other editors first --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric, the issue really isn't about bad faith from my end, it's moreso from the skeptics who continue to promote (with 0 scientific sources) that chiropractic=fringe despite the evidence to the contrary. If there's bad faith happening, its from the other end who continuously use WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an reason not to directly tackle the #1 issue at Chiropractic namely, is chiropractic fringe, or moreso mainstream health care like Physical Therapy or Dentistry. Don't forget, I have already provided evidence to support my claim. The skeptics have not. This is the heart of the issue. Regards CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Branding

So far, in my 5 moths at wikipedia I have been misrepresented, mischaracterized, witch hunted, harrased, baited, bitten and personally attacked. A select group of 7 editors who believe that Chiropratic is WP:FRINGE despite evidence to the contrary have continued a non-stop character assasination attempts. So, here is the official branding of CorticoSpinal by the anti-chiropractic brigade.

“ A fringe, pig-headed, POV-pushing warrior who is anti-scientific, uncollaborative who has racist tendencies ”

Thanks Wikipedia for treating me like a 2nd class citizen from a 3rd world country! Goodbye. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, CorticoSpinal.

Thank you very much for this reply to my message. Normally I would be happy to strike out some comments on your behalf, but not if you haven't stated specifically which comments you would like struck out, and I'm not entirely sure of the appropriateness of doing so while you're blocked, so I'm not taking any action at this time – I'm sorry about that.

You might be interested in my essay Advice for people making unblock requests. I have your talk page watchlisted. I might reply later about that article you wanted me to look at. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a few days away from here and see how it plays out. There's been an ongoing civil POV push occuring at chiropractic in 3 ways:

1. pushing that chiropractic is moreso fringe than mainstream which means I'm subject to frequent reversions by skeptics. This is despite the evidence presented that provides strong support for my argument whereas the chiroskeptics have provided no evidence to suggest that it is fringe (despite numerous requests in clear violation of WP:CIVIL which they use WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics and are reverting based primarily on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than presenting scientific evidence to the contrary
2. pushing the biased, flawed and refuted research of Edzard Ernst on the specific topics of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) and chiropractic care in a deliberate attempt to obsfucate the majority of the scientific literature which suggests that for back and neck pain chiropractic care is just as safe, effective, and cost-effective if not moreso than conventional medical care
3. push that the Bone and Joint Neck Pain TaskForce is a mainstream chiropractic document whose conclusions are currently being weighed far, far less than they ought to be and that is being rebutted by the flawed, disputed paper of Edzard Ernst. I'm not aware of the TaskForce being disputed.

So, until those 3 issues are resolved, the situation at Chiropractic will continue to remain dysfunctional and I shall remain a heretic at wikpedia rather than a respected health professional with valuable expertise that I'm trying to share. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the AN/I thread and looked at your block log. (You had mentioned "ANI" in a message at my talk page but didn't provide a link and I wasn't sure if you really meant WP:AN/I.) You had been conditionally unblocked with a condition of being civil, among other conditions. Per the messages you posted that I mentioned to you in recent posts on this talk page, you didn't fulfill that condition (even if the message mentioned above which you say was miscontrued is set aside). Other problems with your editing patterns have been pointed out to you. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought

Maybe we all could use a little reminder from neurophysiologist, scientist, and professor User:Gleng. -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, while you've got some time. Take a look at this. It's the test that Professor Leng left us.. don't look at the answers till you've got them all! It's enlightening. -- Dēmatt (chat) 22:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)