Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/CorticoSpinal

Moved from mainpage:


 * I'm not seeing any real evidence here - just ludicrous circumstantial stuff like use of the word spam. Where is the evidence that Soyuz113 is any of these other users or that he has been editing in a way which merits an indefinite block?  Was there a proper checkuser made or is it all just prejudice and guesswork?  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to do your homework better. It is CorticoSpinal/Soyuz113 himself who is using the words spam and wikistalking, with these aggressive and accusatory links in his edit summary: WP:HARASS WP:CIVIL. This is obviously a very negative way to deal with such accusations. As I advised him the last time he was indef blocked - offense is NOT the best defense in this type of situation. This guy has an aggressive streak that affects his editing style, his encounters with editors who hold opposing POV, and his reactions to accusations. This is all rather unfortunate from my POV, since we share many POV about chiropractic, but certainly not about what Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires of article content. Too bad.


 * Now if he had contacted an admin without any sockpuppetry and requested that his case be reviewed through an WP:RfC/U, we might be in an entirely different place today. Instead he broke many rules here by disruptive sock puppetry (in contrast to the legitimate and allowed use of sock puppets in certain situations). In this type of case there is no mercy. We're dealing with an experienced user who is just using a new username and a slight change in terminology ("chiropracty"), which is far less than what some amateur sockpuppets do when they create several "good hand bad hand" socks that battle each other, with the end result being what the sockmaster really wants. Then the "bad" sock may get blocked, and the "good" sock stays at work with no one suspecting they're dealing with a blocked user. Sockmasters can be pretty sneaky. The last one I exposed was Signsolid & Signsolid. That was quite the case!


 * BTW, why are you consistently on the side of (and defending) fringe POV pushers and their socks? I think you need to rethink your relationship to Wikipedia and why you are here. This type of activity only brings more unwanted attention on all your edits and activities here. If you would learn to cooperate with editors who hold opposing POV and follow NPOV, we could all work together at the same editing table and collaborate to ensure that all significant POV are presented properly in articles. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a battle. -- Fyslee / talk 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Either way, a checkuser should be conducted. I agree with Colonel Warden that an edit summary saying "remove spam" is fairly circumstantial. - DigitalC (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am baffled by the perverse focus on an example used for nothing more than illustrating "flippancy". Both accounts edit the same topics, sharing the exact same view, pushing the same type of content changes, with the same attitude and approach, and even edit from the same IP. (For example, both users made it clear they wish to include material indicating the effectiveness of manual manipulation for neck issues, remove spinal manipulation information from the chiropractic article, and sharply reduce the amount of information about a portion of chiropractors opposing vaccination.) Technical evidence does not negate the possibility of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, especially in the face of other evidence. Soyuz113 started off using full edit summaries and diving immediately into the altmed controversy with a principal focus on chiropractic. The account is at best used as a "bad hand" account or is a proxy for blocked users (meatpuppet). Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits concerning spinal or neck manipulation are to be expected in the Chiropractic article since this is the essential nature of the topic and so this is not evidence of any wrong-doing. This page is a request for a checkuser.  Please clarify whether a checkuser has been performed and what its findings were.  My impression is that it has not but perhaps I misunderstand the account above. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a checkuser. I noted my block for the record. I apologize for any confusion. I should have been clear on that point in my posting. You are correct in pointing out the purpose of this page, so we should continue this discussion at the corresponding SSP page or my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I am familiar with the editing style of CorticoSpinal, and don't feel that this acccount does have the same attitude and approach. Further, several other editors support inclusion of material on effectiveness of chiropractic - does that make them all CS? The same goes for removal of generic SM information from the article - I support this along with several other editors (although our input is ignored), are WE CS? A CU should be performed, because in my opinion, the evidence so far is quite weak. - DigitalC (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)