Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Examining proposals

1) Could the arbitrators please introduce all relevant proposals, remedies and findings of fact here in the workshop to the proposed decision page so that they can get a chance to vote on all of them? Wikidudeman (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
As a general rule, it's extremely rare for an arbitrator to make a proposal that they don't actually want passed. Kirill 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Diversity in proposals

2) There will be a diversity in proposed remedies, some of which may contradict other proposed remedies. My request is that arbitrators take into consideration all of the evidence and introduce the best proposed remedies here in the workshop to the proposed decision page. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Um...that's what the arbitrators are supposed to do anyway - it's what the workshop and evidence pages are for. David Mestel(Talk) 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to focus on user conduct

3) The Paranormal ArbCom case, involving many of the same participants, seemed to focus primarily on epistemological questions of demarcation. As a result, I believe that some of the root causes of the problem went unaddressed. I request that these proceedings focus on the behavior of any and all involved parties rather than content-specific issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is VERY important. The last arbitration RFA seems to have spun totally off topic due to addition of content issues and it's happening again. Let's please ignore content issues and focus on purely conduct issues. Please just ignore any content based issues as they seem to be frequently used as a diversion from conduct issues. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed, in light of the past case. MastCell Talk 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for nuanced focus

4)The Paranormal ArbCom case, involving many of the same participants, seemed to focus primarily on epistemological questions of demarcation. As a result, I believe that some of the root causes of the problem went unaddressed. I request that these proceedings focus on the behavior of any and all involved parties rather than content-specific issues, to the extent that these can be separated from issues of content and neutrality. It must be born in mind that disputes primarily concern the neutral point of view, and the application in practice of the Paranormal ArbCom case.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Request for checkuser on User:Tsyko

3) Request that checkuser be run on Tsyko (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a possible sockpuppet of Iantresman (talk · contribs).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I am worried that User:Tsyko may in fact be a sockpuppet of User:Iantresman. ScienceApologist 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Please. Tsyko (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user - this is the sock of someone with a grudge, most likely Iantresman. I've considered blocking this account as an obvious, disruptive sock, but would appreciate either some feedback or a checkuser before doing so. MastCell Talk 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "disruptive" - Are you suggesting that the evidence Tsyko presented today on to this ArbComm is false? (only, that evidence includes ScienceApologist reporting *me* to an admin for asking him was was User:Nondistinguished his sockpuppet - which did indeed happen!) - or was there a different incident by Tsyko that you considered disruptive?--feline1 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider using a sockpuppet to pursue a grudge in an Arbitration hearing to be disruptive; furthermore, I think it's highly likely that this is a sock of banned user (hence the request for checkuser) - in which case the evidence should be stricken per WP:BAN. MastCell Talk 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand - surely factual evidence is, by its nature, factual and thus independent of whomsoever drew attention to those facts? Are you saying that if I re-presented the same evidence, then it would be valid? Wouldn't that just be rather a waste of time (or, in fact, one might even use the word 'disruption')? Moreover, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all that...--feline1 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the facts are all that matter, you should not have a problem with a valid request for checkuser. Antelan talk 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with it, no - just was surprised that it was considered relevant to this ArbComm. Obviously I am familiar with the concept of an "unreliable witness" in the legal systems of the real world, but that applies to verbal testimony - I don't see how a wikipedia diff can affected by whoever types it in!--feline1 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser has confirmed that Tsyko (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of the banned user Iantresman (talk · contribs) (see block log). His contributions here have been removed per WP:BAN. Banned users are not at liberty to participate in Arbitration cases against their old nemeses at will. The evidence presented by the sockpuppet remains in the page history; if any users in good standing want to incorporate it, then that's their prerogative. MastCell Talk 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Perogative"? "Duty" perhaps. If they have any interest in seeing a fair arbitration which considers all the relevant evidence. Well, best get cracking...--feline1 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim to the moral high ground here is extremely tenuous. MastCell Talk 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making any such claim!--feline1 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser on User:ScienceApologist

4) Request that checkuser be run on ScienceApologist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as possible sockpuppets of:

Comment by Arbitrators:
  • The first four were confirmed by me by checkuser. I will examine the others as well. The link to my judgment is quite conclusive. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is insufficient evidence available to ascertain with confidence who Philosophus is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Unequivocal confirmation that these are sockpuppets of ScienceApologist would serve as useful evidence of him acting in bad faith as per WP:FAITH. The "Fraudulent Ideas", "Mainstream Astronomy", "Velikovsky" and "Nondistinguished" accounts have in fact already been blocked as sockpuppets of ScienceApologist by admin Morven, however ScienceApologist has not conceeded that this is correct, and he continues to maintain he has been "away" from wikipedia when these accounts were active. It would be informative to clarify the truth here.

This exchange I had with User:Philosophus on his talk page in January 2007 may be relevent here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philosophus#sock_puppet

There, Philosophus tells me that he does have a sockpuppet account, and that other select admins are aware of it, however he declines to tell me what the name of that account is.--feline1 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural query - I note that the request that a "checkuser" be done on User Tyscko was responded to within hours of it being made - I don't think it says who carried it out or where the result was published though? Mastcell just reports that it was done.... should I be doing something more to bring my request to the attention of an admin with "checkuser" powers?--feline1 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, am I correct in noting that the checkuser on Tyscko was carried out by admin User:Raul654. I note that Raul654 declined to preside on this arbitration as he considered himself not to be neutral, having had a prior 'run-in' with Martinphi?--feline1 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when someone claims that I am a sock puppet of someone else, I would greatly appreciate it if they would notify me as well, especially when a checkuser is requested. I was only notified about the claims made on the Evidence page by Tsyko that have now been retracted (by Tsyko himself), and even then only by a third party. Morven, I will email you concerning the matter. --Philosophus T 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification of previous Paranormal Arbitration

3) Does "Adequate framing"[1] from the Principles section and "Cultural artifacts"[2] from the Findings of Fact in the Paranormal Arbitration imply that WP:WTA like "supposed" are not necessary in paranormal definitions?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed I'd like clarification on this because they are WTA that I would have removed as well based on the previous arbitration. It was my impression that the arbitration did make findings on the use of qualifiers, and that because paranormal basically means "exceeds limits of what is scientifically possible" it already provides adequate framing that it is "supposed" or "may not exist" (doubt phrases). Specifically, I would have modified (from LuckieLouie's evidence) [3] and [4] to remove "supposed" as well, and removed "may or may not exist" from [5] only slightly different from Martinphi's edit. Please note: This is not a defense of Martinphi. It is a request for clarification for my own editing purposes. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good subject for clarification, and I hope it is addressed. I think some editors have taken those particular Arbcom statements as a hard and fast rule by which simply burying the word paranormal somewhere in the text allows one to fashion overtly sympathetic definitions. - LuckyLouie 00:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second this request. Though I think the previous ArbCom was abundantly clear, I think it might be useful for the ArbCom to re-affirm (or deny) it. To put "paranormal" or other such "framing" words in the text is not enough. Skepticism must be specifically mentioned in the lead of the article, as well as in the body. I have edited according to this principle. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I'd actually like to see ArbCom take this opportunity to re-affirm that it doesn't rule on content issues, and that parties should stop using the "Framing" finding as a bludgeon in content disputes. MastCell Talk 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification of Adequate Framing

8) Does "Adequate framing"[6] from the Principles section and "Cultural artifacts"[7] from the Findings of Fact in the Paranormal Arbitration confer special status upon Paranormal articles in precluding the use of WP:WTA like "supposed" in paranormal articles?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed This is similar to the request above, but I'm tightening up some wording to get a different understanding. While I'm confident that most will agree that no single word is "necessary" in paranormal articles, I'm more concerned with understanding if these words are meant to have been disallowed in Paranormal articles by the previous arbitration. Antelan talk 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous ArbCom does not forbid the use of such words. However, editors wish to use words like "supposed" as itself part of the definition of terms. The problem here is that WP is not a dictionary. If there is doubt, we can afford a few words to say so. For example, though God may not exist, God isn't a "supposed deity." It's just defined as "a deity." Then you say it may not exist. Editors are constantly warring to put in "supposed" as part of the definition of terms. Principle: First define. Then discuss. [8]evidence. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm asking this question is because I want to get the arbitrators' opinion. Your example is at best a travesty of my question. I will wait for the arbitrators' response. Antelan talk 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in your opinion, the present article (The unicorn (from Latin unus 'one' and cornu 'horn') is a legendary creature.) needs to first say it exists, then say it's legend? - LuckyLouie 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the example God instead of unicorn. First define. Then discuss. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this one too (though I never thought of the words as disallowed, just words to... well, avoid). If we could keep the comments on the talk page though, I'd like to hear just from ArbCom. There's dozens of comments already in the Paranormal Arbitration pages dealing with this subject, so if we don't keep it to the talk page it could get out of hand. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Martinphi is prohibited from muddying arbitration

1) This is a temporary injunction request. I am requesting that since this is a user conduct arbitration (as all are supposed to be), Martinphi is prohibited from muddying the arbitration by introducing irrelevant material related to content issues. This was a big problem at the last arbitration and I don't want it to cause the arbitrators to lose sight of the real issue here, user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there is diverse interpretation of what is "relevant" to this arbitration case, perhaps this proposal can be restated along the lines of "Participants are cautioned to avoid introducing proposals relating to peripheral content issues". - LuckyLouie 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Martinphi must keep issues relating to this arbitration here

2) This is a temporary injunction request. I am requesting that Martinphi keep all evidence pertaining to this arbitration and all statements or discussions pertaining to this arbitration on this arbitration and not on talk pages of other editors or arbitrators. This is requested so that all issues can be kept in one place so that all editors and parties and arbitrators can view them.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree, as this [9] [10] [11] type of private lobbying is inappropriate. - LuckyLouie 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed a global solution to this type of thing. You can see some discussion of it here, but please do not hammer that as it is Newyorkbrad's talk page. I will be moving the proposal to a relevant WP:Arb page later today. Antelan talk 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to agree when and if Antelan's solution is in effect. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy#Question_and_Answer_Page_Proposal Antelan talk 00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed principles

Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building Consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Threats of disruption to enforce a users personal idea or view will not be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is good and true. Let it be noted that I never threatened to disrupt Wikipedia: I would merely vote/argue against that which might/would result in a non-neutral/hostile treatment of subjects. This does not go beyond polite discussion and consensus building. I had no idea how articles become FA. If I'd known, I would not have said what I did. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the area for statements or evidence. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Stated WDM. It's obvious that this proposal relates in part to the assumption that I threatened to disrupt WP, which I did not. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any actual evidence then use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define first, then discuss

3) In most cases, controversial subjects on Wikipedia such as Clairvoyance should first be defined. Only then should issues regarding their epistemological, scientific, and cultural status be discussed. Intermixing controversy or other theoretical points of view into the definition of a subject only serves to cloud the issues and bias the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Per my observations. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with conduct issues? Wikidudeman (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted in this Arbitration[12], this proposed requirement is not in line with standard editing practice on Wikipedia. The goal of the lede is to introduce and concisely summarize important aspects of the topic at hand. How that is done is a matter of editorial discretion, within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Antelan talk 04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I sincerely hope we're not going to repeat the numerous content rulings that came out of the Paranormal ArbCom. This appears to be an effort to move things down a fruitless, all-too-familiar road. MastCell Talk 05:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Arbitrators. As MastCell has indicated before, he considers the previous ArbCom "fruitless" or worse. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've also indicated before, your constant efforts to score points don't help matters. MastCell Talk 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content edict with no clear meaning. I trust that the arbitrators won't subvert community guidelines-creation with a finding so muddled. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

4) The use of sockpuppets to support one side of a dispute in which the puppetmaster is involved is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed David Mestel(Talk) 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If one uses a sockpuppet to oppose something and stays away from the discussion with the main account I see no problem--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really meant in a discussion relating to an overall dispute in which the puppetmaster is involved (I've clarified the proposal to reflect this). David Mestel(Talk) 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

4.1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks or bans, to circumvent Wikipedia policies, to cause disruption, avoiding scrutiny, or to mislead others, and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Humor in Wikipedia

5) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to understand that Wikipedia encompasses many different viewpoints, and that humorous expression is not banned. Wikipedia is an inclusive and tolerant enough community to withstand harsh, and occasionally unfair, impersonal criticism in the form or humor. Although some forms of humor are not tolerated, such as racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs, humorous criticism generally considered acceptable in mainstream democratic discourse is also acceptable in Wikipedia. This kind of humor comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Seems a fitting adaptation of this. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The following comment occurred when this was in "Findings of fact." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more like a principle than a finding of fact, as it's entirely general and does not appear to be supported by any specific evidence. MastCell Talk 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Editorial Discretion in Paranormal Articles

6) Some have, incorrectly, interpreted several findings in the Paranormal Arbitration to be hard rules on content. Normal editorial discretion applies within articles that involve parapsychology and the paranormal, just as it does on all other parts of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Claims regarding the paranormal have gained a special status: they have been presented uncritically so long as they are "framed" by terms such as 'paranormal'. The remainder of Wikipedia is less obsequious to those making extraordinary or fringe claims. There are dozens of examples of mainspace content-bludgeoning by invoking the "Paranormal ArbCom". Antelan talk 06:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antelan removed his evidence diff, which was the first I present here.

Here are the relevant diffs, which tell an entirly different story: [13] [14] [15] [16]

Now, if there are other instances of incorrect or tone-deaf interpretation of the ArbCom, I'd like to hear about them so I can correct them also. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the order of your diffs improperly contextualizes things (i.e., you are not presenting them in their temporal order, making it look like you and Nunn-uh have worked things out when you have not), but I have removed my diff so that the principle itself may stand. If the arbitrators would like to see evidence of you plastering "per ArbCom" across edit summaries as justifications for edits in lieu of real summaries and explanations of edits, I can present plenty. I don't think that's necessary, because this is a proposed principle that applies to all equally. Antelan talk 07:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my use of edit summaries is what you're trying to change. If you were to collect those diffs, the ArbCom could indeed see a part of how I've applied the decision. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is one of the things that I would like to see changed. However, the rationale behind putting material into articles, not the summary about what you did per se, is, indeed, what this principle is about. Antelan talk 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Martinphi frequently assumes bad faith

1) Martinphi frequently does not assume good faith and assumes bad faith when dealing with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by Wikidudeman.
Comment by others:
WP:FAITH states "...this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include...confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." I respectfully suggest that the editing style of User:ScienceApologist may well have given Martinphi good grounds to suspect that he was dealing with someone editing in bad faith. I know this is only circumstantial, but I have at least one piece evidence of User:ScienceApologist acting in bad faith when engaging in editing disputes with myself:
User:Nondistinguished nominated the David Talbott article for [[17]]. When I began to contribute, I felt sure I recognised the obstreperous editorial style, and asked 'Nondistinguished' if he was actually 'ScienceApologist'. As can be seen on the AfD page, he flatly denied this. However this appears to have been a barefaced lie, and the 'Nondistinguished' account has been blocked as one of ScienceApologist's several sockpuppets. Yet at the time, 'Nondistinguished' deleted my queries on the matter from his talk page and reported me to an Admin for harrassment! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Feline1#Stop%20harassing%20me ). When this situation on his sockpuppetry recently became clear, despite his moniker, ScienceApologist refused apolgise and instead further accused me of violating WP:NPA. His own user page is still full of (surely dishonest?) statements about him having been "away" and "why I returned", and salutations from other editors welcoming him back.
Whilst clearly this incident was not directly connected with User:Martinphi, I believe it is typical of ScienceApologist's behaviour as an editor and the sort of "dirty tricks" he will employ against editors whom he views as his "opponents" in promoting his editorial PoV. I submit he will indeed often act in "bad faith", provoking his "opponents", and then use wikilaywering to put them before an ArbCom just as he is doing to MartinPhi now, seeking to censure or ban them from wikipedia. --feline1 10:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if this all does seem like one big personal attack on ScienceApologist, but I am afraid I have been on the receiving end of edit warring from him one too many times (e.g. on articles such as Immanuel Velikovsky and the abovementioned AfD), and as a result have my concerns about his behaviour which I feel is my duty to make known to this ArbComm. I do honestly feel his behaviour is disruptive to the community, and moreover, I have not in general found his edits to be of a high quality, generally he has expressed a cavalier disregard for facts and the advice of experts (for example such as C. Leroy Ellenberger, when editing Velikovsky-related articles). I see that this is not the first time ScienceApologist has prosecuted an ArbComm action against another editor whom he regards as an "opponent", and I find it disquieting that much of his case seems mooted on assertions of his own integrity, good faith and proper conduct. I respectfully submit that my own encounters with him have left me with serious reservations about him in these regards.--feline1 10:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't get into discussing ScienceApologist as I don't know the facts about the sockpuppet accusations etc, but the only example of him assuming bad faith isn't that recent incident with ScienceApologist. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but I would assume it to be the *principle* example of Martiphi assuming bad faith, since the title of the Arbitration is "Martinphi-ScienceApologist" ? Otherwise why the title? And why raise this point as your first one against MartinPhi? Moreover, ScienceApologist appears to belong to a group (or is the correct wikiterminology "cabal"? ;-) called "RationalSceptics", who might not unreasonably be characteristed as "broadly in cahoots with each other" - in as much as that's the case, MartinPhi assuming bad faith from any member of "Rational Skepticism" pretty much amounts to the same thing as assuming it from ScienceApologist, as they will tend to cover for and support each other - for example, when I gave ScienceApologist a chance to explain his seeming sockpuppetry and lying to me, rational skeptic & Admin User:Raymond Arritt was swiftly along to remonstrate with me, with such a partisan attitude that was a struggle not to assume bad faith on his part too. I appreciate I am giving examples from my own experiences, not from MartinPhi, but I do feel they are indicative of the sort of thing he has had to put up with too.--feline1 22:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the title so I can't answer your questions. However if you look at my evidence you will see several examples of how Martinphi shuns agf. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People with the same POV, especially in contentious topics, tend to stick up for each other. Assuming bad faith because of that destroys any chance of building a consensus.--Prosfilaes 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi frequently insults other editors

2) Martinphi frequently uses insults when responding to other editors on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by Wikidudeman.
No evidence at all. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is on the evidence page. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
I agree that there is no evidence. Wikidudeman, I recommend you present some and reference it from here. You seem to be using this process to pursue a personal vendetta. Tom Butler 01:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi has threatened to hijack wikipedia

3) Martinphi has threatened to hijack a wikipedia process to make a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by Wikidudeman.
See evidencehere and here . ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More than this, I'd say that Martinphi has hijacked Wikipedia. At least the paranormal articles. ScienceApologist 04:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
No question: [18]. MastCell Talk 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question! As I read the evidence, Martinphi has explained himself. He is too knowledgeable to think that he could "hijack" anything Wikipedia. Tom Butler 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Threatened to hijack"? I don't see evidence for this. Maybe instead of a threat, you mean actual disruption? On related, Raul probably shouldn't have locked the page himself, but that's not the issue here. Cool Hand Luke 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other attempts to resolve problems with Martinphi have been attempted

4) Other attempts have been made and have failed to resolve problems with Martinphi.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by Wikidudeman.
Comment by others:

Martinphi threat to disrupt

5) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a clear threat to disrupt the featured article process relating to paranormal or fringe science articles if main page heading were not corrected to the way he wanted.[19]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is already proposed above, and it is essentially a threat to "hijack" a Wikipedia process. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand, but I believe this is more neutral and better worded. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the threat to use his abilities (whatever they may be) to do all that he can to prevent articles from becoming featured articles, then this is a clear attempt to hijack a wikipedia process. The word "disrupt" really doesn't even begin to describe it. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a clear case of a threat of disruption, he was not attempting to hijack the process, merely disrupt it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I won't argue semantics. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not threaten to disrupt. I threatened to "do all I could," which meant to vote or argue against (I'm asking people to assume good faith here). I did not intend it to mean I'd hack the site, or revert war, or flame, or whatever might constitute disruption. If a subject is likely to be given unfair treatment once it gets to the FA page, then in the interests of a neutral treatment of the subject, it should not get to that page. This is not disruption, but a good argument. I had no idea how articles become FA. If I'd known, I would not have said such a thing. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to prevent an article from reaching FA status would be a disruption, and that's quite a kind phrase to use IMO. Whether you attempt to prevent it from ever reaching the FA status via the nomination page or whether you attempt to do damage to the article itself to prevent it from actually reaching FA quality, both would be very disruptive. Even if you simply argue against an article being nominated FA status, it would be disruptive if it's FA quality and your arguments are being used to make a point, which they would be if your motivations are simply the placement of FA articles on the FA page. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good argument, Martin. Featured article candidates are evaluated on the strength of their quality measured against the Featured Article criteria, not where they might be placed on the Featured Article page. Per WP:FAC, objections raised against candidate articles should be 'actionable', that is, their proposer should, given time, be able to take on such criticisms and improve the article to the point where it meets the criteria. "I oppose this article because I think the Featured Article Director will place it in a category I'm not happy with" is not an actionable objection, and so there is nothing the proposer can do to satisfy your objection. On that basis alone, your objections are invalid and will not be taken into account. Making good on a threat to make repeated use of the same tactic in FAC discussions in order to make a point would constitute disruption. — BillC talk 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and you're right. I havechanged my evidence in response. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable. Then: "I am in a position in which I have the potential to get several articles to FA status." Now: "I had no idea how articles become FA." - LuckyLouie 22:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to both of those. And it might have already happened but for recent controversion of WP spirit and rules and the ArbCom, such as you trying to do a GA review on an article in which you were very involved. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Arbitrators: Extreme assumption of bad faith: I would only have argued that the article should not be put in FA because it would be mistreated. WDM thinks I might actually damage an article to make it unworthy of FA status. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is merely a semantic post hoc explanation in response to a substantive point. Antelan talk 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is illogical to say that an editor cannot vote against something by legal editing. I just participated in a vote to delete an article, so I was obviously disrupting Wiki process as far as the ones voting to keep were concerned. This is not semantics, it is trying to sensor the free speech of a lawful editor. Tom Butler 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:AfD nor WP:FAC are votes. — BillC talk 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of hair, I believe. I voiced an position, then. Nevertheless, expression of how one understands a point is not hijacking an article. It is part of the process. An Admin did a "Speedy Keep" (or whatever it was) on my effort to delete the EVP article. Should I accuse him of hijacking the process? By your logic, I would have a case. Tom Butler 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your off-wiki article that gives an entire template for how the Wikipedia EVP article should be written, it is paradoxical that you would want to see the EVP article deleted. Such a proposed deletion could reasonably be be seen as an effort to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Antelan talk 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has been previously warned about civility

6) ScienceApologist was cautioned in previous arbitrations to show good faith and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Obvious, I know, but necessary in justifying probation request. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has been uncivil since being warned

7) Post-arbitrations where ScienceApologist was cautioned and counseled to treat other editors with respect, ScienceApologist has failed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Diffs on Evidence page with more to follow. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Diffs added by Nealparr in attempt to prove this point are disputed below:
  1. The first quote Neal refers to is: "15-year-olds with little expertise and a seeming lack of desire to do research should not be dictating Wikipedia content. I encourage you to start reading references starting with a selection of astronomy texts." This was a quote that was made after a lengthy debacle where the user in question began high-handedly dictating content regarding the status of a controversy regarding quasars. Despite being told by numerous editors that he was wrong, this poor fellow continued to argue. I stand by my statement: Wikipedia content should not be dictated by 15-year-olds with little experience and a seeming lack of desire to do research. I just don't see what's wrong with pointing this out in a conversation with an editor who simply doesn't seem to get it. And this is not to be disparaging of 15-year-olds. I've seen plenty of excellent 15-year-old editors. This one, however, happened to have no respect for the fact that there may be others who have been researching the subjects he is arguing about since before he was born. It's a cultural thing, I must admit, but I do think in the context of a talk page that had settled this issue months earlier, we shouldn't be pandering to those who aren't up on their research. Striking. I now believe that refering to the age of Andrew was an example of ageism. ScienceApologist 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The second quote is "editors that are ignorant or outright cranks [and] devoted idiots [and] lunatic fringe editors" is a quote I'm particularly proud of. I think it is a judicious application of WP:SPADE.
  3. The third quote is "Basic cosmology publications support this summary statement as listed below. Pandering to Velikovskians is not the job of this encyclopedia." This seems fairly uncontroversial to me. The Encyclopedia isn't supposed to pander to anybody. WP:NPOV anybody?
So if this is the best that Neal can do, I'm wondering, is this really a good indication of me being so uncivil as to warrant extreme condemnation? I mean, civility itself is a rather loaded term and is culturally dependent and difficult to define. Printed text often comes across as uncivil despite the best intentions of the person who writes it. When people say "SA, you're being uncivil." I like to take a step back and try to figure out what they mean by it. Sometimes I correct myself. Sometimes I disagree with their assessment. While offense is always considered to be in the eye of the beholder, there are cases where it just cannot be helped and criticism needs to be leveled appropriately. I think that each and every one of those statements I made above are appropriate critiques. It may be that there could be other ways to word them, and I invite the comments of others as to how to improve my lexicon. However, I do not believe my sentiments, though strident, to be fundamentally uncivil in intent.
ScienceApologist 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of posting evidence on this remedy doesn't solely rely on me. Other editors have posted evidence against ScienceApologist as well. If additional evidence is needed from me, I'd be happy to provide more. Note that SA is particularly proud of #2 in the list and mischaracterizes #3 as not being about using a sock-puppet account to combat in topics he was already engaged in as ScienceApologist, which is what my actual evidence [20] is about. Then he goes on this speech about how his text was culturally misinterpreted. How many different ways can you interpret words like "outright cranks", "devoted idiots", and "lunatic fringe editors"? Also note that #1, the quote he claims came after the 15 year old was "high-handedly dictating content", he posted after the 15 year old requested outside input from other editors. He said he was tired of dealing with ScienceApologist and wanted to get another view (hardly dictating). ScienceApologist added this jab after the "debacle" had ended. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ScienceApologist account could not engage in any disputes at the time Velikovsky was editing.
  2. I firmly believe that "outright cranks", "devoted idiots" and "lunatic fringe editors" exist. I use this term in a universal sense. People can apply it to whom they see fit. I avoid directly characterizing people as such since people get a little bit testy when I talk about the person instead of the content. However, that such people exist seems fairly obvious to me.
  3. Neal is so messed up on the timeline of the issue on Talk:Quasar that I don't know where to begin, so I won't except to say I stand behind my previous statement as being accurate.
ScienceApologist 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fer chrissakes,ScienceApologist referred to everyone presenting evidence against him in this very workshop as "leeches". His incivility continues into the very maw of this ArbComm!--feline1 10:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feline, what do you hope to gain out of this? Would you like to name yourself a party to the arbitartion? ScienceApologist 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's proposal

8) Wikidudeman and LuckyLouie instigated an altercation between Martinphi and ScienceApologist.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Never happened. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed: As per [21] Tom Butler 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ScienceApologist is a Physics instructor. I expressed my opinion that the article needed his attention and provided an example where his expertise may be helpful. [22] - LuckyLouie 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also offered suggested wording and guidance about what is allowed. Tom Butler 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see evidence which supports this proposal. - LuckyLouie 23:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to accept the ArbCom on the Paranormal

9) Some users, such as LuckyLouie, Antelan, JzG, and ScienceApologist have refused to accept the decisions of the Arbitration on the Paranormal, especially Status of parapsychology, Adequate framing, Three layer cake with frosting, Paranormal as an effective tag, Subjects without referents, and Cultural artifacts.

LuckyLouie

Antelan

ScienceApologist [23][24]

Baegis [25] Accuses of vandalism

JzG [26][27]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Concerning LL's first diff, please also see this. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Refusal to accept Martinphi's interpretation of the ArbCom on the Paranormal" might be more accurate. - LuckyLouie 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martinphi, since you are making a pretty straightforward claim about me, I would like to see a diff to support it. Linking to my statement about how you have developed your own unique set of rules for how to write Wikipedia articles is not convincing me that I've erred. Antelan talk 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly outlandish. If you look at the differences Martinphi uses to show that I haven't somehow "accepted" the arbcomm's ruling it is clear that Martinphi is living in an alternative reality. He thinks that basically any edit that I make to a page that he has adopted is somehow in violation of the paranormal arbitration. This is exactly why Martinphi needs to be stopped, because he's just going to become more bold in his advocacy unless arbcomm lets him know that his POV-pushing is not acceptable. ScienceApologist 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Louie said it all, it is the refusal to accept your interpretation of the Arbcom. Also, your good buddy Davkal is doing the same thing. Baegis 04:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Others who refused to accept Martin's interpretation of the Arbcom: User:Raul654 [28] and User:SandyGeorgia [29] - LuckyLouie 05:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology wouldn't have fit in with Psychology, would it? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Pseudoscience is universally perceived as derogatory

10) The term pseudoscience is universally perceived as derogatory.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Obvious ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster offers one definition of pseudoscience: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific[30]. Dictionary.com offers many definitions, none of which identify the term as derogatory.[31] To my knowledge, no dictionary that cares to distinguish count nouns from mass nouns considers the count noun "pseudoscience" to be derogatory. It is a word that serves a useful and non-redundant role.Antelan talk 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Claims of pseudoscience need sourcing

11) Claims of pseudoscience need sourcing adequate to the claim.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

The pseudoscience category is perceived as a derogation of the subject

12) In spite of the fact that the Category:pseudoscience specifically says that it applies to "individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience," use of the category is perceived as a derogation of the subject. [32]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even a conduct based proposal. None of these recent proposals from you are. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it was. Would you mind not filling up the pages with that observation? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Randi is already in the Category:Pseudoscience since Category:James Randi is a subcategory of Category: Scientific skepticism which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. So Martin had added the category clearly just to make a point, again illustrating his disruptive editing style. ScienceApologist 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming bad faith, of course. Assuming Martin knew anything about that technical crap of nested cats. But my argument is just the same anyway. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The adding of Category:Pseudoscience to James Randi by Martinphi looks a bit like a WP:POINT violation in light of this. Nor does that edit prove anything; as I mention on Category talk:Pseudoscience, we wouldn't put Ann Coulter in Category: Democratic Party (United States), even though she is a notable critic thereof, because it would be misleading and confusing.--Prosfilaes 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd say that, but it wasn't- I just took the opportunity when it arose. However, your edit summary and mine say it all. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adequate sourcing of pseudoscience category

13) The category "pseudoscience" should only be applied to articles in which the main subject matter has been adequately sourced as pseudoscience by reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Use of Category:pseudoscience in biographies of living persons

14) The category "pseudoscience," being universally seen as a derogation of the subject, should not be applied to biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
These last five content-oriented proposals of yours seem at odds with your earlier request that "proceedings focus on the behavior of any and all involved parties rather than content-specific issues". — BillC talk 00:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, mine was Request for nuanced focus. The Arbs accepted this case without reference to user conduct. And though this ArbCom does concern user conduct, it also touches on rules. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested: within the text Martinphi is citing, he says exactly what BillC claims he says. "I request that these proceedings focus on the behavior of any and all involved parties rather than content-specific issues, to the extent that these can be separated from issues of content and neutrality." (Update: Added in the rest of the sentence. I was shortening for space, not for meaning. This is just as damning.) Antelan talk 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He added in the part about "to the extent...." later, after my response below. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the Arbitrators: I can either be paranoid and think that people are "out to get me," when they can't finish reading a sentence:
"I request that these proceedings focus on the behavior of any and all involved parties rather than content-specific issues, to the extent that these can be separated from issues of content and neutrality."
...or I could give things a less complimentary spin. But one way or another, this is a good example of the mis-representation of my edits. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we stop commenting on these proposals by Martin as they are off topic and will only divert attention from the main purpose of this RFAR, User conduct. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. The last ArbCom case was successfully spun off to devote most of its time to epistemological issues, and here we are again. Let's stop trying to get ArbCom to rule on our pet content issues; there are user-conduct issues aplenty here. MastCell Talk 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi and WP:POINT

15) Martinphi has edited in contradiction to the spirit of the guideline, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed On October 30, Martinphi added [[Category:Pseudoscience]] to the article about James Randi, a living person.[33] 16 hours later, he submitted a proposal to this arbitration [34] that states that this specific category should not be applied to biographies of living persons. Hence, he would prevent others from doing what he had done just 16 hours previously. This is emblematic of Martinphi's broader editing behavior, and is in sharp contradiction to the spirit of do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Antelan talk 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Antelan, I don't think I violated POINT. I would have accepted the cat if people had allowed it to be applied fairly. You, on the other hand, did a couple nice edits here, based only on the say of Dictionary.com:
[35]
[36]
My edit was fully appropriate under the current definition of the category, see my edit summary[37] . However, I now believe that it should not be applied to BLPs, unless it is applied fairly across the board to "individuals (or organizations) that are notably opposed to pseudoscience". Actually, the fact that the edit was reverted with the edit summary "categories are supposed to be description, not anti-descriptive," showed me that this cat is indeed merely a derogation, and should not be applied to BLPs at all. Thus, my proposals.
If there was any violation of POINT, it was merely that I did have a feeling someone might not like it. But I gave it a chance to be applied fairly. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that my well-sourced categorizations were appropriate; it was in that process of categorization that I discovered your concerning WP:POINT edits. Antelan talk 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, You shouldn't make your case here. You can reference your evidence and link to the evidence page, put please don't muddy up this page with debate about what you have or haven't done. That's what the evidence page is for. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Or alternately, the edit summary could be read as people shouldn't be defined by what they most emphatically aren't, as I stated at Category:Pseudoscience shortly after making that edit summary.--Prosfilaes 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really very simple: if you believe that Category:Pseudoscience should not be applied to living people, then don't apply it to living people. If you don't hold that belief, then don't enter an ArbCom workshop proposal to that effect. Either way, it looks like an obvious case of WP:POINTyness. MastCell Talk 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read my FAQ on my userpage: my beliefs don't matter. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Randi is clearly in Category:Pseudoscience anyway via subcategories. So, this is a clear case of WP:POINT because Martin just added it to generate "evidence" for arbcomm. And he seems to be simply ignoring the editing guidelines found at Wikipedia:Categorization. ScienceApologist 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing and gang editing

16) Articles involving the Paranormal have been subject to POV-pushing and gang editing by members of Wikiproject RationalSkepticism and other skeptical editors. This was common before the Paranormal ArbCom, and has recently continued in such articles as Electronic voice phenomena.[38]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Major problem. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
"Gang editing" is a very interesting charge, coming from someone with an extensively documented history of off-wiki and on-wiki canvassing. MastCell Talk 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad we don't have a page like this to formalize the process. Then it would be alright. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you do. MastCell Talk 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then since you're against it, I'm sure you'll be proposing the "canvasing" cease on this page. Cheerio, as SA says. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If just one person showed up to argue a point, it'd be dismissed as lack of consensus; so if many people show up it's gang editing? These are polarized subjects; naturally both sides show up in groups, and unfortunately both sides tend to edit-war.--Prosfilaes 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" is a difficult thing to accurately access on a wide-open-to-the-whole-Interweb project such as wikipedia. Groups attached to a particular PoV can organise themselves and indeed "gang up" to give undue weight to an argument. That does not mean their views are representative of the community in general, the majority of whom, at any given time, will be indifferent to/unaware of the resulting edit war, and disinclined to participate as they don't care as much about the subject as the gang(s) involved. (This is an entirely general phenomenon, of course, not just pertaining to this ArbComm. In general, however, my reading of wiki policies is that attempting to game the system is a Bad Thing.) --feline1 16:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, having a group of contributers to discuss changes with is better than one-on-one debates. And no one likes to be the only one defending a point of view as important, especially when you know there are other people who will back you. More importantly, this proposal makes no acknowledgment of the fact that both sides are using the same tactics. It seems like the "the other side is gang-editing" style complaints really mean "I'd like this article to look the way I want it to look, and these people are getting in my way."--Prosfilaes 18:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to have a group come along and discuss, upholding WP processes. It is not fine to have an editor like SA come along and -in spite of having first been asked to discuss changes first- make 38 nonconsensus edits to an article, then have the rest of the gang edit war to keep it in. That's gang editing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to the talk page of EVP shows that ScienceApologist disagrees with your definition of NPOV. Surprise, surprise. Looking at the talk page also shows that there a lot of discussion, and the consensus is not entirely supporting either you or ScienceApologist, which you seem unhappy with, but does not support your claim of gang editing.--Prosfilaes 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the page, not the talk page. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you linked to the talk page in the proposal, and a key part of your complaint is that gang editing is done without discussion.--Prosfilaes 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That diff is only meant to show their misunderstanding of NPOV. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories Noticeboard

17) There is a noticeboard devoted solely to canvassing for and organizing support of the skeptical view on all Fringe articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
There's a solution: it's called WP:MfD. Please stop cluttering up the workshop. MastCell Talk 02:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "pro/neutral" equivalent of Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

18)There is no equivalent of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard dedicated to promoting the neutral point of view in fringe articles when it is overbalanced by the skeptical point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
False. There is an equivalent: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Paranormal, as Martinphi knows since he canvasses there regularly. Furthermore, if one dislikes the fringe theories noticeboard, then the proper process is WP:MfD, not cluttering up this ArbCom workshop further. MastCell Talk 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a project page.
Actually, I don't "dislike" it. It is probably needed. I think it is something the Arbitration should note, however, and is relevant re problematic behavior by members of the skeptical community. These are findings of fact MastCell. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an inaccurate finding of fact. There is a board dedicated to promoting the "paranormal" POV - which you know as you canvass there - and drawing a distinction that it's just "a project page" is meaningless. MastCell Talk 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your point that paranormal project is here to promote the paranormal. I find it personally insulting. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's insulting, but if you read the discussion pages and archives at the Paranormal project, most of the discussions center around locating reliable sources so that well written articles about popular urban legends can take place. If there's a popular story about a UFO sighting for example, members ask each other if they know where to find newspaper articles about it. It's pretty boring unless you're into that sort of thing. It's also pretty inactive these days with just a few editors talking. I'm surprised at the comparison since the Fringe noticeboard seems to be more like an AfD request list. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it insulting because it's claiming we are here to PROMOTE (ie, violate WP:NPOV) the paranormal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was generalizing to an unacceptable degree, and I apologize for causing offense. Looking through the archives of Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Paranormal, there's plenty of the usual constructive Wikiproject work. More recently, though, the board has been used to canvass, to recruit editors for battle, etc as detailed in the evidence. In looking through the archives, I came across a comment by User:Pjacobi, in which he stated: "I'm neither worried by the existence of this project per se, nor by all participants, but only by an abuse by some project members.". This same editor detailed his concerns about abuse of the Wikiproject here for the prior ArbCom case. I think that hits the nail on the head; there's no problem with the existence of Paranormal WikiProject (if I thought otherwise, I'd have gone to WP:MfD); most of the participants are good, solid editors; much of the work of the WikiProject has been constructive. But there is voluminous evidence demonstrating that a handful of editors use the WikiProject to canvass, recruit, etc in a very questionable manner, and that's what I was getting at here. Mind you, I think many, if not all, of the same concerns apply to the Rational Skepticism WikiProject. MastCell Talk 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that last. Neutrality in analysis is thin on the ground in these parts. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is irrelevant. The problem we most often are facing is editors engaging in original research or POV pushing (especially in regard to Undue Weight) of Fringe Theories. That's why the Noticeboard was created. In any event, Martinphi is entitled like any other editor to keep watch of the Fring Theories noticeboard. JoshuaZ 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal project infoboxes

19) The Fringe theories noticeboard was used in an attempt by ScienceApologist and others to get rid of the terminology infoboxes used by the Paranormal project [39].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
"Used to get rid of the infoboxes"? Your link shows SA expressing his opinion and asking for outside opinions and feedback on the issue. That's generally how Wikipedia's supposed to work, and it's clear from the variety of responses that SA received that the Fringe Theories noticeboard is hardly the skeptical staging area that you paint it to be. MastCell Talk 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's always difficult for anyone to put evidence together when it comes from a multitude of sources, each of which, it can be argued, is slightly equivocal. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um what? He asked for feedback. He got feedback, a large amount which disagreed with him. How is your comment relevant? JoshuaZ 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has used sockpuppets abusively

20) ScienceApologist has used the sockpuppet accounts Fradulent Ideas, Mainstream astronomy, Nondistinguished and Velikovsky abusively, to support his side of the general dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Those aren't abuses. In fact, I had no choice but to abandon User:ScienceApologist for the period that I abandoned it. Removing the term "abusively" would be appreciated. ScienceApologist 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a question to the community related to this matter here: Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Query. Please take some time to respond. ScienceApologist 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed: [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44], and the "User:Iantresman" section of this, inter alia. David Mestel(Talk) 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with SA's sockpuppetry but I don't see anything here that indicates abusive behavior. For example, did he ever use two socks together to give a false appearance of consensus or any similar problem? If not, it is hard to call this abusive. JoshuaZ 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I and others have already presented to this ArbCom, an example of ScienceApologist behaving "abusively" regarding his sockpuppetry was to report me to admin Spartaz for "harrassment" when I enquired about one of his sockpuppets; additionally, his lying to the community about having "been away" (and to the ArbCom which banned user IanTresman, claiming he had been "forced from wikipedia) is an example of bad faith behaviour.--feline1 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting a user's attacks is not "abuse". I never "lied" to the "community". I never lied to the arbcomm about being forced from my account. So I basically deny wholly and completely feline's accusations and ask him to post diffs if he believes so strongly that he is correct. ScienceApologist 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "attack" you, I just asked if your sockpuppet was you. Your "why I was away" statement is still, as I type, the first entry on your talk page. Diffs regarding these matters have already been presented to this ArbComm in the evidence of myself and others, days ago. Much fuss was made in IanTresman's ArbComm that he had "hounded" editors such as yourself from wikipedia, which we now know was not the case, as you were still here, snug and warm inside your socks.--feline1 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did attack me. Here is the diff to prove it: [45]. That attack has nothing to do with your asking if I was a sockpuppet. I was away from my ScienceApologist account. Since you have nothing else to offer, I submit you have no evidence for your claims and are simply here to disrupt. ScienceApologist 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was that an "attack"? In as much as I was offering an additional reason against the deletion proposal, beyond the merit of the article itself - i.e. I was questioning your neutrality and objectivity in wanting it deleted - then yes, there was an element of ad hominem to that. However I don't think that was an unreasonable comment for me to make - in fact I believe it was basically true, not least on the basis of the statements of intent on your own ScienceApologist user page. (And the fact that you participated in the David Talbott AfD under a sockpuppet, obscuring your selfprofessed agenda as ScienceApologist, just further makes the point about your naughtiness with sockpuppets). I will post most evidence and diffs about your sockpuppetry re the Tresman ArbComm if you so wish...//edit/ done so now--feline1 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Feline, it was an attack. Pure and simple. If you disagree, you can ask around. I didn't say that the comment was "unreasonable" and whether you believe it to be true or not is irrelevant as people have been hammering home to me time and again. The plain fact of the matter is that it was a personal attack. ScienceApologist 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His neutrality and objectivity in wanting it deleted really aren't all that relevant. He did not participate with multiple accounts in that AfD, and he had no agenda that was disruptive or a conflict of interest. Your response was very ad hominem, snide and personal, instead of focusing on the AfD and the value of the article. I think people should look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott as a whole.--Prosfilaes 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, when you reported me to an admin as Nondistinguished [46] you explicitly complained that I had falsely accused you of *misusing sockpuppets*, not just of "attacking you" as per your diff [47] --feline1 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the complaint clearly states that you were accusing me of starting sockpuppets to start witchhunts. You claim that I was "misusing" sockpuppets which are subject to WP:SOCK policy which I was following very carefully. ScienceApologist 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not "accusing you of starting sockpuppets to *start* witchhunts", I was noting that you were using a sockpuppet to *continue* a "witch hunt". One may view the term "witch hunt" as unhelpfully emotive, or one may view it as WP:SPADE, depending on one's PoV. (On his user talk page, SA himself prefers the phrase "fight against cranks" to "witch hunt"...) However, the question at hand in this section is whether or not SA misused sockpuppets. I think the David Talbott AfD he refers to here *is* a typical example of his misuse of them. SA, it seems to me your bottom line in this ArbComm is that you have acted as you did in good faith, because a secret Admin, whose identity you declare you will never reveal, told you it was all OK to use sockpuppets as you did, am I right? --feline1 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't accusing me of going against WP:SOCK policy than I was indeed mistaken in my interpretation of your attack. You may have just been accusing me of conducting witchhunts and the sockpuppetry in your mind was irrelevant. YMMV. Anyway, here's the scoop: I acted in accordance to what I believe is the policies outlined at WP:SOCK. I had someone looking over my shoulder to help me with matters, but I'm not going to reveal who they are because I have no desire to drag them into this quagmire. I take full responsibility for my actions because I had issues IRL which I believed were either resolvable through leaving Wikipedia entirely or through creating an alternate account. ScienceApologist 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ: In the Iantresman section of this, he used two in the same discussion. In general, though, I think that using sockpuppets to edit the same contentious area is unacceptable, since it gives the impression of multiple people holding that POV. David Mestel(Talk) 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the general claim (the number of people with a POV shouldn't be relevant and if one is editing well, one's POV shouldn't be readily apparent). However, examining that conversation , his behavior does look abusive. Both User:Mainstream astronomy and User:Velikovsky were used in that discussion and to make the same arguments. That looks abusive to me. JoshuaZ 02:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, User:Mainstream astronomy and User:Velikovsky were merged accounts at the time. User:Velikovsky redirected to User:Mainstream astronomy. ScienceApologist 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so why use one and then the other? Why not just use a single account? JoshuaZ 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The intention initially was to separate out edits about Velikovsky from edits regarding mainstream astronomy. That quickly proved impossible so I merged the accounts. ScienceApologist 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask ScienceApologist why he felt compelled for a time to abandon his account under that name, as he states above. Thank you, Newyorkbrad 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRL harassment. I had a group of people come to my job and threaten to file a formal complaint unless I left the account. I had already announced on my talkpage my reasons for wanting to leave the project (at least for a time) and so they were appeased. The choice was clear: either I edit under another account or I cease editing Wikipedia altogether. ScienceApologist 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that explains using one additional account, but you used more than one. Why? JoshuaZ 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I thought that having accounts that were separated in order to keep heated issues in one area would be a good idea so that I wouldn't encourage further stalking. The intent was to have one account for creationism, one account for Velikovsky, and one account for mainstream science. This proved to be an impossible disambiguation job and so I abandoned the approach in favor of one additional account. ScienceApologist 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Martinphi is blocked for 6 months

1) Martinphi is blocked from Wikipedia for 6 months for repeated disruption of wikipedia, frequent violations of guidelines and policy, as well as threats to hijack wikipedia processes despite numerous attempts made by other editors to have him change his disruptive editing habits.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by Wikidudeman.
Comment by others:

Martinphi banned from Parapsychology-related articles

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Parapsychology-related articles or their talk pages.

2.1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Parapsychology-related articles or any discussions which involve them.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I think this would only work if the ban was permanent opposed to temporary. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add, I think that ONLY banning Martin from Parapsychology related articles isn't sufficient as he disrupts articles related to all paranormal topics, not simply "parapsychology". I think that a block from all Paranormal articles is justified, as well as possibly a total 6 month block from Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I never, ever, wished to disrupt a process. My intent was solely to ensure that the process resulted in the fair treatment of a subject. Just as I would argue against a POV paragraph or article, I would argue against the inclusion of a page within the FA page, if this necessarily meant Wikipedia would become biased. This is not disruption, but a genuine and legitimate worry. I don't even know the process of how a page gets to FA. But if I had anything to say about it, then how could I, as a responsible editor of Wikipedia, not argue against unfair treatment? Note that I had just witnessed a clear instance of such unfair treatment (see evidence and this heading: "Religion, mysticism and mythology". ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add your comments about your actions to the relevant sections. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant here also, due to people basing their proposals on it. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any actual evidence then use Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can he present evidence of himself *NOT* having done something? If you alledge he did something, it is up to you to present evidence. (I'm amazed I'm having to make a point like this on an ArbComm workshop page!)--feline1 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have presented evidence for it. This area isn't for evidence or counter evidence, or explanations of disruptive behavior. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed based on evidence. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidudeman: as the proposal stands, it would be permanent. David Mestel(Talk) 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed 2.1 based on clear threat to disrupt the featured article process. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be helpful to clarify a definition of "Parapsychology-related articles or any discussions which involve them" as Martinphi has argued personal interpretations of past Arbcom rulings: "Arbitrators have confirmed my understanding of NPOV in the paranormal articles.". - LuckyLouie 22:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi 6 month ban and indefinite block from paranormal articles

3) This remedy would integrate the first and the second remedy with some alterations. Martinphi is blocked from Wikipedia for 6 months. Upon returning, Martinphi is also banned indefinitely from editing Paranormal-related articles (that includes Parapsychology related articles) or their talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by Wikidudeman.
Comment by others:

Martinphi counseled

4) Martinphi is counseled to remain civil with other editors and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This will never work. Numerous attempts have been made by dozens of editors to solve problems with Martinphi including an RFC, Dozens of attempts at dispute resolution including numerous formal and informal mediations, as well as a sock puppet case which found that Martinphi had abused sockpuppets, and none of this was successful in getting him to change his editing habits. A simple "counseling" in light of all of the previous attempts that have been made to make him change his editing habits wouldn't make any sense what so ever. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Arbitrators: this keeps coming up like a proven fact, but I never mis-used sock puppets (I have one- do a check). There was a small meat puppet incident, which has not been repeated. The mediations have usually worked, so far as I know, like Wikidudeman's one on Parapsychology, and the ongoing one by Northmeister at EVP. Wikidudeman gave me a barnstar for the parapsychology one- has he forgotten? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. You used the meat/sock puppet User:Myriam Tobias, which was later blocked for being a meatpuppet of yours. Note that you initially claimed that it was your "girlfriend" or "roommate" making those edits on your computer, but later changed your story and admitted that it was indeed you. As far as the mediations go, , formal or informal, All have failed. This is what caused me to take the Parapsychology article into my own hands and initiate a rewrite without any mediators. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of claims. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi.... Wikidudeman (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Neal, I don't think counseling will work in this case. Martin was already counseled in his RfC (signed by several admins who extended him good faith) to cease disruptive advocating on behalf of Parapsychology and the Paranormal, remain civil, and work cooperatively. It didn't stop his disruptive editing and advocacy. Instead it led to the Paranormal Arbcom. He may have taken the lack of sanctions against him as a "green light" to move forward with his quest, as he interprets that particular Arbcom decision as a "bigger stick" with which to conduct his self-appointed mission. - LuckyLouie 07:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed This arbitration was raised primarily on questions of user conduct. After stripping out content disagreements, which are normal Wikipedia processes in creating articles based on consensus, what largely remains in evidence are claims of uncivil conduct. Unless I am mistaken, Martinphi has not been reprimanded or warned by an administrator that his conduct has been disruptive. As such, proposed remedies asking for lengthy banning or blocking from Wikipedia as a whole, or from articles in which conflicting viewpoints often escalate into heated debate, is in my opinion premature and unwarranted. People disagree. Sometimes this gets heated. Extensive blocking goes too far in my opinion. If he fails to remain civil after counsel, then greater penalties might be in order. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to fill up this page with a lengthy discussion, so please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop#Middle road remedy for my replies to counseling not being enough. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of duplicity. No evidence of socks- that you know about anyway (there is one you don't). No evidence of multiple socks, which you claim. Accounts run from this computer: the one you claim is a sock, Martinphi, and one other. No other accounts are run from this computer. Please stop making false claims. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinPhi is banned

5) Martinphi is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. This user is incorrigible as is demonstrated by evidence sections of MastCell and Wikidudeman. MartinPhi is convinced that the previous arbitration vindicated him[48] and does so far as to blatantly lie about the about sockpuppeting he was already caught for in the section directly above this proposal. I don't think we need much more evidence than that of how utterly unwilling this editor is to admit that he is wrong or to chance. JoshuaZ 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:ScienceApologist has also apparently "lied blatently" about sockpuppeting: accounts of his such as User:Nondistinguished, User:Mainstream astronomy, User:Velikovsky and more have all been blocked, yet his ScienceApologist user and talk page contain statements about "why he was away" and "why he returned", and salutations from other editors welcoming him back, when in fact he was never away, but editing with sockpuppets instead. It seems a curious double standard that you make no mention of this in his case, yet in Martinphi's case take it as a reason for a permanent ban.--feline1 14:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if those were sockpuppets or not. We haven't had an RfCU to confirm it or such. Furthermore, MartinPhi's sockpuppeting to give appearances of consensus and avoid 3RR. Repeatedly (see the sockpuppep discussion link to in the above discussion). I haven't seen any evidence of SA doing that. Furthermore, sockpuppeting concerns are not the only reason that I propose the above for Martinphi. Note for example, the dif I linked to. JoshuaZ 14:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for clarifying your views. Doubtless they will make your position vis a vis neutrality in this case much clearer to many observers.--feline1 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misbehavior by ScienceApologist (and it appears there has been some) can be dealt with in this Arbitration, but please stop using it to deflect scrutiny from Martinphi. I think there is ample evidence that Martinphi is an incorrigibly disruptive editor who views Wikipedia as a battleground and is willing to flaunt policy at will out of a conviction that he's right. There's also evidence he's not going to amend his ways. The sockpuppetry issue was early in Martinphi's career and has not been repeated - so it's actually a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more bothered by his consistently disruptive editing and entirely unconstructive approach to Wikipedia, and those are the reasons I would support JoshuaZ's proposal for an indefinite ban. MastCell Talk 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I do not feel it is fair to alledge that I was mentioning misbehaviour by ScienceApologist in order to "deflect scrutiny" from MartinPhi. I was mentioning it in the interests of fairness and balance (which appeared lacking), and because I believed the incidents I mentioned may not have been apparent to the arbitrators, and indeed that such behaviour may have been an important contributory factor in precipitating some of MartinPhi's behaviour, and could thus be vital to an appreciation of the case. Knowing what I have experienced of ScienceApologist's editing style, which is often confrontational and uses treats editors as "opponents", it is often the case that an editor will feel "threatened" and behave in defensive and innappropriate ways. A more tactful approach by the Rational Skeptic protagonist would often have resulted in greater cooperation and consensus rather than edit warring. In the very worst possible scenario, this entire ArbComm could be a piece of vexacious wikilaywering, designed to see an editor-with-unorthodox-views expelled from wikipedia, after having bated him into misbehaviour (worse still, it might not be the first instance of such an ArbComm). I am sure the arbitrators would wish to be scrupulous and transparent in ensuring that the community could not be given cause to view this Arb in that fashion, as it would be damaging to the community if this were so... things must be seen to be proper.--feline1 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
feline1, The majority of the offensive behavior on Martinphi's part took place on pages that ScienceApologist had no participation, therefore the idea that Martinphi felt "threatened" by ScienceApologist and thus acted the way he has simply won't work. Martinphi has shown disregard for WP:AGF, WP:Civility, WP:Point, Etc on all sorts of pages and with all sorts of users. If you have any issues with ScienceApologist then you should bring them up, but you should NOT use them as an excuse for the behavior of Martinphi as for the most part they were totally seperated in editing areas the past several months. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. It's clear that this isn't so much about Martin, and that feline1 has it in for ScienceApologist. If your goal is truly to bring SA's behavior to the Arbitrators' attention, you may want to consider taking the time to post some Evidence. Right now it sounds like you're a) using this forum to pursue an outside grudge against SA, and b) citing his bad behavior to shift focus from Martin. But that's a dangerous game, as someone with your history ought to be aware. MastCell Talk 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please stop insisting that I am "citing ScienceApologist's bad behaviour to shift focus away from Martin". I already explained that I wasn't. I just noticed this Arb case, and have been sharing what I know that I felt was relevant. It so happens all that material is about ScienceApologist - simply because I've often encountered him before, but never encountered Martin before. Castigating a witness because they only had evidence to present about one suspect is not a legal process I'm familar with, I must say! I've only witnessed what I've witnessed! The arbitrators will collate *all* the info and its relevence to both parties, no doubt.
Also to be honest, I wasn't sure I *could* present evidence to this ArbComm about ScienceApologist, because it only pertains to *my* interactions with him, not to his interactions with MartinPhi - I thought it might be out of scope (I've never participated in an Arb before, I'm not familiar with the procedure). If you're telling me you think it's relevant then I will present it.--feline1 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think attention needs to be shifted off my behavior and situation- so if anyone is trying to do that, thanks for the attempt at help, but no need. MastCell is right in that it is through evidence that things will be decided, the more the better. Though, Feline, I have observed that the Arbs often only click one or two links, so put the best diffs first. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feline1 has his own axe to grind with me. Why this is relevant to a proposed banning of Martinphi I have no idea. ScienceApologist 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This remedy is ultra vires the ArbCom. Maximum is 1 year. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. A one year ban is entirely reasonable and long overdue, an indefinite ban will have to wait until we see how he conducts himself during and after that year. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. After that any admin can give an indefinite community ban without discussion at the first serious offense. It has happened before and saved Wikipedia lots of grief, as well as prevented disruptive and time consuming ArbComs. -- Fyslee / talk 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi placed on probation

6) Martinphi is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for six months. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgment for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to paranormal topics which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Martinphi must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also be placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Martinphi to continue to edit articles in those areas which are not sources of controversy.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Given all of the dozens of chances that this user has had to reform his behavior, This remedy in my opinion would be totally futile. This remedy would work, perhaps, after a 6 month total ban from Wikipedia, however simply putting him on probation won't work. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed Alternative to #5 if arbcom decides counseling is not enough. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist placed on probation

7) ScienceApologist is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for six months. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgment for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to paranormal fringe topics which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. ScienceApologist must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also be placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit ScienceApologist to continue to edit articles in those areas which are not sources of controversy.

(Note: updated to "fringe" topics instead of "paranormal" topics) --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If any probation is placed on ScienceApologist, It should have absolutely no effect on the remedies undertaken concerning Martinphi. As far as I know, ScienceApologist has been gone for several months and has not participated on the pages in question about Martinphi's behavior, thus any negative behavior on his part shouldn't and wouldn't have any effect on the behavior of Martinphi. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy response, so I posted it here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop#Why ScienceApologist too. Oh, and they would be mutually exclusive remedies. If one screws up and the other doesn't then the one who did screw up has no bearing on the one who didn't. So a remedy for Martinphi wouldn't have an effect on ScienceApologist or vice versus. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, Wikidudeman, what part of Neal's statement do you agree with? ScienceApologist 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That any remedy for Martinphi would have no affect on you and vise versa. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:
Proposed In all fairness, Martinphi is not the sole cause of edit disputes on these articles, nor the only editor who is sometimes uncivil. Evidence to follow on the /Evidence page if no one else gets to it first. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist has twice accused me of being a sockpuppet. On one occasion he accused me of being a sockpt of Ninedragons, and more recently he accused me of being a sockpt of IanTresman. I presented evidence to editorial staff refuting these slurs. I am responsible for the www.plasmacosmology.net web site, which focuses on the work of Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, and Anthony Perratt. All respected plasma scientists. ScienceApologist nonetheless calls my site pseudoscience, and he persistently removes links and comments that I contribute. Soupdragon42, 22 October 2007
I'm not going to try and justify the accusations of sockpuppetry. But providing links to your own site is a no-no; whether or not plasma science is a pseudoscience is disputed; and it sounds like you two have a good old content dispute over what should go into the article.--Prosfilaes 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not being facetious, but a serious question: has User:ScienceApologist ever worked on an article and *not* caused a dispute? Because every time I've seen him in action (and the reason I have taken an interest in this ArbComm), I have witnessed disputes.--feline1 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he's around when there are disputes, doesn't mean he causes them. Looking at a small part of the argument on Plasma cosmology that Soupdragon42 refers to, I see ScienceApologist deleting stuff with curt edit summaries, but Soupdragon42 repeated readding the same links that ScienceApologist is deleting with no edit summaries at all, and at the time, no talk page discussion. His behavior is not optimal, but isn't causing the disputes.--Prosfilaes 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's around when there are disputes, doesn't mean he causes them. Eh? Eh? Doth mine ears deceive me? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, people who respond to statements with mockery, those people I tend to suspect as the cause of disputes.--Prosfilaes 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is a parody, and maybe a mockery "A composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way", but it is not a response to anyone's statement.
Or do I need to explain that the reason for the above joke is that I'm accused of causing disputes, and your argument could equally apply to me, were things done fairly? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, the "evidence" provided of supposed wrongdoings on my part mostly happened on pages that had little to nothing to do with the paranormal. I've come to accept that any dispute resolution process I'm involved in will attract the angry attention of certain groups, but I'm fairly sure that this proposal has more to do with Neal feeling like there should be a parity of justice between myself and Martinphi rather than basing his suggestion on actual evidence. ScienceApologist 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on the evidence of you continuing to be uncivil after being warned in two previous arbitrations to be civil with other editors. How many arbitrations do you need to be involved in, where evidence is presented that you don't play well with others, before a sanction is taken against you? You raised this arbitration yourself, over civility, and you have been warned twice to be civil and continue being uncivil. That's what it's about. You can try to make it about something else, but the diffs in evidence support action being taken against you as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've responded to your evidence and I have to say that being cautioned to maintain civility is something I take very seriously. It's something that I have to be very careful about because of the places I inhabit at Wikipedia. I am not your typical editor: I attract any number of disgruntled POV-pushers since I routinely insist on very high standards for sourcing and evidence. I will point out, though, that just because I frequent the playpens of bullies doesn't mean that it is my fault I don't play well with them. A goodly number of folks who are known for their civil natures also have a hard time playing with these guys. A goodly number of folks are also not involved in arbitrations as much as I am.
Why am I involved in so many arbitrations? Because I edit in areas that attract pseudoscientific posturing. Disputes are par for the course and they often end in arbitration because many of the disputants are, quite frankly, simply unable to understand basic concepts like what makes a reliable source. I don't take my chosen role at Wikipedia lightly: I think that these issues that are brought before the arbitration committee are important. They determine whether Wikipedia will be taken seriously as a first-stop reference source or whether Wikipedia will be relegated to an internet amateur-hour. Am I perfect? No. But I do try my best to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible given the absurdity of having an open-source encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
ScienceApologist 00:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your chosen role to fight pseudoscience on Wikipedia, right? Other editors do that and don't end up in arbitration. Other editors do that and remain civil. Other editors fight pseudoscience but don't pick fights with others or edit war. Why should you be treated special, when they do the same thing as you do without being prone to quarrel? --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors do similar things to me, but I pride myself on my uniqueness. There's a combination of factors at work here: One, I edit a lot because every time I run a code I check my watchlist. Two, I've been around for a long time. Three, I don't suffer fools gladly. I appeal to the processes in dispute resolution early and often and take careful note as cases develop. Four, I get somewhere near half-a-dozen requests a week for me to look at science-related articles that have come under dispute or may be problematic. This is normally how I get involved.
You seem to think you have this place pretty well-figured out and have me pegged for an instigator. Well, I have noticed a lot patterns that have developed over the years editing here at Wikipedia and let me tell you this is not a homogeneous community. For example, at Talk:Intelligent design, trolls are dealt with harshly and (relatively) quickly. There is almost no accommodation. However, I just learned at Talk:Quackwatch, harshly criticizing a troll's post is considered a personal attack and uncivil. It is highly likely that editors at Intelligent design would be considered quarrelsome at Quackwatch and editors from Quackwatch would be appalled at rhetoric spewed forth from established editors at Intelligent design. I don't pretend to understand the quirkiness of a community that simultaneously has WP:AGF along with WP:SPADE, WP:CIV along with WP:DICK, WP:NPA along with WP:DE, and WP:CON with WP:IAR. It's a tightrope we all walk on. You obviously think I'm about to fall (and perhaps would like to give me a little push along the way). I, however, am of the opinion that I'm balanced and think that my center of gravity is experiencing no torque. ScienceApologist 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any "punishment" issued to Martinphi must be equally issued to ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie and Wikidudeman

8) Any "punishment" issued to Martinphi must be equally issued to ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie and Wikidudeman

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I must be missing something. The only thing that I've seen in the evidence suggesting any wrong doing on my or Luckylouie's part is due to your misinterpretation of a short discussion on ScienceApologist's userpage, which was actually me discouraging him from directly editing an article in the middle of a mediation. The explanation for the discussion and how you misinterpreted it can be found on the evidence page. You might want to add some more evidence because as of now there is none suggesting any such thing as you're claiming. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume for a moment that there is strong evidence that those editors have been antagonists (not a particularly specific term in this context). It would still not follow that each has committed the same infraction, to the same degree, with the same intention and the same result. This proposal really should be completely rewritten or scrapped. Antelan talk 03:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed by Tom Butler 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC). The evidence is strong enough that ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie and Wikidudeman have been antagonists in these actions. Tom Butler 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely impractical and wholly unjust, no matter what on side of this debate one sits. — BillC talk 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal articles placed on probation

9) Any article dealing with the paranormal is hereby placed on article probation. Any uninvolved administrator who sees disruptive editing tactics or edit warring on such an article may immediately and without warning protect the disputed article and block the accounts of users involved for appropriate lengths of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Only a strong hand will cause peace to reign. ScienceApologist 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want the articles placed on probation? The evidence presented by multiple editors deal with only you and Martinphi edit warring. Seems simpler to deal with problematic editors than impose restrictions on a group of articles. Most editors involved on these articles do not edit war. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. There have been edit wars aplenty on paranormal articles that have involved neither Martinphi nor I. ScienceApologist 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence presented in the arbitration named MartinPhi-ScienceApologist naturally puts emphasis on those two. But if you check out the edits of User:Soupdragon42, who posted against ScienceApologist above in "ScienceApologist placed on probation", you'll notice they consist mainly of a edit war. There have several arbitrations on this subject, and there have been several editors that have had action taken against them, up to and including permanently banning (User:Iantresman). These are hot contentious subjects that seem to have little cross-discussion in the real world, leaving them very hard to create good NPOV articles on. I don't know that this is a good or workable idea, but I doubt just banning editors is going to do much good.--Prosfilaes 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you could call a little of what I've done since the ArbCom edit warring. But this only applies in the most blatant cases, such as very clear violations of the previous ArbCom, and things like inserting "childish self-deception" in the lead of the Astral projection article. Otherwise, I have been a saint on this. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence page is overflowing with unsaintly behavior on your part. The justification that you're disruptive only because you have a better conception of policy and the greater good than everyone else is kind of played out as well. MastCell Talk 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martinphi, you're saying, "except for where I have violated policy, I have not violated policy." With that, I must agree. Antelan talk 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
How will editors know about this probation? It's too easy a trap to walk into for the unwary. - perfectblue 18:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RationalSkeptics, ScienceApologist banned from Paranormal-related articles, Paranormal project editors, Martinphi banned from Skeptics and Science-related articles

10) The root of the problem with paranormal articles and with the present dispute regarding this Arbcom case, being in the opposing natures of RationalSkeptics and Paranormal project editors; which has lead to general disruptive patterns over the course of numerous months from both sides of the issue; which was not resolved by a previous Arbcom case as those within the RationalSkeptics project have shown opposition to that case; which then causes disputes with Paranormal editors or project editors; which further heightens conflicts and innuendos including some editorial patterns resorting to personal insults and attacks; all at odds with the spirit, concept, and nature of Wikipedia; we conclude the following:

10.1) Members of the RationalSkeptics project are banned indefinitely from editing Paranormal-related articles or their talk pages, except a skeptics or criticism section thereof.

10.2) Members of the Paranormal project are banned indefinitely from editing Skeptics or related articles and editing physical science or related articles with regards to alternative definitions thereof.

10.3) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Paranormal-related articles or project pages thereof.

10.4) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Skeptics or Science-related articles or project pages thereof, and is advised to remove any reference lampooning RationalSkeptics project from his user pages.

10.5) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other editors originally involved in the Paranormal project are prohibited from participating in the RationalSkeptics project and Wikidudeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other editors originally involved in the RationalSkeptics project are prohibited in participating in the Paranormal project.

10.6) Members of both the Paranormal project and Rational Skeptics project may edit Parapyschology as it relates to the paranormal in covering topics thereof and as it relates to Science in being a branch thereof.

10.7) Editors not involved in RationalSkeptics or Paranormal projects, but who subsequently join or remove themselves from either are under the same restrictions outlined in this decision. Editors may not be members in both projects.

10.8) Members of both Paranormal project and Rational Skeptics project are hereby put on probation regarding editorial habits at paranormal, science, and skeptic articles.

10.9) Any member of either project that does not abide by the provisions of this ruling shall be hereby banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This proposal does not make sense and lacks justification. I'm a member of both the Rational Skepticism project and the Paranormal project. There is no evidence that I or numerous other editors of the Rational skepticism project have caused any disruptions relating to the Paranormal project and no evidence that most of the editors of the Paranormal project have disrupted articles relating to science. Your proposal is overreaching and generalizing a matter related to just two or three editors. I for instance, being a member of both the skepticism and paranormal project was the main editor behind bringing the Parapsychology article to FA status after organizing a rewrite of it which editors from both projects contributed. Essentially what this proposal would do would prevent members who are knowledgeable about science from editing paranormal articles, which would do nothing but cause POV issues. Blocking dozens of editors, many of whom are scientists from editing paranormal articles, especially when the vast majority of them have done nothing wrong? You want to prevent 76 editors, many of whom are professional scientists and most of whom have caused no disruptions from editing paranormal related articles? This proposal would also prevent 83 editors of the paranormal project, many of whom are interested in scientific articles and skepticism article and most of whom are good editors from editing scientific and skepticism articles? This simply won't work. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that MANY editors who belong to the Paranormal project also belong to the Rational skepticism project including Martinphi. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note concerning why this proposal won't work. MANY articles including Parapsychology are in the areas of both science and the paranormal. There is a large amount of a Grey area between Science and Paranormal. Some paranormal related topics are technically scientific, even if their results are invalid, such as parapsychology. Will this proposal prevent both editors of the paranormal project and the rational skepticism project from editing Parapsychology since it relates both to science and the paranormal, as numerous paranormal related articles do? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is f'ing ridicules. I am not a party of this arbitration and my editing has not come under question. The section of the proposal that restricts every member of the involved projects needs to be removed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal is wrong on so many levels. We have evidence of continual and unabating tendentious editing and disruption by Martinphi. This solution elects to redefine it as a turf war between rival gangs. It has wrongly determined a "root problem" and has failed to provide supporting evidence for such a determination. - LuckyLouie 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, most editors (with only a handful of exceptions) conduct themselves appropriately and do not engage in "warring" behavior. It would be wrong to penalize those majority editors based on the editing practices of the disruptive minority. If you get rid of everyone who knows anything at all about these topics you're left with no one but uninformed editors resulting in uneducational articles which is heavily against Wikipedia's ultimate goals. Besides, it's not practical. I could just un-member myself from a project and continue editing. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful - The projects will simply disband. This will have a chilling effect on joining WikiProjects more globally, especially if these sanctions are applied (as proposed above) to anyone who is a member these Wikiprojects currently, previously, or in the future. Antelan talk 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to commentators, Firstly, This isn't a vote. Arbitrators could still introduce this proposal even if everyone except Northmeistr opposes it. Secondly, Comments from non parties to the arbitration should comment under "others". Just for future reference. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Regarding Wikidudemans statements above on Parapyschology etc. - see a new 10.6 I've added regarding his concerns. See also 10.1 whereas Rational Skeptics may edit Paranormal articles 'criticism' or 'skeptics' section, but not any other part of the article. Those not member of RationalSkeptics and science editors in general are not prohibited from editing paranormal articles however. I see this as dealing with all sides of the issue that caused the previous Arbcom and the present one. Thus, my root observations. It is not science vs. the paranormal but RationalSkepticism vs. Paranormal that causes these disputes. --Northmeister 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the changes don't address much of anything. There is no evidence that I or most of the editors of either project have caused any problems anywhere and putting probations on our editing doesn't make sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new section pertaining to membership, as it seems that project members from either side have joined the other which itself might cause undue conflict of interest; and may be a result of the conflicts themselves - pertaining to stated goals of either. Further, in light of your observations clarified section on Paranormal project editors, also in light of JS's observations pertaining to science related articles. These proposals are to remedy the present situation and the inciting incident that caused it; as well as past incidents that seem to be a pattern; as well as future incidents that might arise because of the opposing natures of the two projects. Thus my root observations. --Northmeister 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Nealparr's observations, I fully understand the sentiments - my wish is to punish no one; but this Arbcom and the previous and numerous disputes have evolved around a root issue I stated in 10. Pertaining to your observations about taking yourself out, I've added to the prohibition on those who 'join or remove' as a remedy. If we realize the root of the problem then we can fix the problem. Those with scientific knowledge unrelated to the project agenda of RationalSkeptics would not be prohibited from contributing to articles on the paranormal or elsewhere - nor would would be persons of paranormal knowledge be prohibited from editing anywhere if they are not a member of said project. The above suggestions are just that, suggestions taken as a whole or in parts by Arbcom that I hope would resolve these disputes from occurring and leading to an endless mess. I stand by my proposal because I feel the roots of the problem must be dealt with or the problem will not go away. The fact I've recieved objections from both camps means I must be hitting a chord; regarding the root of the problem. --Northmeister 18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you're correct on the root of the problem, the remedy you propose is still not a practical fix. Sounds a little McCarthyism to me: "Have you now or ever been a member of the Rational Skeptics or Paranormal parties?". What in your proposal would prevent a user from registering a legitimate WP:SOCK just to avoid being penalized for having been a member in the past? It's just not practical. Article probation (which I also feel penalizes appropriate editors unfairly) is at least more practical in its remedy. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, freakin' way (strongest possible oppose). This is like saying there are too many car accidents, so we should just ban all cars. They are all really, really poorly thought out, but 10.8 & 10.9 are the worst. Science is such an incredibly broad topic. It would be ridiculous to include all of science because it would be unfeasible to enforce such an idea. Would economics be included? How about geology? They are all sciences. And 10.9 is only going to lead to a lot of good editors being banned. And you with regards to the new 10.7, you cannot forcibly exclude people from working with a project. That's not the way this place works. The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Baegis 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Northmeister, I'm not sure that "hitting a chord" (i.e. strong objections from a majority of individuals) is any indication that your speculations as to "root causes" and remedies are correct. I could hit a similar chord by proposing that "all cute puppies must be put to sleep". - LuckyLouie 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute

  1. Since SA is a member of both projects, does that mean that he can't edit anything relate to science or the Paranormal? While I'd like to see SA taken to heel, it's a bit much. How about just banning SA from editing Paranormal entries?
  2. Why ban Project Paranormal members from editing science related entries? Are there any actual disputes involving science pages where the paranormal is not involved?
  3. What about Parapsychology. I consider this to be a science but skeptics don't. Does this mean that I (as a member of Project Paranormal) would have to denounce my belief in Parapsychology in order to edit it or that SA would have to take an oath of belief in it as a science before they can edit it?
  4. Couldn't I just get around the ban by leaving the project. It's not as if I edit Paranormal articles all that much any more.
  5. What about (scare quote) "disruptive editors" (scare quote) who never joined either project?

perfectblue 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing concerns by Baegis about Science's broad definition, I've amended my proposal to be very specific as to where the problems may arise between the two projects in the future; thus physical science. Regarding McCarthyism, I don't think this applies here. It is quite easy to tract who is now a member, in which order they joined (per proposal to remove those who joined RationalSkeptics first from Paranormal and the other way around). Per Perfectblue's observations (good by the way) - 1. SA is a original member of RationalSkeptics, would therefore not be prohibited from editing skeptic and physical science articles; but would be prohibited from editing specifically paranormal articles. 2. Concerns over any future problems relating to addressing fringe or non-mainstream edits from said project can be avoided with prohibition on editing physical science articles which RationalSkeptics have concern with. 3. There is a subsection dealing with Parapyschology directly and the ability for both to edit there. 4. No, there is a subsection placing the same restrictions on those who chose to leave. 5. No attempt to deal with outside editors here, although there are numerous remedies for 'disruptive' editors anonymous or otherwise here at Wikipedia. - As a general observation, enforcing this proposal is quite easy - as we know present members of both; they can be reported for violations; and the remedy applied - that simple. This would end disputes over content in the main; allowing both to concentrate on fact, there area of expertise (ie. criticism section per say for RationalSkeptics) rather than constant disputes because of differing views of the topic of paranormal as I've seen on the EVP talk page. It's addressing the root problem and attempts to apply a fair fix applied to both sides. --Northmeister 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trap waiting to be walked into by the unwary and a rule looking to be bent by the unscrupulous. For example, if I were to edit a page about quartz crystal, I could be sanctioned, even though it's not contentious or controversial. What about project members who join in 6 months time and thus haven't even heard of this debate, will they be warned automatically? - perfectblue 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your observations about future members, an advisory would have to be posted on both project pages pertaining to Arbcoms decision. The Quartz observation is very good, yet per this policy you as a member of Project Paranormal would not be restricted from editing this except pertaining to alternative non-mainstream material which might be the cause of future conflict between RationalSkeptics and Paranormal project editors. --Northmeister 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're patching the remedy in order to weakly address very real problems with it that are antithetical to Wikipedia. It's not a real solution. I won't even bother pointing out any other issues with it because it is flawed in general. There are 76 members listed as a part of Rational Skepticism Project and 83 members listed as part of the Paranormal Project. Your sweeping remedy sanctions all of them. I'd take it more seriously if you could show that a significant portion of those members in each group actually take part in contentious, disruptive editing practices. Otherwise the proposal is not only flawed in principle, it's not supported by evidence. I have no doubt that some members of each project view Wikipedia as a battleground as you suggest, but you don't cut off an arm because a finger is infected. I enjoy philosophy of science topics and enjoy paranormal topics. I shouldn't be punished for having diverse interests. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind objections. My 'patches' are attempts to address real issues each of you have brought up. This is just a proposal. My hope is that Arbcom will consider this, the subsequent opposition from both sides; as a indicator of the real problem here. Per, your loving to edit 'philosophy of science' and 'paranormal' - no doubt, I like to edit numerous topics of interest or curiousity - this proposal doesn't exclude you from editing scientific articles in a mainstream way. It tries to prevent future controversy. I think this proposal encourages the spirit of Wikipedia, being open to all to edit, by disspelling unnecessary controversy caused by certain members of two projects and their definitions of policy, paranormal terms etc. etc. Thus my observations on what the root of the problems are in 10. Again I do hope this at least makes Arbcom think about what to do in this case to avoid future cases of the same light. Addressing the root causes is always best. --Northmeister 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal not only lacks justification and makes no sense, it is also in opposition to the very philosophy of wikipedia itself.
1. You propose that members of the Paranormal project can't edit science or skeptic related articles. Many members of that project are actually skeptics and or scientists. Most of them have done nothing disruptive, including myself. Why limit their ability to edit such articles? What is the justification for such when they have done nothing wrong?
2. You propose that members of the Skeptic project can't edit articles relating to the paranormal, with the exception of specific sections. This has the same problems above. MOST of the editors if that project have done nothing wrong, including myself who is also a member of that project. Why prevent them from editing articles when they have done nothing wrong?
A problem also with both above mentioned proposals is that MANY people are a member of both projects. I frequently edit paranormal related articles. I don't edit war on them, I don't cause trouble on them. Most editors of either project don't cause problems on paranormal or scientific related articles. How do you determine who truly belongs to which project when so many people belong to both? What of members who belong to both projects? They are stuck in the middle.
Another problem with the proposals, Parapsychology isn't the only article that is an "iffy" science. There are numerous other articles that fit the same criteria. Separating "Paranormal" from "Science" is something that can't be done here and shouldn't be done here. It would be impossible to enforce the remedy, even if it was even remotely justifiable, because it is impossible to define so many phenomena or fields as distinctly "scientific" or distinctly "paranormal".
Another problem, Why? Why prevent non problematic editors from editing articles?
Yet another problem, I was not "originally involved" in the rational skepticism project. I joined about half way through.
One more problem, The entire proposal is very, very, very vague. What does "physical science or related articles with regards to alternative definitions thereof" even mean? How many editors of the paranormal project have edited physical science articles with regards to applying "alternative definitions"? Wikidudeman (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good observations Wikidudeman. To start this proposal is preventative in the main. 10.1 prevents conflict by disallowing Rational Skeptics members from editing the main of paranormal articles; while allowing them to edit the 'criticism' section to bring balance to such said articles. This prevents the conflicts I see arising from POV's of either side intruding on the main definition (which is paranormal in nature) and any criticism (which is usually scientific in nature). 10.2 prevents conflict by disallowing Paranormal project members from adding material that is not accepted mainstream opinion on the subject while allowing them to continue to edit a free-will such said articles if the material is mainstream. This prevents the possible conflicts I see arising between accepted definition as opposed to 'pseudoscientific' definition not generally accepted by mainstream science. 10.3 and 10.4 are specific to two editors who have a troubling history of edits due to the nature of opposing views of paranormal subjects and is meant to prevent future disputes between the two. 10.4 specifically advises Martinphi to remove one of the inciting incidents to this Arbcom. 10.5 deals with conflicts of interest I see arising (and that may have already occured) whereas an editor involved originally (by this is meant join that project first) with Rational Skepticism project joins the Paranormal Project in order to create tension there or to mess with the projects harmony or the reverse whereas a member of the Paranormal project goes over to the Rational Skeptics project and does the same. This measure is to prevent dubious characters who would harm both projects from upsetting the harmony of either. 10.6 addresses concerns you had about editing Parapyschology, which is related to science being a branch thereof yet which also deals with the paranormal being concerned with topics thereof. It allows members of both to edit there. I see no other topic of the same vain per say. Though this could be amended to include others. Here the two projects could work in harmony to resolve issues. 10.7 is meant to prevent persons from dropping out of either project just to avoid the Arbcom decision from doing harm or causing conflict by applying the remedy to them as well; again to prevent any future conflicts from arising due to this issue. 10.8 puts both projects on notice, that they will be monitored and any conflicts caused will be dealt with. 10.9 might be harsh, I could change it have subsections for first time infraction up to repeat offenders getting harsher indefinite ban whereas others being notified then banned for a short term first. - Petaining to your other issues not addressed above, whichever project you originated in, you would be restricted to that and removed from the other as would all others. This proposal in no way prohibits those outside of either project; nor does it prohibit either projects members from editing paranormal articles or physcial science articles, rather it simply looks at the root cause and attempts to address the problem thus prohibiting Rational Skeptics from editing the main portion of paranormal articles (which generally give a paranormal defition) but not the criticism, notes, etc. to help in refining the articles and gives Paranormal editors the continued right to edit physical science except as to alternative or non-mainstream material being added preventing any future conflict. In all I wished to address the root problem with all this, to prevent future problems from arising. This proposal would do this in whole or may be used by Arbcom in parts to address concerns that keep arising. Also, I consider both projects important to Wikipedia and this proposal would keep both alive and well under rules meant to preserve peace and harmony for both. --Northmeister 04:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 10.6, parapsychology isn't the only science topic that has overlaps with paranormal topics. There's actually quite a few topical overlaps. Science and non-science go hand in hand as two polar opposites with a range of articles related to the philosophy of science in between. Example: Anomalous phenomena (article needs updating). On one hand it is a science article because it explains what is an anomaly and the idea and importance of falsifiability. On the other hand it is a paranormal article because it explores the fringe science idea of verifiability (philosophy sense, not WP:V sense) and the paranormal researcher's goal of finding that one anomaly despite the practicality of falsification. So, ambiguous taxonomy, what group gets the article? You can't solve a polarization problem by segregation. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister, You're arguing about what this proposal is "supposed" to do but you aren't actually addressing any of my points. I know what it's meant to "supposed" to be able to do, But the problem is that EVEN IF it were to accomplish that (which it has totally no chance of doing realistically), It's inherently unfair since you're prohibiting good editors who have caused no problems from editing articles. Moreover, I didn't "originate" from any project. I joined them at about the same time. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidudeman, what amendments would you propose I make that would address your concerns? I totally understand yours and Philosophus belows concerns over punishing those not involved in this dispute, which I don't feel is to harsh to begin with - it simply addresses the cause of this and the last Arbcom to prevent future cases from arising on essentially the same issues and concerns but different parties. I am more than willing to alter my proposed remedy based on any reccomendations you or others might have that would address what I see as a root problem that caused this Arbcom to occur, and very well may occur in the future if that problem is not addressed. This remedy stands only as a proposal, to at the very least give Arbcom further ideas to address and work with, in coming up with a solution themselves. I don't think recinding it would be wise, as it does address the situation concerning Martinphi and ScienceApologist and other parties involved in this dispute; and the underlying reasons behind the disputes inciting incidents. Arbcom has the power to reject this remedy in whole or in part. Considering the objections they may do just that; which is why this process is necessary. In the end, I think Arbcom will come up with the best and fairest solution, based on all the data provided. --Northmeister 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap the entire thing. I would say keep 10.3 and 10.4, but most of Marinphi's problematic edits occur on the paranormal articles, so allowing him to edit only them doesn't make a bit of sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
There are several serious procedural problems with this proposal that makes me think it is entirely inappropriate for this RfA. Firstly, it would have the effect of restricting editing and thus making parties to the request a large number of editors who aren't currently listed as parties, are not aware of the request, and haven't had any chance to present their case or evidence. Creating this proposal without properly listing the parties and notifying each individually seems to me a terrible breach of procedure and fairness, and I must ask that Northmeister either retract the proposal for this reason or list and notify everyone who would be a party under this remedy. It doesn't seem that the issues of party notification, expansion, and listing is currently considered in Arbcom policy, but if proposals like this are going to be made without the proposing editor making the corresponding changes and notifications, then it probably needs to be stated explicitly.
Secondly, this remedy would change the topic and scope of the RfA immensely. The purpose of the request, at least from my understanding, was to deal with the behaviors of ScienceApologist and Martinphi, and it was accepted by the Arbcom for that purpose, not to deal with the very different matter of all of the editors editing in the same areas. I would suggest that Northmeister start a new RfA to consider this matter if he wishes to propose such a remedy.
Of course, I may be incorrect in my understanding of Arbcom procedure, but at the very least the proposal of this remedy here seems intrinsically unjust. --Philosophus T 05:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed by --Northmeister 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist cautioned to refrain from further use of sockpuppets

11) ScienceApologist is directed to reveal the identities of any other sockpuppets he may have used to edit Paranormal- or Pseudoscience-related articles, or any other area in which he has been involved, and to refrain from their further use. He is furthermore strongly cautioned that any further inappropriate use of sockpuppets is likely to result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed per proposed FoF 20. David Mestel(Talk) 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This only fair. Using puppets is unacceptable - perfectblue 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to change the wording so that it notes that the caution would be due to findings of abuse, not simply due to an outright prohibition of sock puppets. Remember, WP:SOCK doesn't forbid sock puppetry except in cases where it is abused. --Philosophus T 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. David Mestel(Talk) 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SA to become a skeptical inclusionist, not a Paranormal deletionist

12) When user SA is involved in a dispute with other users, the primary cause of disagreement is that SA attempts to follow their interpretation of WP:Fringe and WP:Balance by deleting content that they disagree with rather than countering it. This is seen as being deletionist and unnecessarily antagonistic by other users, particularly those who have added much content to a page only to see it being deleted by SA, and by users who see SA's primary contribution as being to delete paranormal content rather than to present the skeptical case. I therefore propose that SA be prohibited from performing any action on a page marked as being paranormal (or related) except to add (or improve) skeptical content (for preference in a criticism section).

For example, if SA were to see fit to visit the page on Ghost hunting, they would be prohibited from deleting content lending credence to the work of ghost hunters, or describing their place in modern popular culture, but they would still be able to add content to the criticism section about people who have discovered fraud in ghost hunting, or whom have found it to be scientifically lacking. This would prevent disputes while still allowing SA to edit disputed entries.

It is my hope that a one year period of adding content rather than deleting it will teach SA to be a better editor by forcing them to perform research (of third party work) in order to find counter arguments and examples rather than simply deleting things that they disagree with. It is also my hope that it will teach SA to be more mindful of the need for a skeptic to "prove their case" using scientific methodology.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This suffers from at least part of one of the same flaws as the proposal by Northmeister. This proposal would essentially limit SA's editing capability to remove actually irrelevant material or material that is highly POV. IF SA is indeed disruptive then preventing him from editing those articles all together or putting him on probation is in order, not making it so he can edit articles but not remove content that is irrelevant, pov or simply false. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, let's admonish all Wikipedia users to contribute only PhD-level content contributions backed by bulletproof sources. In reality, people contribute what they can in the way that they can. Some contribute content, some live in Talkspace, and others (especially admins) help out a lot in Metaspace. We need people to remove dirt just as much as we need people to add gems. Antelan talk 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by: - perfectblue 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

13) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

14) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

15) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

When I was a "bad" sockpuppet

Nealparr in his evidence cites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Peratt as proof that I was being a bad boy. He has definitely found the place where I was acting most questionably, but I will explain myself here.

User:Mainstream astronomy was an account started to deal with astronomy pages. When it became clear that I could not maintain that account any longer for the same reasons I couldn't maintain the ScienceApologist account, my administrative guardian angel suggested that I abandon the "separate accounts for separate disputes" idea. User:Nondistinguished saved me a lot of problems while allowing me to continue to edit Wikipedia despite being run out of town twice (again, details for how this running out occurred can be had by e-mailing me). However, while this was going on, the AfD on Anthony Peratt was raging. I had to make a decision, do I respond to the comments I felt were problematic or do I leave them be? I decided to respond to comments. I did not !vote again, I simply took part in the discussion.

Now I realize that people who assume bad faith in me (of which there are plenty) will say that I timed this whole thing to gain the appearance of "greater consensus" than there actually was. That argument doesn't really take into account how consensus is judged and also the fact that no fewer than 20 other established users commented before User:Jaranda closed the AfD as delete.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
ScienceApologist 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
ScienceApologist, far be it from me to question the transparency of this ArbComm, but you continue to declare that you will give evidence to Arbitrators in private, rather than present it to the community, and continue to assert that you have the blessing of secret "administrators". Given your track record for barefaced lying, I don't see why you imagine this should satisfy the community. Dare I suggest this stance of yours is just a further manifestation of your notion that you are justified in breaking the rules, because you believe you are "right" and are faced with "opponents" who are egregious loons and mentalists, a tide of rampant nitwits who, unless you stand before them and resist, will eradicate every last achievement of the Enlightenment and bring us back to the Dark Ages. You also seem convinced that this horde of psychometric pseudoscientists are able to use the very paranomal powers you deny exist to somehow track you down in the real world, and that can barely take a bath without 6 or 7 velikovsians jumping in it with you. I submit that this attitude and behaviour of yours is actually a very large part of the problem, despite you believing that it is actually the solution.--feline1 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long-standing precedent that potentially sensitive evidence can be presented to the Arbitrators privately. You are, of course, welcome to present evidence in private as well. It might actually be preferable; thus far you appear to have contributed little to this proceeding other than unconstructive disruption, grandstanding, and proxying for banned users, and if I were not involved in this proceeding I've seen more than enough to add yet another entry to your block log. MastCell Talk 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what Frank Bough has got to with it; your calumnies against me notwithstanding, it saddens me to see you are not a fan of Gumby Theatre :( --feline1 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
feline1 has civility problems as well. That said, the problem with private statements to the arbitration committee is that demonstrably false statements go unchecked if they aren't transparent. For example, Antelan in his evidence said that I worked with Martinphi at an off-wiki site and that he'd be able to provide links privately for privacy concerns. I appreciate the respect for privacy, but by taking it upon myself to make it public, I was able to provide links that show I never interacted at all with Martinphi at that site. Had it been totally private, I would have never been able to refute the claim. In ScienceApologist's case, if there is an "administrative guardian angel" directing him to use sock-puppets, appropriately or inappropriately (my claim), then the username of that administrator is not sensitive information. It's a public relevancy because some research needs to be conducted to see how that administrator treats ScienceApologist's opponents, if they are directing ScienceApologist to use sock-puppets. If they too treat SA's opponents unfairly, that needs to be addressed. Personal information (name, address, personal identity), those things are private. Excuses for inappropriate activity shouldn't be. One other thing: ScienceApologist's appeals to WP:AGF require leeway in an arbitration. It is the arbitration committee's job to discover whether activity was conducted in good faith -- it's an arbitration after all, not a normal content discussion. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will under no circumstances reveal the name of the administrator who helped me through this process to anyone, arbcomm members included. This is not a court of law and you do not have the right to force me to divulge information which I hold in strict confidence for obvious reasons. I have explained all claimed "inappropriate activity" in broad daylight: namely that I could not for some months maintain the account I am currently editing under at Wikipedia for reasons that are quite personal. That's the end of it. If you want to know more, e-mail me. ScienceApologist 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a court of law, no, but neither is it a kangaroo farm, nor an episode of the X Files. What would you think if MartinPhi responded to the this ArbComm saying "Look here, secret important people told me in secret that I was allowed to do all these things! So lay off! I am protected by special beings! With secret identities! And you will never know them mwoah hah hah!" eh? Are you really going to force me to reveal that Jimbo Wales appeared to me in a dream and said it was OK for me to quote Monty Python at you? Whoops, too late, I spilt the beans. And what is your email address anyways?--feline1 10:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm protected by no one. I am, however, protecting the identity of the person who aided me. You can e-mail me through the Wikipedia function. ScienceApologist 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I disagree with Nealparr's characterization of his off-wiki situation. Building a website for Martinphi and his supporters, in my mind, satisfies my claim that they worked together. Antelan talk 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never built a website for Martinphi and there's no evidence that the people I did assist in setting a website up for support Martinphi. --Nealparr (talk to me) 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal's evidence

I now go through and analyze the contentious spin Neal has placed on my edits. I note the excessive verbiage he uses to try to justify his continued crusade to prove once and for all that I'm too uncivil to not be punished.

  1. [49] Tells an editor he is not old enough nor has enough expertise to dictate Wikipedia content after the editor sought outside input. I discussed this above, and I stand by the analysis that editors who are inexperienced with content and don't want to research shouldn't dictate content. NOTE: I have thought long and hard about whether my reference to Andrew's age was appropriate in our dispute. I now believe that this comment was ageist and so have removed it. ScienceApologist 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScienceApologist's "Departing essay" describes "editors that are ignorant or outright cranks [and] devoted idiots [and] lunatic fringe editors". You better believe I said that. No, I don't think it is uncivil, I simply think it is an analysis of one of the (many) problems with Wikipedia.
  3. Although he didn't specify an editor by name, and this can be used to show how he feels about multiple editors, That's right. I think it's better that my feelings be out in the open.
  4. he was personally attacking User:The way, the truth, and the light after being blocked for WP:3RR on Thermal energy (as explained in his essay). No, I was personally disgusted with the fact that there wasn't any way for editorial control by experts when amateurs insert factual and misleading material. I was mad at that user, but it wasn't his fault that he had been given that much leeway.
  5. The issue isn't whether ScienceApologist was trying to improve the article or whether his edits were justified, it's an example of how he loses civility when he becomes frustrated. You know, at some point the community has to decide, if someone's narrow interpretation of civility is what is ultimately important at Wikipedia, then why is Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not a finishing school?
  6. ScienceApologist ignores WP:WTA guidelines ("claims" scattered throughout article) [50] eventhough he knows it is a point of contention with other editors. WTA is a smokescreen. It's "words to avoid" not "words to crucify someone because they used a few times". I tried my damnedest to make some good edits there. I was sick and tired of a sorry-excuse for an article being left up and decided to have a go at it. I encouraged others to help edit the article. Instead, it was reverted. The revert was subsequently undone by another editor.
  7. In other words, he'd rather promote his own point of view instead of working well with others and conforming to guidelines. Bullshit. I'd rather write an encyclopedia than waste kilobytes of text arguing over what the definition of an "illustration" is. Feet dragging indeed!
  8. Even worse, he's inconsistent. While researchers (changed by him to "promoters" or "believers") "claim" things, skeptics "say" things. When promoters or believers make a claim they make a claim. Sometimes they say things. Sometimes they are presenting a formal claim. Sometimes skeptics make formal claims. Sometimes they say things. I admit I have a POV. I want people to help where they see problems with my prose. Anyway, I asked Neal to do just that, but instead he thought it best to post my edits as evidence. Maybe encyclopedia writing isn't for him?
  9. The edits diffed above were made in a sweeping edit spree while other editors were trying to reach consensus. There is absolutely no evidence of this on the talkpage.
  10. When asked why he didn't wait for consensus, he said editors were dragging their feet and called it "obstructionism"[51]. Yep.
  11. He's right that he can be as WP:BOLD as he wants to, but why apply one guideline (WP:BOLD) and ignore another (WP:WTA) while being purposefully contentious? Why apply one guideline (WP:DE) and ignore another (WP:AGF)? I'm saying that I did these edits in good faith. You say I was being disruptive. Sigh.
  12. It is because SA is consistently a combat editor. And again, even if arbitrators agree with his pro-doubt edits, I implore you to consider how he goes about this activity. I encourage the arbitrators to consider how moribund the page had become after being held hostage by Martin and Davkal. I was trying to jump start a conversation about editing the article.
  13. "That's just about the shitties excuse for a reliable source I've ever seen." [52] He's right, but it's purposefully antagonistic. I didn't think that such a source should have been used.
  14. [53] Jumps in on an editor who nicely made a request with "You'd be best to stick to editing articles on subjects that you have researched more carefully. Also, don't rely on religious authorities to teach you science." Unprovoked. I must admit that I don't see what is uncivil about telling an editor to stick to articles he has researched more carefully. And the hint about religious authorities is my personal opinion, but are those types of statements really barred from Wikipedia talkpages?
  15. One of these, User:Velikovsky is a strange sort of incivility because when arguing with other editors at the plasma cosmology talk page, he used "Velikovskian" as a pejorative [54] and said "Pandering to Velikovskians is not the job of this encyclopedia." How is Velikovskian a pejorative exactly? It's a description of what these people believe? I don't think we should pander to any group.
  16. ScienceApologist used this account to further combat with editors he was already engaged in as ScienceApologist,[55] compounding the incivility. Two accounts were not simultaneously engaged with these users because one account had to be quit.
  17. He has claimed that WP:Sockpuppets#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area justifies this behavior. That policy allows a user who isn't already participating in a topic to register an alternate account so that he/she can participate without jeopardizing their main account. That's one example of why someone might want to do such a thing. It certainly isn't the only reason one may wish to keep heated issues in one small area.
  18. The policy clearly states: "so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." The way ScienceApologist used it is to go after more pseudoscience articles (the same as he does with ScienceApologist), adding pseudoscience cat tags straight off.[56] After this he went after User:Iantresman‎, an editor he already had conflict with as ScienceApologist and was specifically warned to be civil with in previous arbitrations. The most questionable thing done was listed above, but I must plead ignorance to how editing pseudoscience articles, adding category tags, and pointing out a conflict of interest is making it appear that multiple people support the same action. I didn't jump back and forth between one account and another to campaign.

Please, Neal, present more diffs. While this is about as enjoyable as a colonoscopy, I have nothing to hide and the history is there.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
posted by ScienceApologist 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Antelan's evidence regarding factions

Antelan wrote in his evidence: Martinphi, Nealparr, Atsakiris, and Annalisa Ventola all work on OpenSourceScience.net. I submit that I am neither a member of any faction, nor worked with Martinphi at any point in any off-wiki paranormal projects. My contributions to that site was in the capacity of a professional web designer offering assistance in setting up the site for other uninvolved parties. I never interacted with Martinphi at all in the very short time that I participated. [57]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Not that any of it is relevant to this arbitration or any of my Wikipedia activity, I just wanted to clear up any misunderstandings, however irrelevant they may be. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

No attempt to altercate by wikidudeman or LuckyLouie

No attempt was made by me or luckylouie to cause an "altercation" between Martinphi and ScienceApologist. The talk page discussion that Tom Butler cites is totally misrepresented by him. ScienceApologist was making substantial edits to the Electronic voice phenomena article. There was an informal mediation occurring on the article's talk page and I left him a note informing him of this and requested that he not make edits that might be disputed. LuckyLouie commented that Martinphi had been making edits to the article. Since I had previously requested that ScienceApologist not edit the article, I left a note on Martinphi's page requesting that he also not edit the page until properly discussed. I left a note on ScienceApologist's page informing of the note left on Martinphi's page. There was absolutely no attempt to cause an "altercation" between Martinphi and ScienceApologist. My assumption is that Tom Butler didn't even read the post of mine or LuckyLouies.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Moved from evidence page. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Meta-analysis by Martinphi

Rather than analyze specific evidence, I'd like to do a meta-analysis of the situation. Presented here you have many extreme measures, and none of them will work well toward promoting collegiality or NPOV in Wikipedia.

Skeptical community

There is a large skeptical community in Wikipedia, which heavily edits pages relating to the paranormal, mythology, religion, and pseudoscience. They are well organized, and even maintain a page specially for reporting pro-paranormal POV-pushing.

By comparison, though there are about as many members of the Paranormal project as there are members of Wikiproject RationalSkepticism, there are far fewer highly active editors in the paranormal project (somewhere between 1 and 4). If editors must be divided into paranormalists and skeptics, the paranormalists are outnumbered in nearly every situation.

I happen to know that many of the "paranormalists" are in fact skeptics, or nearly so. Nealparr and Northmeister have stated as much, and I know others. I myself am skeptical about many of the subjects I'm accused of POV-pushing on, to the extent that I simply disbelieve in them. You could even call me a pseudoskeptic on some of them.

The RationalSkepticism project is planning to make their support of Arbitration Committee candidates dependent on a rejection of the Paranormal ArbCom.[58][59]

Skeptical view of NPOV

It is the view of many skeptics on Wikipedia that the skeptical view, being (in their opinion) the majority, should be the point of view of Wikipedia articles (there is no evidence on many subjects that the skeptical view is in the majority, and many times quite the opposite). This has come up again and again, and though I can't find diffs for on every editor, I believe it to be the general point of view.

Examples:

User:Raymond arritt: "Do be aware that if the skeptical view is the predominant one, it would be entirely appropriate for the skeptical view to be given more attention in the article. More at WP:NPOV. Raymond Arritt 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

User:ScienceApologist:"WP:WEIGHT is clear. Skeptics have the upper hand because they are mainstream and the majority opinion. Therefore, to satisfy NPOV the writing needs to be dispassionately skeptical in tone. ScienceApologist 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

User:LuckyLouie:"Per WP:FRINGE, article weighting must reflect majority mainstream sources treatment of the subject....It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena and is not recognized outside of the paranormal milieu."

User:Fyslee:"Jossi has just described the definition of a pseudoscience, which is what this is. It is very fringe and should be treated as such, IOW the scientific POV has weight. That's policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

The goal: Collegiality and neutrality.
The options:
  • Ban Martinphi. This will work to prevent most strife on paranormal articles which relate heavily to Parapsychology. I am by far the most active editor of these articles who edits from the stance that the subject should be presented strictly from the sources.
Problem: the articles will then be strictly the province of those who strongly believe that the paranormal does not exist, and believe WP should present that attitude.
  • Ban skeptical editors.
Problem: there are too many skeptical editors to ban.
  • Ban ScienceApologist.
Problem: this would help, but would not solve the overall problem.
  • Put a revert limit on the articles.
Problem: There are many many more skeptical editors than neutral or pro-paranormal ones. This will hand the articles to the skeptical community.
  • Make the Paranormal ArbCom enforceable by block
This should help, especially if a better definition of what constitutes a violation is given in this ArbCom.
Conclusion

It should be noted that 1) the skeptical community almost stopped editing the Paranormal after the end of the Paranormal ArbCom. 2) at that time, the paranormal articles did not become a playground for pro-paranormal POV. 3) peace reigned, on the whole, for several months, during which the Parapsychology article achieved FA status, and EVP and other articles were able to progress. 4) the "paranormalist" community did not interpret the ArbCom as an excuse to POV-push. So I would like to submit that unless you find that the "paranormalist" community has abused the Paranormal ArbCom, you use this opportunity to strengthen and cement the structure of the Paranormal ArbCom. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of Northmeister evidence

User:Northmeister has an agenda of accommodation towards subjects relating to the paranormal. His ideal article on the subject would mention skeptical analysis in the lead and in a criticism section, but pseudoscientific statements made elsewhere in the article would be left without critique or comment. This agenda has been opposed by myself and other Wikipedians as unacceptable, and our resistance to it has cause Northmeister to decide to come after me in this arbcomm. Fortunately, like others who have attempted this before him, his evidence is mostly hot air. I shall now analyze it for those interested.

ScienceApologist started an edit war, one inciting incident leading to this Arbcom case

Martinphi template edit war started by SA: Which resulted in a threat, and then this ArbCom case. Inappropriate escalation. Asked to relax about the template edit war.... I made it perfectly clear why I removed MartinPhi's attack template and when he reverted my changes calling them "vandalism", I reverted him not knowing whether he was confused or whether he was trying to make a point. I found quickly that the latter was the case. Martin's intention with that so-called "parody" template is to attack the Rational Skepticism group in a way I mentioned was very problematic. As I stated, upon pointing this out I came up against a brick wall. Since we've already been through many different steps in the dispute resolution, arbcomm was the natural location to appeal. If this was an "inappropriate escalation" as Northmeister would have it, Arbcomm would have never accepted the case.

ScienceApologist ignores previous Arbcom decisions

POV pushing against spirit of paranormal ArbCom decision: [60] I wholly dispute this interpretation of my actions. I believe that the claim by Paranormal POV-pushers like Northmeister that Arbcomm has adopted a sympathetic attitude towards characterizing paranormal subjects "in universe" is not only incorrect but grossly abuses the neutral point-of-view standards of the community.

ScienceApologist ignores WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and is abusive to others

The claimed incivility that Northmeister attempts to point out is a real stretch. I encourage those to read through his claimed evidence of incivility and a lack of good faith and see whether I'm being reasoned in my analysis or whether I'm being baited into certain statements that can be construed as lacking vague standards of civility and good faith. It should be obvious to all by this point that in such disputes there is a considerable amount of baiting that goes on because many view the way to "win" such disputes to be to bait until the other side makes a user-conduct mistake. This is because Arbcomm doesn't have the ability to rule on content and cannot determine which "side" is more qualified to write articles or have an upper hand in a dispute. This is an inherent flaw in the dispute resolution process of the Wikipedia community. A favorite tactic of those who, like Northmeister, wish to see competent editors who oppose them banned from pages is to accuse them of user-conduct issues without presenting the whole story.

ScienceApologist has a POV agenda at odds with WP:NOT that is the root of this Arbcom

  1. Here he makes this agenda clear, and misinterprets WP:Weight: [61] That is a correct interpretation of weight.
  2. SA stated that alternate views are not what is needed in this article. Again displaying motivative behavior: [62] and [63] Those are mainstream articles. By WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, alternative science is sometimes excluded from such articles.
  3. Removal of tags: [64] when clear discussion is underway: [65] If you read the discussion, it is clear that the tags were placed inappropriately as there was no factual or POV dispute being discussed: only a dispute as to whether a source made a statement or didn't.
  4. POV push removing cited content: [66] Again, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT do not say that every citation deserves inclusion in a mainstream article. We are, as editors, encouraged to be judicious in our selection of sources. That source selected was particularly bad.
  5. Big bang edit warring POV pushing problem: [67] and [68] and [69] and [70]. I totally dispute that this is POV-pushing or edit warring.
  6. Revert warring against several editors, all with identical reverts:[71],[72],[73]. When people refuse to discuss their reverts on the talkpage and I have posted lengthy explanations as to why I think that certain cosmetic changes need to be made, it is unreasonable to expect that I should not revert edits which I must assume based on the evidence provided to be totally in bad faith!
  7. More reverting and edit warrring per above:[74],[75],[76]. Obviously, Northmeister doesn't want you to see the Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories page where all these actions are discussed and hashed out. Cherry-picking like this is simply Northmeister's way of hoping that arbcomm members will not look carefully at diffs and instead just take him at his word. It's very poor form. This editor is proving himself to be one that probably cannot be trusted.

ScienceApologist adding fuel to the fire of dispute initiated by him

  1. Adding RFC on Martinphi Oct. 7th: [77]. It is absurd to claim this action is problematic.

Misc. misconduct by ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist ignores guidelines regarding tagging resulting in warring, violation of WP:Point

Northmeister then proceeds to list so-called "evidence regarding plasma cosmology problems. This article has had problems with POV-pushing for some time now. The two users in question, Jiminezwaldorf and Applecola were incompetently trying to make arguments that the subject had more legitimacy than it actually did. As I pointed out above, the tagging of the article is done by such POV-pushers to assert a problem when they cannot identify one on the talkpage. Since then, the users have moved on, perhaps because another user identified one of them as a sock-puppet of User:Iantresman (surprise, surprise)

Final Analysis

User:Northmeister has successfully proved himself to be a tendentious editor with a stated goal of removing me from editing pages that deal with pseudoscience. This is because he doesn't want to see ideas that are verifiably in contradiction to scientific consensus so characterized except in the most marginal of ways. I therefore submit that this user is behaving disruptively to such a degree that there is no way we can assume good faith in his actions here or elsewhere. His previous attempts at "mediation" on the Electronic voice phenomenon are suspect as his entire involvement in the operation. It is very fortunate that this user has not yet abused his administrative powers, but I'm concerned that he may do so down the road.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
submitted by ScienceApologist 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop&oldid=1211584804"