Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 27 October 2007

Is it ethical?

Looking at the "evidence," I have to say that I am pretty shocked that the arbitrators have let this go so far. There is an ethical issue concerning deleting material from a user's personal page. I would call that vandalism under any circumstance. The banner in question is clearly a spoof and it becomes a matter of free speech. The banner in question violates no rule I am aware of. ScienceApologist obviously just does not like it.

There is also an ethical issue with scrounging deleted documents out of the web page bone yard as LuckyLouie has done. Martinphi has a reasonable expectation that the page in question would be gone when he deleted it. That shows clear intent. Documents are deleted for a reason. People change their mind and what is currently presented is what should be argued. Nevertheless, I do not see how what is written by Martinphi violates Wiki policy. I see a lot of the same thing on the Rational Skepticism page. ] There is no real difference between a "rv" list and a "To Do list."

Much of what is being brought against Martinphi is "I don't like what he did," rather than evidence of deliberate abuse of Wiki policy. I think it would be appropriate for the arbitrators to seriously consider bringing sanctions against the complainants for abuse of procedures. Tom Butler 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In all of the evidences I've presented, I clearly cite what the relevant policy or guideline broken is, whether it be WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, Etc. As far as removing material from userpages goes, It's very allowed. See WP:USER. ScienceApologist, I believe, Was incorrect in removing the tag. However that is not relevant. The relevant fact is that Martinphi responded by attacking him personally. This is unjustifiable as one can clearly see the motivation for removing the template from ScienceApologist's perspective and Martin SHOULD have assumed good faith opposed to personally attacking the editor. Wikidudeman 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not illegal to do a lot of things that are nevertheless unethical. It is a very relevant point as it goes to the argument that SA was goading him. Martinphi challenged the vandal. I don't see how you can call that unjustified. I would not consider it good faith on SA's part. In fact, I have a very hard time believing that you really think it was good faith. You guys are making this a workplace in which not agreeing with you will result in punishment. Tom Butler 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom, Martin's "parody" - which he explains as a critical jab at Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism - works against encouraging trust and cooperation between Misplaced Pages editors. It seems designed to promote the opposite. Martin is well aware of the "us vs. them" rhetoric on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Paranormal Talk pages. (During discussion there, an editor who has described himself as neutral observes, "I also don't know why every conversation here has to have a hostile "us vs. them" or "the skeptics are out to get us" comment."' ') Knowing that bad feelings exist, Martin chooses to fan the flames rather than build bridges. - LuckyLouie 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr's response to Perfectblue97, ) I believe]. I do intend the template parody to take a stand against irrationality in the name of rationality. There is a difference between gently lancing a boil with humor, and fanning flames. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that ScienceApologist was "goading" him. As Louie points out above, A good argument can be made that martin's template was disruptive and I can see how ScinceApologist would believe that removing it was justified (Though as I've said, I personally don't believe removing it was justified). So in effect, not only was Martin fueling flames of debate by even having it, he was fueling flames further by using insults and personal attacks as a response to it being removed. I find it disturbing that you're defending such behavior and I find it further disturbing that you're also using personal insults towards ScienceApologist. Wikidudeman 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

LL again gave a diff out of context, to try and prove a point. Here is the full diff:

Just for your information, I'm not going to participate in these discussions. I've made my case pretty much, and I feel I don't need to. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, the parties on the receiving end of parody usually feel that it is unfair. Otherwise, there would be no need for parody. You assume bad faith by saying that "It seems designed to promote the opposite." Also, since you are one of three editors I have seen defending skeptical content in the EVP article since I became an editor a year ago, I can say with some confidence that you are one of the sources of "us" and "them" amongst editors. You must know this, and so at the risk of not assuming good faith in you, I must say that your protest seems disingenuous.Tom Butler 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Butler said: "I can say with some confidence that you are one of the sources of "us" and "them" amongst editors."- You are encouraged to provide evidence supporting your claim. - LuckyLouie 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, I will be happy to. Take a look at , especially Ames Research Center Speech Recognition. That is one of the times you all were doing your very best to discredit MacRae--a kind of action that was rebuffed by the later arbitration.

In Rewording of intro you state:

Yes, the "purported" is needed, as evidence for "the unexplained presence of voices" is anecdotal, and the phrase itself is a bit dramatic. Also, WP defining EVP broadly as "a term used to refer to the unexplained presence voices or voice-like sounds" is incorrect. The term "EVP" is not used by international professional audio and engineering organizations such as the IEEE or the AES. Nor have they reported any unexplainable audio anomalies. Any claims of 'what EVP is' must be ascribed to paranormal/EVP/proponents. -- LuckyLouie 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are very clever, as all of the polarizing heavy lifting was done on that page by ScienceApologist and Minderbinder. As witness at you and Wikidudeman "went and got" SA so that he would edit the EVP article. You made essentially the same statement there, insisting that only mainstream sources can be used. By insisting that mainstream organizations must endorse a definition before it can be used in an article about a paranormal subject, you assure that the "proponents" will be forced to argue harder to use the definition used by those who study the subject. Tom Butler 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's polarizing about the quote you've selected. I felt that definitions which are phrased as audio and electrical engineering concepts and promoted by those who study EVP should be clearly stated as originating from those who study EVP. They are claims which are unsupported by authoritative sources. A simple "Those who study EVP say..." will suffice to solve the problem. I have pointed this out a few times, and I don't see where Arbcom "rebuffed" it. - LuckyLouie 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually LuckyLouie, that is not what you are saying. You repeatedly press for the extreme interpretation of Wiki rules, and too often "Those who study EVP say..." is replaced by "purported," as you advocated in that quote. "Purported" is one of those characterizing terms that is always good for a heated debate and you have been around long enough to know that. I have no problem with "Those who study EVP say..." because it is an accurate statement, but you were not saying that to SA. You were clearly goading him into saying "purported."

I obviously cannot expect you to agree that your actions are divisive, but the fact that we are in another arbitration involving paranormal subjects and/or editors who often work in the articles seems to support my point. The very existence of the Wiki skeptics club is divisive, and since it is intended to push Skeptical Dictionary positions which are written to push one side, as admitted by its author, then it seems evident that those of us who have not given ourselves to that agenda are "on the other side" of the editorial debate. Tom Butler 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody but nobody goads me into anything. LuckyLouie actually asked me to give leeway on the EVP article back when I first started editing there. Since then, he has witnessed the brazen POV-pushing that you, User:Davkal, and User:Martinphi have delighted in promoting and has, so to speak, come over to the darkside. When I returned from going into hiding, I made some edits to EVP which Wikidudeman counseled me against doing. That is the so-called "evidence" you are purporting is goading me. Ironically, he was hoping to diffuse the situation. Unfortunately, paranormal advocates don't like it when their subject matter is properly characterized as the snake oil pseudoscience that it is. ScienceApologist 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to Arbitrators: ScienceApologist thinks it is proper to "charicterize" things in WP as snake oil pseudoscience. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he characterized the subject matter as snake oil pseudoscience. And whatever happened to calling things as you see them?--Prosfilaes 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he even admits it. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SA's description of past events in the EVP article is pretty accurate. At one time I fielded a rather naive attempt at mediating a compromise among involved parties. SA's detailed objections to the article's wording prompted me to more closely examine the article's sources. I discovered his objections to be well founded.

Tom, I don't know what to think about your claims against WikiProject Rational Skepticism. You have mentioned this as an issue on Talk Pages more than once. If you feel that the project is divisive and intended to push Skeptical Dictionary's position, I suggest you (nondisruptively) state your case for why it's harmful to Misplaced Pages and seek feedback from the community, perhaps at the Village Pump, or in the appropriate community resource which oversees WikiProjects. If you have a legit beef, bring it to the community, don't use it as an excuse to remain bitter. - LuckyLouie 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, parties on the receiving end of parody usually feel that it is unfair. That, and the words "receiving end", are exactly the reason that you don't parody someone you work with, because it tends to annoy the hell out of them, and make them not want to work with you. Parody isn't good for Misplaced Pages.--Prosfilaes 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a valid point and I think all of us would as soon not see the need for parody because it is obviously challenging to its target; however, there may be more to the story than you are aware of. The WikiProject Rational Skepticism has been a source of irritation for many of us because it seeks to foist the Skeptical Dictionary viewpoint on paranormal articles. The tactics taken by many of the skeptical editors have caused much distress for "proponent" editors, even when there has been great effort by the "proponent" editors to find balance.

I have been on the receiving end of ScienceApologist's efforts to discount honest researchers with characterizations ... well characterizations much as he used in that exit essay of his that MastCell apparently wants us to ignore. If he really wrote it, it is amazing that he does not see himself in his criticism of others.

I see the parody as more of a light cast on grievous behavior. Parody is a fine tradition in journalism as can be seen in political cartoons. If you are the target of parody, then perhaps it is time to reassess what you are doing. I know that I spend quite a lot of time doing that every time I read an article claiming something paranormal is illusionary. None of us should be too comfortable with our beliefs. In the case of some of the editors, their certainty that paranormal is impossible leaves little room for civil communication. Tom Butler 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We differ substantially. I see Martin's "parody" as inconsiderate and thoughtless of his fellow Wikipedians. Being inconsiderate and thoughtless is certainly not an a punishable offense by itself, but it shows a profound lack of judgment and sensitivity. How would it make members of WikiProject Paranormal feel if a vocal WikiProject Rational Skepticism member put a template on his userpage which used the boilerplate of WikiProject Paranormal, but revised it to read: "WikiProject Paranoidal"? And what if they compounded it by listing themselves on the project rolls with the statement, "I am interested in the paranormal in the tradition of Richard Dawkins"? And what if they explained it away by saying, "It's a light-hearted parody on the idea that some members of WikiProject Paranormal are paranoid, har har". I'm pretty sure that explanation would strike people in WikiProject Paranormal as insincere, and the parody itself would make them feel insulted, uncomfortable, and suspicious. Such a "parody" would be encouraging polarization between the two projects and degrading the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Why would anyone choose that route? I'm sincerely puzzled. If there are grievances that WikiProject Paranormal members are harboring, if they feel embattled and unfairly treated, these issues should be brought out in the open and a forum sought where they can be resolved. Passive-aggressive jabs in the form of "parody" templates aren't the answer.- LuckyLouie 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I'm familiar with the history. I find the statement that "their certainty that paranormal is impossible leaves little room for civil communication" very very troubling, because that's what NPOV is all about, finding a neutral ground between different viewpoints. Religion for most people is certain faith in the unseen, and yet their believers manage frequently to produce NPOV pages. The belief that the paranormal is impossible is a well-established philosophical belief, and needs to be treated like any other such belief.--Prosfilaes 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may respond here, it is possible to find a neutral groud with believers who acknowledge that they are only believers. It is not possible to find a neutral ground with believers who think that they have the Truth, and everyone else is not only wrong but should be portrayed as wrong.

LL, that is a wonderful idea, LOL! If anyone wants such a template, and doesn't have the code skills, I'd be glad to make it up for them! ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't an "idea". It was a "what if" example of behavior that would definitely not be cool. - LuckyLouie 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is between the aesthetic of a democracy, and political correctness. WP, being in need of accuracy, has more of the aesthetic of the democracy, -where you say it like you see it- with fact checking and neutrality added in. If you bring in a political-correctness aesthetic, then you'll be taking offense all the time. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What democracy have you lived in? Even in the most ideal democracy, the winners would use the gentle art of friendly persuasion; in the more negative view of democracy, the winner is he who makes the most promises and kisses the right asses, honesty be damned. (Read my lips: no new taxes has its own article, and sadly enough I think other American presidents have made people forget Bush Sr.'s dishonesty.) "Say it like you see it" is not a principle of democracy, and it's rarely a good principle of human communication; wise people know when to keep their mouths shut or let diplomacy phrase their words.--Prosfilaes 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that's doubly important in a system which, like Misplaced Pages, functions not on democracy per se but on consensus. "Saying it like you see it" is one thing; tendentious editing another. MastCell 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In a democracy, you are free to say what is true with quite a high degree of latitude. That is so the truth can come out when necessary, and so that freedom of speech may be maintained (as a good in itself). WP is about Verifiability and NPOV first, and only then consensus (Creationism is the general consensus of the American people). But anyway, my template is nothing more than a gentle touch of humor to lighten a rather radicalized situation. I believe you are functioning from the aesthetic of political correctness. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

When people say things like "very very troubling," they have usually made up their mind, and so I am probably wasting my time responding. Nevertheless, ... Prosfilaes, saying anything is impossible is a statement of faith. I have no problem showing that one view of EVP, for instance, is that it is impossible. I think we have enough quotes from Misplaced Pages editors to provide sufficient references. However, turning to other theories about EVP, a consensus has seldom been arrived at as to how to describe them because those who feel it is impossible simply will (usually) not budge. Thus, I say there is little room for civil communication. ScienceApologist has demonstrated this many times as he resorts to calling those who wish to study things paranormal, all sorts of names. It is also uncivil to litigate, as in this arbitration, every time an editor gives him an excuse.

Keep in mind that hard research of the phenomena called paranormal is being conducted by qualified scientists, yet including that research in Wiki articles is resisted at every turn based on the opposing editor's assumption that the subject is impossible and therefore cannot be studied. All points should be included. That is why I have always wanted the proposed explanations--phenomenal and mundane--including it is impossible and therefore does not exist--to be described in a continuum with supporting material, rather than as sections of opposing views. If the phenomena exists, then that will eventually be shown. If it does not, then that too will eventually be shown. Likely, the real answer is somewhere in between and may not even be guessed at yet. But Misplaced Pages is not the place to make the decision as to whether or not anything has been shown. The skeptical editors are trying to make that decision here and that is the source of virtually all of these editing problems.

And LL, bitterness is something that I suppose a person who sees no hope might feel. I am note sure if I have ever been there, however. What you hear in my words is a great disappointed that such intellect as obviously represented by editors here can be so easily influenced by faith. Tom Butler 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is strange that the "paranormalists" here have less faith than the "skeptics". ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, Tom, that editors are entitled to their beliefs. We can have editors who are "certain that paranormal is impossible" and we must find "room for civil communication" with them. It doesn't matter whether that's a statement of faith or not.--Prosfilaes 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is not necessarily a property of democracies. Go back to political science 101. Furthermore, there's no evidence that you've lightened the situation; it's a sad trend of people to make offensive remarks, claim they're humorous and accuse anyone who gets upset of political correctness. For another example, the habit of Europeans (and I would bet a pretty penny that you're one) of making cheap irrelevant shots at Americans like you just did has a habit of pissing Americans off, and making the Americans less likely to want to work with them. (Your statement is of course wrong--see Creationism, among other cites.) People who want to discourage cheap shots at Americans want to do so because it doesn't encourage calm productive discussion, not out of political correctness.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is necessary to any real democracy. I hava a PayPal account. What kind of pretty penny are you offering? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Welllllll?? Did your penny suddenly start looking ugly? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Quote from Evidence by MastCell:

• Per his evidence presented above, he considers constructive users who share his POV, such as User:Nealparr, to simply ride on his coattails as he does the "dirty work" of edit-warring and battling for his POV.

For the record, I only share Martinphi's point of view when he is correct and disagree with him when he is wrong. Sometimes he is correct and sometimes he isn't, the same as everyone else (myself included). --Nealparr 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Never intended to say we agree on everything. Just that I tend to start things, and so I "cause" the controversy. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neal: a very good point; perhaps I was painting with overly broad brush strokes there. I'll amend my comment appropriately. MastCell 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Martinphi's work with Tom Butler

I suppose it is in order to respond to Antelan's protest of Martinphi helping me with the Etheric Studies Initiative. I asked him to help because of his broad range of interest, ability to work with others in Misplaced Pages and for his online savvy. I would not have done this had I considered him in any way a problem editor. The initiative is an honest effort to bring a little legitimate science to the study of things etheric--some of which you all know as paranormal. It is going to involve people with a wide range of experience and it is important that they feel welcome. The web site for that is here .

Of course you are all invited to participate, but we will require your real name and a little background to give us a sense of your qualifications to contribute in specific areas.

Martinphi's online skills have become especially important since we installed the wiki shell for Best Practices Development here . That is a sincere effort to identify what works and what does not based on empirical evidence rather than anecdotal claims. Except for my article documenting my experience with Misplaced Pages, neither of these web sites have anything to do with Misplaced Pages. The fact that the subject matter is what you all call paranormal only reflects Martinphi's area of interest. This is also true of Open Source Science . As I see it, he is attempting to educate himself in the field so that ScienceApologist will not consider him a "devoted idiot" . Tom Butler 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Antelan is mistaken

I was told that the following isn't evidence or a response and that I was using up my 1000 words in presenting it , so I'm placing it here versus on the evidence page, reluctantly obscured:

I am a professional web designer with experience in MediaWiki installs and Wiki markup. In May, User:Annalisa Ventola asked me to help with the installation and setup of MediaWiki at OpenSourceScience.net. Antelan considers this somehow promoting the paranormal POV and being a member of Martinphi's "faction" simply by assisting another editor who's always been nice to me (Annalisa, not Martinphi). If you review my contributions there I never made a pro-paranormal comment in the short time I participated. My contribution was no different than when I helped Wikidudeman fix the problems with the WP:SKEPTIC homepage in May, but that doesn't make me a member of the skeptic "faction". Anyone who is bored will also notice in my design portfolio that I created a site for a few churches, and I'm not Christian. I've designed a site for a Republican Congressman. I'm not Republican. I've designed a site for a baker and I'm not a baker. I help people set up websites for money and am not a member of any so-called "faction". I resent the implication and consider it a mild form of cyber-stalking since it's not the first time he went looking through my off-site activities. In any case, Antelan is wrong. A review of my contributions easily demonstrates I am not a point of view editor. --Nealparr 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, though, what the hell does it matter? --Nealparr 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if there were a COI potential problem of mine or of yours, it would have to show in POV editing. Since this has not been shown of either of us, it wouldn't matter if we owned those other websites or were -GASP- even Spiritualists like Tom Butler. As shown by the finding in the previous Paranormal ArbCom, the Arbitrators have a nuanced, moderate, and rational view of these things. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You say, even if there were a COI potential problem. Do you believe that you do not have a COI? Antelan 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

@Martinphi - I don't even care about all of that. It upsets me that accusations can be made and I have to bury my response that sets it straight. Again, the alleged promotion of the paranormal POV and my association with Martinphi at the off-wiki site consists of these contributions . I never once interacted with Martinphi nor made any comment about the paranormal, pro or negative. End of story. It's stupid. --Nealparr 05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't have to bury it. Cull all the words you can, and put it in evidence. But since Antelan's evidence isn't damaging, why bother? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At least now it's accurate. It's still misleading, like I share some point of view because I assisted in setting up the site, but at least it is factually correct. Except for the "faction" part. If Martinphi has a "faction", I'm not in it. --Nealparr 05:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no 'factions' on wikipedia, so you are, strictly, correct. By all other measures, including your relentless defense of his behavior, however, I must disagree. Antelan 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommending counseling or probation in lieu of extreme (and hypocritical) sanctions like banning is not "relentless defense". I'm adding myself to the arbitration. If you have a problem with my editing, add evidence or stop making unsupported accusations. --Nealparr 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can directly add yourself to the arbitration after it has already been accepted per se, although perhaps you can and at the very least you can become a party to it. Supporting my "accusations," as you know, is simply a matter of gathering diffs. You're not doing anything wrong by supporting him; I just find it to be noteworthy as it pertains to his case. Antelan 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No what is noteworthy is that you are consistently mistaken. --Nealparr 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. If I'm mistaken, I need to change. Antelan 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• - wrong, never worked with him.
• - wrong, never said anything about the paranormal.
• - wrong, no demonstrable association, no defense of his behavior, no "implicit approval".
• - wrong, I hardly ever comment about his behavior at all, much less defend it relentlessly.
• - and finally, wrong, I posted two remedies against him, that's hardly supporting him.

Five places you've been wrong just pertaining to my involvement. --Nealparr 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your 5 3 points, in order:

1. You both worked on Open Source Science, a website that aims to be an alternative to scientifically accepted peer-reviewed scientific journals. You set up the site, while Martinphi contributes content. Your argument is hairsplitting over the meaning of "worked with". It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
2. As you well know, you are citing a diff which has not reflect the current wording of my statement (which I changed 4 days before you cited the outdated diff). Your point was moot at the time of its writing.
3. Throughout the summer of 2007, you defended Martinphi. If diffs will be relevant to the arbitration, I can provide them. If this is simply axe-grinding, then citing diffs won't be useful and I won't waste my time on this tangential aspect.
4. This is not a distinct point vis-a-vis point #3.
5. Likewise, this is not distinct from point #3. As you know, defending someone can include things such as plea-bargaining, in which one might advocate counseling, partial bans, etc.

Antelan 06:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, wrong, because you insinuate that "being there" makes me a part of Martinphi's "faction". Michael Shermer, a leading skeptic, endorsed the website which is a heck of a lot more than I've ever done in my puny contributions. Both him and Alcock (leading critic of parapsychology) have done interviews for the podcast. If actual contributions are just splitting hairs, by your logic, both Shermer and Alcock are also members of Martinphi's "faction".
2. Exactly, you were wrong and changed it.
3. Wrong. Throughout the summer of 2007, I often opposed Martinphi and you even agreed with me when I did disagree with him. If diffs will be relevant to the arbitration, I can provide them, but check the parapsychology talk pages and psychic surgery talk pages. I disagreed with Martinphi more than I agreed with him. He's the one who agreed with me often, not the other way around.
4. Point 3
5. I don't know anyone who considers lesser remedies that are still sanctions against someone as "relentlessly defending them". Again the logic is messed up. By this logic I am likewise defending ScienceApologist because I offered probation as a remedy for him instead of banning. I am not defending ScienceApologist either.

You are consistently wrong every time you make a comment about me in this arbitration. I don't even know what your point is anymore. Is it guilt by association? Because there is no association. Heck, the members of the Rational Skepticism project who follow Martinphi's every move spend more time "working" with him than I do. --Nealparr 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neal accommodates Martinphi more than most other editors. However, he is also extremely careful and judicious in exactly what editorial ideas he supports. Sometimes he offers brilliant points of compromise. Sometimes he seems to bend over backwards to prove parity between the paranormal POV-pushers and those who oppose them. I view his attempt to paint me into a punitive corner as exactly that: he doesn't like to see the pendulum swing too far away from his (in my opinion, artificially created) "middle ground". If the arbitration were going the other way with lots of paranormal advocates clamboring for the censure or banning of myself, I'm sure he would be my advocate.

I don't agree with the sense of justice Neal seems to be advocating. It is, in fact, extremely condescending. It's almost as if he thinks he's better than every other person at Misplaced Pages. That kind of arrogance is upsetting, but it's not as bad as a lot of the baloney that is coming from Martinphi and Tom Butler.

ScienceApologist 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Do my utmost"

It is troubling that Martinphi's "utmost" effort does not include bothering to familiarize himself with the FA process before threatening to torpedo it. Antelan 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a mistake. Now show some good faith and stop hammering on it, why don't you? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that one purpose of this Arbitration is to hammer out what has happened. It wouldn't much make sense for me to stop highlighting problems that require resolution. This is one example of several over the course of months; it is not the whole picture, but it is illustrative. Antelan 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike some people here, I have both the ability to admit my mistakes and accept the rulings of the ArbCom. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Admitting your mistakes is a bit more involved than just saying, "Yup, I was wrong, now stop making such a big deal about it." It entails understanding why your actions are perceived as problematic, and ideally not repeating them. MastCell 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi's pattern of editing

This is a very consistent pattern:

1. edit inappropriately
2. get caught
3. claim ignorance
4. claim that you've mended your ways
5. demand acceptance

The problem is that you still edit in a troublesome fashion, despite the numerous times that this sequence has repeated itself. Antelan 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. If I'm mistaken, I need to change. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad my writing is so instructive for you. Antelan 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a perfect response. Thanks. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)