Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:52, 12 June 2008 editVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Log of blocks and bans: logging restriction← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:02, 19 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,158 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(121 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<big>'''Case Closed''' on 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</big> <big>'''Case Closed''' on 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</big>


<big>'''Case Amended by ''' on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)</big>
⚫ <div style="text-align: right;"><small><font style="background: white">Watchlist all case pages: <span class="plainlinks">, , , </span></font></small></div>


<big>'''Case Amended by ''' on 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)</big>
⚫ Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the ], and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at ]. Evidence is more useful than comments.

⚫ <div style="text-align: right;"><small><span style="background: white">Watchlist all case pages: <span class="plainlinks">, , , </span></span></small></div>

⚫ Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the ], and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at ]. Evidence is more useful than comments.


Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at ]. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at ]. Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at ]. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at ].
Line 70: Line 74:
But, I admire Raul for recusing himself from this ArbCom case: he is obviously not without ethics. But, I admire Raul for recusing himself from this ArbCom case: he is obviously not without ethics.


——''']'''</span><sub> (] Ψ ])</sub> 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ——''']'''<sub> (] Ψ ])</sub> 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


==Statement by ]== ==Statement by ]==


I am hereby officially involving myself in this request for arbitration. I can personally attest to everything that has been said by ], ], ], et al. Martinphi's contributions stretching all of the way back to his beginnings here have been extremely disruptive. Martinphi has a very long history of disruptive editing, not assuming good faith, attacking other editors, hijacking attempts to reach consensus, and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. A RFC was brought up concerning this editors actions as far back as 6 months ago:] where 19 of his fellow editors endorsed the aforementioned facts. Martinphi has also been shown to use sockpuppets:], to advance his positions. Just recently one notable incident occurred where Martinphi completely shunned AGF, despite my numerous notes to him, and accused ] of "abusing" his admin powers:. These are only a few of the numerous disruptive incidents that this editor is responsible for and I will bring dozens of more examples forth as evidence against this user once I have gathered all of the differences and instances. I have edited articles alongside this editor for perhaps over a year and I can attest to the facts. This user is highly disruptive, pushes POVs at all costs, shuns long held wikipedia policies such as AGF, POINT as well as many others. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I am hereby officially involving myself in this request for arbitration. I can personally attest to everything that has been said by ], ], ], et al. Martinphi's contributions stretching all of the way back to his beginnings here have been extremely disruptive. Martinphi has a very long history of disruptive editing, not assuming good faith, attacking other editors, hijacking attempts to reach consensus, and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. A RFC was brought up concerning this editors actions as far back as 6 months ago:] where 19 of his fellow editors endorsed the aforementioned facts. Martinphi has also been shown to use sockpuppets:], to advance his positions. Just recently one notable incident occurred where Martinphi completely shunned AGF, despite my numerous notes to him, and accused ] of "abusing" his admin powers:. These are only a few of the numerous disruptive incidents that this editor is responsible for and I will bring dozens of more examples forth as evidence against this user once I have gathered all of the differences and instances. I have edited articles alongside this editor for perhaps over a year and I can attest to the facts. This user is highly disruptive, pushes POVs at all costs, shuns long held wikipedia policies such as AGF, POINT as well as many others. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


===Statement concerning compliments toward Martinphi=== ===Statement concerning compliments toward Martinphi===
Some editors are posting compliments I made toward Martinphi as evidence of something, I'm not sure what. The compliments that I made towards Martinphi stating that it is "possible" to work things out with him was simply a fact of my naivety. Two months ago I stated to another editor that it was "Possible" to work things out with him, however I have since been proven ''totally wrong'' in my assessment. As far as awarding him a Barnstar goes, I frequently award all users who participate in my rewrite projects barnstars regardless of the input they provided whether helpful or not. I will admit that Martinphi did assist somewhat in rewriting the ] article, but of course even this didn't go without him later stating that I "censored" him during the whole process. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Some editors are posting compliments I made toward Martinphi as evidence of something, I'm not sure what. The compliments that I made towards Martinphi stating that it is "possible" to work things out with him was simply a fact of my naivety. Two months ago I stated to another editor that it was "Possible" to work things out with him, however I have since been proven ''totally wrong'' in my assessment. As far as awarding him a Barnstar goes, I frequently award all users who participate in my rewrite projects barnstars regardless of the input they provided whether helpful or not. I will admit that Martinphi did assist somewhat in rewriting the ] article, but of course even this didn't go without him later stating that I "censored" him during the whole process. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


==Statement by Antelan== ==Statement by Antelan==
Line 86: Line 90:
Martinphi has his apologists, but in general they argue not that he is right, only that others are wrong, too. This may be so, but this is not a reason to allow Martinphi to continue with his behavior that is so disruptive to this encyclopedia and its editors. Martinphi has his apologists, but in general they argue not that he is right, only that others are wrong, too. This may be so, but this is not a reason to allow Martinphi to continue with his behavior that is so disruptive to this encyclopedia and its editors.


<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC) ]] ] 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


<!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.--> <!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.-->
Line 184: Line 188:
''Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)'' ''Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)''


===Discretionary sanctions===
⚫ ==Enforcement==
4)<s>Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.


Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
===Enforcement by block===
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at ].


In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to ] and ], and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, ], ], ] and ]) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
''Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)''

; Appeals
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently ]), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

; Uninvolved administrators
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

; Logging
All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at ].

; Other provisions
This provision does not affect any existing provisions of the case.</s>

:''Passed 7-2-0 by , 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)''
::''Superseded by an ], 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)''

===Standard discretionary sanctions===
{{anchor|Discretionary sanctions motion (2011)}}
5) <s>Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted, are placed under ]. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an ] action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.</s>
:''Passed 14 to 0 by <span class="plainlinks"></span>, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)''
::Moved by to ].

⚫ ==Enforcement==

{{Arbitration standard provisions}}


===Restrictions on enforcement=== ===Restrictions on enforcement===
Line 195: Line 224:


''Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)'' ''Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)''

==Log of notifications==
All notifications are to be logged at ].


==Log of blocks and bans== ==Log of blocks and bans==
] {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Enforcement log section}}
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


]
<s>Martinphi is banned from ], ] and their associated talk pages. Basis: Reverted merge calling it a "disruptive and nonconsensus redirect by ScienceApologist."; disrupted consensus discussions on the ] on supposed procedural grounds; warned ScienceApologist for the edit he reverted ; vexatious 3RR report , ] <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</s>After considerable discussion, it appears Martinphi is unlikely to continue disruptive actions. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


{{NOINDEX}}
*Both ] and ] are blocked for 72 hours due to arbcom restriction violations. See for more details. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
*] is blocked for 72 hours for violating these restrictions. See for the complaint. - ] 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
**Reduced to 24 hours, mitigating circumstances. ] 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*] is blocked for 96 hours for violating his restriction, specifically incivility and and assuming bad faith. See for the report. ] 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
**Block shortened at request of mediator handling the mediation on the pages of which the reported violation began. ] 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
*] is blocked for 96 hours (again, as the previous block was shortened) for violating his restriction, specifically incivility and and assuming bad faith. ; ; with . ] (]) 03:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
*] blocked 72 hours for personal attacks. primarily, secondarily. ] 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
**] blocked reduced to "time served" given the significant positive improvement by offering an apology even if not entirely forthcoming. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
*] is prohibited from injecting himself into discussions and reports about ScienceApologist that are not directly related to him. Martinphi is further prohibited from injecting himself into policy and content discussions that involve ScienceApologist. Restriction posted on AN/I. ] (]) 10:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:02, 19 October 2024

Case Opened on 14:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by ScienceApologist

User:Martinphi has taken a hardline attack stance towards what he deems is pseudoskepticism at Misplaced Pages violating the spirit and letter of consensus, civility, and no personal attacks. He has maintained attack pages outside of Misplaced Pages, has engaged in tendentious editing (as documented in his RfC), has wholesale attacked members of a WikiProject that he maintains membership in to make a point , , . The earlier arbitration on paranormal did not deal with his specific behavior, but since it has been well documented for some time and does not seem to be abating, it is time for the arbitration committee to take it up. This arbitration was initiated after asking Martinphi to remove a personal attack on Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Rational Skepticism and receiving nothing more than a brick wall . ScienceApologist 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Response by Martinphi

I have tried to uphold the spirit of Wikipeida, both in civility and in NPOV, and I have tried to apply the recent ArbCom on the paranormal in a very moderate and straightforward way, always making sure that skepticism is included in the leads and bodies of articles. I have many diffs and links which will fill out my case, but don't have time to fill them in now. But just one point: some of the most important things I say in my so-called attack site (excuse me, that's supposed attack site- an inside joke) are the very things which the ArbCom decided to uphold.

For a long time -till a few days ago- the ArbCom decision took care of the problems we were having in the paranormal articles. With some recent edits by ScienceApologist and another couple of editors, one of whom was once banned from editing the paranormal, the problems have begun to return.

There are two requests I'd like to make of the Arbitrators:

1. As in the previous ArbCom case, I ask that the Arbitrators look at my actual edits, rather than what people say about me.

2. I ask that only my behavior since the previous ArbCom be considered, because that reflects me as an editor today.

There's one more thing you should look at, which really sums up my general attitude since the ArbCom:

Even if edit warring.....

Responses to other editors:

  • Response to Wikidudeman: I said that Raul654 abused his admin powers. I stand by that, because he protected a page where he was part of a dispute. I believe that such behavior is an abuse of admin powers. I acted mistakenly and in ignorance of what I was dealing with on that page, but Raul654 should have had another admin protect the page, if necessary.
  • Response to LuckyLouie: I do think you are biased. There is nothing wrong with being biased, and every editor is. However, I simply felt that as someone who had been intimately involved in the article, you shouldn't review it for GA status. I also felt that your suggestions were biased by your firm belief that, to quote you in that discussion "It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena." And in addition, in the same way that I would recuse myself from reviewing articles which dealt, say, with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, so you should recuse yourself from reviewing paranormal articles. I'm sure many who dislike me would be the first to point out my affiliation with the paranormal project were I to try.
  • Response to MastCell: No, I didn't take the ArbCom as a complete vindication. However, the Arbitrators took the most essential points from my essay (the one deleted as POV from my userspace), and incorporated them into the decision. I've tried very hard since the ArbCom not to edit war, and I've made a change in my editing style to do so: this has been difficult in the last few days, as editors have been trying to clearly violate the ArbCom decision. That's why yesterday I put in some easy links for edit summaries. You would too, rather than write them out.
  • Response to several: I never used a sock puppet to edit an article in which there was a dispute. I have one sock puppet, and the Arbitrators are welcome to find out what I did with it- the history is very short, and only on one article.
  • Response to JoshuaZ: Well, if the ArbCom didn't agree with me, I agree with the ArbCom.
  • Note: I'm being called a particularly uncivil editor- without proof.

General response:

At the previous ArbCom, I admitted my mistakes, and changed my behavior aftewards (mainly, I tried very hard not to edit war). I have kept to these changes: I have made a huge effort not to edit war (though I do use reverting in situations where the need is clear). As far as I know, I haven't done anything else wrong either.

The nearest I got to doing anything wrong, was my saying that Raul654 abused his powers. I did view Raul654's protection of the page (ownership of the page through the use of admin powers), as unethical. It was a situation which I'd never encountered before, and my stand against it was an ethical one, which I cannot take back. If Raul or anyone else had bothered to explain things to me in the beginning, things would have been different. Instead, they let me go on thinking that there was nothing special or different about that page- and thus that my views concerning Raul654's behavior were totally justified.

Well, I can't lie to you: I still think so, because Raul protected a page where, as he says below, he "had run in" with me, and I think that is a clear abuse. He also went against the decision and consensus of the other arbitrators, saying "Fortunately, this page is not a democracy." He based his editing on his own opinion about the subject. I was very upset about it.

But I also did some wrong things on that page, like removing a section to the talk page. Mostly, I did things wrongly because I didn't really notice the page's special status, and partly because my own feeling about abuses of power is different from that of other people: so it may not have been appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I didn't know Raul had been asked by other editors to oversee the page (never heard of that before), but even so I'm not so sure it is a good idea for an admin to protect a page when he sees it going against his POV.

But, I admire Raul for recusing himself from this ArbCom case: he is obviously not without ethics.

——Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidudeman

I am hereby officially involving myself in this request for arbitration. I can personally attest to everything that has been said by Raul654, ScienceApologist, MastCell, et al. Martinphi's contributions stretching all of the way back to his beginnings here have been extremely disruptive. Martinphi has a very long history of disruptive editing, not assuming good faith, attacking other editors, hijacking attempts to reach consensus, and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. A RFC was brought up concerning this editors actions as far back as 6 months ago:Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi where 19 of his fellow editors endorsed the aforementioned facts. Martinphi has also been shown to use sockpuppets:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi, to advance his positions. Just recently one notable incident occurred where Martinphi completely shunned AGF, despite my numerous notes to him, and accused Raul654 of "abusing" his admin powers:link. These are only a few of the numerous disruptive incidents that this editor is responsible for and I will bring dozens of more examples forth as evidence against this user once I have gathered all of the differences and instances. I have edited articles alongside this editor for perhaps over a year and I can attest to the facts. This user is highly disruptive, pushes POVs at all costs, shuns long held wikipedia policies such as AGF, POINT as well as many others. Wikidudeman 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement concerning compliments toward Martinphi

Some editors are posting compliments I made toward Martinphi as evidence of something, I'm not sure what. The compliments that I made towards Martinphi stating that it is "possible" to work things out with him was simply a fact of my naivety. Two months ago I stated to another editor that it was "Possible" to work things out with him, however I have since been proven totally wrong in my assessment. As far as awarding him a Barnstar goes, I frequently award all users who participate in my rewrite projects barnstars regardless of the input they provided whether helpful or not. I will admit that Martinphi did assist somewhat in rewriting the Parapsychology article, but of course even this didn't go without him later stating that I "censored" him during the whole process. Wikidudeman 00:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

Martinphi lacks a necessary minimum amount of objectivity, and he lacks insight into his shortcomings as an editor here. I say that Martinphi lacks objectivity because he applies rules differently depending on how they might impact Misplaced Pages's presentation of his POV. In doing so, he uses personal reinterpretations of the principles of NPOV, COI, civility, and consensus in order to further his own goals, not the encyclopedia's. I say that Martinphi lacks insight because, on the occasions when he is wrong, he generally fails to understand why he is wrong, or even how he could be. Instead of moving towards neutrality, he twists previous ArbCom decisions to shift neutrality towards his position. Instead of attempting civil discourse with new editors who attempt to improve articles that they see as biased, he rebukes them quickly and harshly enough that many avoid improving his articles. Instead of working towards consensus, he maintains that the status quo is a consensus when it suits him; when it does not suit him, he manages to find non-neutrality in places I never thought possible - even, for example, in the word order of an opening paragraph. He presumes that those who disagree with his POV, including Misplaced Pages Arbitrators, are "inexperienced editor(s) with a POV", a legendary testament to his assumptions of good faith and ability to achieve neutrality as an editor. Finally, Martinphi utilizes bluster, in the form of inaccurate, misleading, and even false edit summaries, claims on talk pages, and statements within this Arbitration itself. This approach gives many of his claims the veneer of validity, until one actually reads the diffs and discussions to discover that his characterizations are often skewed reinterpretations of reality.

Because of Martinphi's poor insight into his shortcomings, as evidenced by his extensive rationalization and reinterpretation of his misbehavior (and a lack of improvement in behavior since his RfC and the Paranormal arbitration), I believe that an actual remedy, not simply a request that Martinphi change his ways, must be found in this Arbitration.

Martinphi has his apologists, but in general they argue not that he is right, only that others are wrong, too. This may be so, but this is not a reason to allow Martinphi to continue with his behavior that is so disruptive to this encyclopedia and its editors.

Antelan 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

1) Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

2) Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

3) Misplaced Pages 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. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

4) The neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

6) Misplaced Pages 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.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

7) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque

8) Misplaced Pages editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Passed 5 to 1, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute is a continuation of the general disputes regarding paranormal-related topics first examined by the "Paranormal" case.

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior (), including, but not limited to, using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox (, ), threatening disruption of the project (), and making deliberately provocative edits (, ).

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

3) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks (, , , , , ), as well as abusive sockpuppetry ().

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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 restricted

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist restricted

2) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist limited to one account

3) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to using one and only one account to edit. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account.

Passed 6 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

4)Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision does not affect any existing provisions of the case.

Passed 7-2-0 by motion, 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Superseded by an alternate sanction, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions

5) Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved by motion to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Restrictions on enforcement

2) No administrator identifying as a member of WikiProject Paranormal or WikiProject Rational Skepticism shall enforce any remedy imposed by this decision.

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Log of notifications

All notifications are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Notification logs.

Log of blocks and bans

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.


Category: