Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 22 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)

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)

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)