Revision as of 01:23, 27 October 2007

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 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I understand. Wikidudeman 02:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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:

Comment by others:

Proposed, in light of the past case. MastCell 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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 ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

If the facts are all that matter, you should not have a problem with a valid request for checkuser. Antelan 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Your claim to the moral high ground here is extremely tenuous. MastCell 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making any such claim!--feline1 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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:

• Fradulent Ideas (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mainstream astronomy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nondistinguished (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Velikovsky (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Philosophus (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 24.199.99.169 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.214.223.142 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 216.125.49.252 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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)

• There is insufficient evidence available to ascertain with confidence who Philosophus is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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/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)

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)

• 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)

Request for clarification of previous Paranormal Arbitration

3) Does "Adequate framing" from the Principles section and "Cultural artifacts" 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 by Nealparr

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) and to remove "supposed" as well, and removed "may or may not exist" from 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 00:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request for Clarification of Adequate Framing

8) Does "Adequate framing" from the Principles section and "Cultural artifacts" 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 definitions?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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. evidence. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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 01:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I made the example God instead of unicorn. First define. Then discuss. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 final decision

Proposed principles

Courtesy

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

1) 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: 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. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the area for statements or evidence. Wikidudeman 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

...Stated WDM. It's obvious that this proposal relates in part to the assumption that I threatened to disrupt WP, which I did not. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any actual evidence then use Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. Wikidudeman 13:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 ]. 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/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)

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)

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 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Martinphi frequently insults other editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Wikidudeman.

No evidence at all. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is on the evidence page. Wikidudeman 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 evidence. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No question: . MastCell 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a question! As I read the evidence, Martinphi has explained himself. He is too knowledgeable to think that he could "hijack" anything Misplaced Pages. Tom Butler 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is already proposed above, and it is essentially a threat to "hijack" a Misplaced Pages process. Wikidudeman 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but I believe this is more neutral and better worded. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well I won't argue semantics. Wikidudeman 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're right. I havechanged my evidence in response. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is merely a semantic post hoc explanation in response to a substantive point. Antelan 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Neither WP:AfD nor WP:FAC are votes. — BillC 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist --Nealparr 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom's proposal

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Never happened. Wikidudeman 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: As per Tom Butler 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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. - LuckyLouie 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to accept the ArbCom on the Paranormal

9) Some users, such as LuckyLouie, have refused to accept the decisions of the Arbitration on the Paranormal, especially Status of parapsychology, Adequate framing, Three layer cake with frosting, and Paranormal as an effective tag. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Concerning LL's first diff, please also see this. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. Wikidudeman 17:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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". ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add your comments about your actions to the relevant sections. Thanks. Wikidudeman 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant here also, due to people basing their proposals on it. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have any actual evidence then use Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. Wikidudeman 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have presented evidence for it. This area isn't for evidence or counter evidence, or explanations of disruptive behavior. Wikidudeman 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed based on evidence. - Penwhale | 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman: as the proposal stands, it would be permanent. David Mestel 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 2.1 based on clear threat to disrupt the featured article process. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of claims. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi.... Wikidudeman 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Proposed This arbitration was raised primarily on questions of user conduct. After stripping out content disagreements, which are normal Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

MartinPhi is banned

5) Martinphi is banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and those are the reasons I would support JoshuaZ's proposal for an indefinite ban. MastCell 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi placed on probation

6) Martinphi is placed on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, however simply putting him on probation won't work. Wikidudeman 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Alternative to #5 if arbcom decides counseling is not enough. --Nealparr 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist placed on probation

7) ScienceApologist is placed on Misplaced Pages: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. 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.

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 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikidudeman 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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 01:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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 03:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Completely impractical and wholly unjust, no matter what on side of this debate one sits. — BillC 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: