Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 8 November 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Abusive sockpuppetry

I take extreme umbrage to the charge of abusive sockpuppetry. I had no choice but to abandon my account when I was being harassed in real life. If arbcomm is not willing to acknowledge this, this will further encourage people to harass users in real life in order to get them to stop editing Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please respond

I have posted a question to the community related to the matter of sockpuppetry here: Misplaced Pages talk:Sock puppetry#Query. Please take some time to respond. ScienceApologist 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly balanced proposal

It seems a fairly balanced proposal, based on the questionable behavior on both sides. And niether of them has to get into trouble. --Rocksanddirt 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't "sides", It's essentially two editors and IMO the proposals here are far far too lenient considering the previous remedies taken. I doubt they will have any affect. Wikidudeman 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

But there are specifics for both to follow. They don't have to continue to be disruptive editors, they can stop and save face by saying "arbcom won't let me respond as I want to" (even to themselves). If they can't, we can hope that outside admins will be quick on the block button. --Rocksanddirt 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate venue to submit evidence & make appeals?

Some users are now submitting evidence and making appeals on Arbitrators Talk pages. Is this practice to be considered a workable alternative to the evidence page? - LuckyLouie 05:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to follow, I know that. Some of these things I'm not even aware of until someone posts a link over here at some point. I don't know what's the point of even posting evidence and trying to make a case here if people are ultimately making the cases and deciding the outcome on individual's talk pages, etc. Honestly, I've given up on the process and probably won't be participating in this arbitration anymore. --Nealparr 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They need about 20 more Arbs. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Evidence should be submitted on the evidence page. Placing evidence in unusual places is unfair, placing an unnecessary burden on the other parties, but also the Committee.

James F. (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why they need more Arbs. I've noticed that the Arbitrators are unable to consider much of the evidence. This is not a complaint about this Arbitration, only an observation. I've noticed they tend to click the first diff you give them, and make a judgment based only on that. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And James F., I have a question about that: Were I to present evidence at this point, say an addition to what I've already got: would the Arbitrators even notice? There is just no feedback in the system, and I observe that most of what we do doesn't matter (but I also observe that putting messages on talk pages does sometimes get a response). I have no idea even if the Arbitrators generally read the proposed findings. Some feedback related to how we can best relate to the ArbCom would be much appreciated. There is much more feedback in a normal legal system, because you can see the faces of the judge and jury, and also you know what evidence has actually passed by their consciousness. And you know which of it made an impression. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a major problem, and I have attempted to address it in this proposal. However, I'm not sure how to get more feedback and see if the community wants this. How else can I go about getting visibility for this concept, and who would ultimately effect this change? I'm willing to do it, if it is appropriate and the community ultimately desires that I do so. Antelan 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd ask Wikidudeman. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I read all of the relevant pages before I vote. From my discussion with other arbitrators I assume that they do the same. If we miss something important after we have already vote, then another arbitrator or a clerk will draw our attention to it. Sometimes we engage in discussion with editors about the proposals but often we just read them. I often make comments with my votes explaining them. I do not think a formal Q and A page is going to work. Adding evidence and then making suggested proposals on the workshop page is enough I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could propose one of the Stricter remedies concerning Martinphi (whom this RFA was originally brought up for) and see how the arbitrators decide. It would be quite unfortunate if none of the proposed remedies by those involved were actually put here by any of the arbitrators. Wikidudeman 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FloNight - thank you for your response. I recognize that Arbitrators read these pages before deciding. However, there is a long time between the opening phase and the voting phase in these cases. As Martinphi has discovered, and used to his advantage on Kirill's talk page, directly messaging Arbitrators achieves good results. I don't think this is healthy in the long run. I'm just proposing one extra page total, not one page per Case... Antelan 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the purpose of this talk page and the other case talk pages. Also comments can be placed by all interested users on the workshop page. I do not think adding yet another place for comments will help because we already have multiple locations for comments that we are not going to eliminate. Adding another locations is going to make it more difficult for arbitrators to monitor the discussions, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So if I post the following here, you'll read it?

The ArbCom is not dealing with the real problem here, which is the interpretation of NPOV as being "skeptical." I've presented evidence of this in my meta analysis on the workshop page. That, and POV pushing, such as this OR/POV pushing I reverted on Electronic voice phenomena . I'll present here some recent edits, which are typical of how the skeptical community has already interpreted this ArbCom:

ScienceApologist seems to have take the proposed decision as meaning "do what you do, only don't be rude." Here are some new edits, which happened just after the proposed decision appeared (a couple diffs from others as well)

What ScienceApologist believes about Misplaced Pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ragesoss/Manifesto

"I edit Misplaced Pages not because I believe in the project (I actually wish it didn't exist on most days)."

EVP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_voice_phenomena&diff=169464973&oldid=169455507

PSYCHOKINESIS:

article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychokinesis&diff=169468185&oldid=169461855 (it does not accord with the source) talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APsychokinesis&diff=169468898&oldid=168969196

I undid part of his edit about what parapsychologists believe, but he reverted (the source is the Parapsychological Association website) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Psychokinesis&curid=24777&diff=169671545&oldid=169670139

CLAIRVOYANCE:

Already acting as if the ArbCom is over (see edit summary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clairvoyance&diff=169114568&oldid=169113490

ASTRAL PROJECTION:

Svetovid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Astral_projection&diff=169384857&oldid=169314854

ScienceApologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Astral_projection&diff=169462881&oldid=169384857

What SA said on the talk page about his change (note that the article is framed as merely being an interpretation of OBEs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAstral_projection&diff=169464553&oldid=169314729

What he did was put skepticism as the first explanation- even though the article is about the "projection" interpretation of OBEs (which have their own article), and should only mention that interpretation as an aside. This is the kind of thing which, if I oppose or revert it, will be considered "disruption" on my part per this ArbCom.

PARAPSYCHOLOGY:

On the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&diff=169483609&oldid=167777048

——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

When read in context, this is also good evidence of Martinphi's continuing involvement at the epicenter of multiple disputes on multiple Parapsychology-related pages. It seems to indicate that a problem which this Arbcom has attempted to address will continue to be a problem. - LuckyLouie 21:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FloNight, no one has ever disputed that I am at the center of many disputes. This is the way it is, and if I continue to edit in the paranormal, it will always be that way. The questions are, for example, was LuckyLouie's edit Original research? Was ScienceApologist POV-pushing on Astral projection? This is what needs to be decided. Being at the center of controversies is not a bad thing. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Restriction of my account to ScienceApologist

If it may please the arbiters, we can dispense with the legal formalities and just allow me to edit with the User:ScienceApologist account. I have no problem with arbcomm restricting my editing to only ScienceApologist as the issues for why I tried to edit under other accounts have now passed. science apologist 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted that you plan to use the science apologist account. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)