Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Proposed decision

message: 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 Wikipedia. ScienceApologist 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abusive sockpuppetry

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seems fairly balanced proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Noted that you plan to use the science apologist account. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restriction of my account to ScienceApologist

message: ::::Okay, evidence of abusive behavior: Beginning here:  ScienceApologist edited the EVP talk page as three personalities: ScienceApologist, 71.57.90.96  and 216.125.49.252 
::::SA resisted disclosing who the IPs belonged to until directly challenged, stating at one point: "I take it that Davkal is angry with IP signatures. However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that one must log in or have an account to edit or respond on talkpages. It certainly is allowed by all policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --216.125.49.252 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Later, the exchange: "Choosing not to login to one's account is manifestly not sockpuppetry. Are you accusing me of engaging in such an activity? If so, can you present any evidence in the form of diffs in the proper location? --ScienceApologist 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered by "You have been editing this page using three different user names, and while you never flatly denied that all three were your responses previously certainly did not suggest someone who was being open and honest about the fact (as is recopmmended by Wiki rules). I don't know what else you would like as evidence - smoking gun and all that.Davkal 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile SA's fellow skeptical editors seemed to actively discourage "proponent" editors from unmasking him. This seemed to be an effort to overwhelm editors with an opposing view by being more than you actually are. It was clearly "abusive" and in conflict with the spirit of Wiki practices. Tom Butler 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ScienceApologist is asking that a more explicit finding be made. Your evidence here may support a finding, but the finding is already in existence. Therefore, this seems moot. Antelan talk 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no findings in the arbitration that have received enough votes to pass. All of the findings section is still up in the air, even the Locus of dispute. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His evidence (which is evidence, and belongs on an evidence page, not here) might lead an Arbitrator to make a finding of abusive editing against SA. Since there is already a finding there that has unanimous support (but has not yet passed), this doesn't really get us anywhere new. It adds no specificity, which is what ScienceApologist was asking about in the first place. Specificity is the issue about which it would be useful to hear an arbitrator's response. Antelan talk 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Will you try to be less overtly rude to me in metaspace please? Regarding the actual content of that statement, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Antelan talk 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nealparr, with the findings still up in the air, it's disturbing that Martin has rejected Arbitrator's advice to restrict his statements to this venue  and continues to lobby and appeal for special treatment  on Arbitrator's Talk pages.  - LuckyLouie 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That isn't completely true.  User:Adam Cuerden posted notice of your block to three different arbitrators' talk pages. Since Flo is currently the swing vote on the proposed remedies, this has a strong whiff of lobbying.  Skinwalker 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, he posted there as the blocking admin who noticed that you were up for Arbitration. That's not evidence against you; its his way of letting the arbitrators know that he's not trying to step on their toes. Antelan talk 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated discussion

message: I want to ask that at least one of the proposals involving martinphi being actually reprimanded or blocked be put on this proposed decision page. The editors familiar with this editor recognize that simply putting him on editing restrictions would be incredibly ineffective given his history and all of the previous opportunities he has had to reform. Martinphi is frequently very careful not to blatantly assume bad faith, be uncivil or make personal attacks recently however the real issues arise from his tendentious editing habits which in my opinion could only be remedied via a ban from specific articles or something similar. I'm only asking this because I don't want to see another arbitration come up in a few months from now as has happened in the past. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation: Martinphi isn't really a disruptive editor, so darn, how we gonna get rid of him? He's putting a cramp in our ability to assert that ∀x(Sx ⊃ Nx). ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Martin seems no more disruptive than any of the paranormal regulars. be they skeptics or supporters.  If a disruption finding is put up, it would be only to vote it down solidly so this crap can stop for a while.  --Rocksanddirt 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert warring, Abusing sockpuppets, Threatening Wikipedia and accusing arbitrators of being corrupt and bias is not disruptive behavior? None of the participants of either project do all of these things. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you would say that tagging the entire Featured Article Candidates page with the POV tag is disruptive? Antelan talk 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously. Also edit warring with an arbitrator over its placement is also disruptive. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsk.  More dishonesty.  It is well known that 1. I didn't know he was an arbitrator at the time.  2. It is known that it makes no difference that he was an Arb in terms of whether or not I should have edit warred.  WDM is fond of stating that being an admin isn't much of a difference with a normal editor.  It is also known that I did not threaten WP.   I assume it is also known, that there is a difference between calling an editor corrupt and saying he abused his powers: one was a statement of fact, supported by straightforward WP policy.  The other is a personal attack, and I do not think that I said it.  And it is not disruptive to say that a person is biased, when that bias has been stated in an obvious manner. All in all, a continuation of the endemic misrepresentation beloved by those who have presented evidence in this case.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Proposals 

message: I really would like it if the arbitrators would specify exactly what they mean by abusive sockpuppetry because this has direct relevance to discussions going on at WT:SOCK. In particular, I suggest the following:
#People who use alternate accounts should not pursue user-conduct issues with other users that they have had previous contact with under other accounts.
#Alternate accounts should never under any circumstances be used more than once in deletion discussions.
Being specific would help greatly.
ScienceApologist 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abusive sockpuppetry (3)

message: There is a resolution which currently has enough votes to succeed, stating "It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors." Would this ward off the use of Paranormal Arbitration findings to make content changes, as been done in many cases? Antelan talk 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using previous findings to make a change may be a good faith content change. You may mean "does this mean that previous findings are not an end to the discussion?" --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that may be what they mean. They may also mean to reinforce the notion that Arbitration findings are not to be interpreted as content findings. In truth, I don't know what they are going for. I look forward to an Arbitrator's response. Antelan talk 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you wish that, Antelan, but that's not what they said: they said "It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors."  Sounds to me like they didn't rule out settling bad-faith content disputes.  It also seems to me that under your happy interpretation, the ArbCom can do nothing except settle user conduct issues.  They cannot, for example, decide on a principle, because application of principles effects content of articles.  No, looks like they said that it isn't the role of the ArbCom to settle specific cases of good faith content disputes, but rather to create sufficient guidelines that the overall content of articles conforms to basic WP principles. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly think you misinterpreted (or overinterpreted to suit your needs) the previous ArbCom. This principle should, at the very least, serve as a reminder that allowing you to bludgeon users with "per ArbCom" is not the intention of the ArbCom when it comes to making content changes. Antelan talk 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that happy case, paranormal POV-pushers can also ignore what the ArbCom said in its pseudoscience ruling.  If the ArbCom wants to take back a decision, they are not so incapable of written language as to be unable to do so clearly. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Breadth and imprecision have their benefits, and may be intentional. Antelan talk 22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you refuting your own point?  I though you were arguing for a narrow interpretation. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I am someone who will be affected by a decision, I prefer precision. When I am someone making pronouncements, there are times when being vague is useful. Because I am on the "affectee", not "affector" side of this equation, of course I prefer precision here. Recognizing the utility in being vague is not "refuting my own point," and this should have been obvious given a good-faith interpretation of my statements. Antelan talk 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically, you're arguing for a wide interpretation of what they said about content decisions, and a (very) narrow interpretation of what they said in the ArbCom on the Paranormal- because those interpretations produce the effects you like. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look back to the very first post that I made here, you will see that I am asking a question. So what I am advocating for is that an Arbitrator respond to my question.   Antelan talk 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we certainly agree on that. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content decisions from Paranormal Arbitration