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

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 Wikipedia. ScienceApologist 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please respond
I have posted a question to the community related to the matter of sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. 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  (talk) 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  (talk to me) 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They need about 20 more Arbs. —— Martinphi     ☎ 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. —— Martinphi     ☎ 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.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, consider taking James F.'s advice and moving the evidence you've posted in the large post below to the actual evidence page. That way it can be followed and treated like normal evidence for all to see and comment on, as usual. Placing it here splits up the discussion and presentation of evidence unnecessarily. Ante  lan  talk  21:56, 8 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. Ante lan  talk  00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I were you, I'd ask Wikidudeman. —— Martinphi     ☎ 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 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  (talk) 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... Ante  lan  talk  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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 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 Wikipedia:

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

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

EVP:

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

PSYCHOKINESIS:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Psychokinesis&curid=24777&diff=169671545&oldid=169670139

CLAIRVOYANCE:

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

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

ASTRAL PROJECTION:

Svetovid:

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

ScienceApologist:

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

—— Martinphi    ☎ 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. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, if that massive post consists of evidence, put it there. If it's a proposal, put it there. How that evidence that you have posted here has any special status such that it should be outside of the evidence page and "presented" directly to the Arbitrators on this talk page in the form of a question, I'm not sure. Ante  lan  talk  21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in a law court, you generally have the time you need to present relevant evidence. In the Arbitration process, you have more or less 1000 words, which can be enough, but can be utterly inadequate to present and contextualize the evidence.  It is also not fair to the main parties, as they have 1000 words to defend against, say, 10,000 or more words, and ALSO present evidence of their own.  It's not my fault. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it permissible for others to "yield" their word count to another? If so, I give Martinphi the remainder of my word count. I am sure Antelan can be counted on to figure out how many words that would be. Tom Butler 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If that were to be agreed upon, that would be an additional 300 words for Martinphi. Martinphi's current word count on the evidence page is 1895. Therefore, Martinphi would have about -595 (negative 595) words remaining. Since I've done the math on your behalf, would you inform Martinphi for me? Ante  lan  talk  00:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Antelan is wrong about the relevant word count, according to a clerk. However, as I said above, it is not correct to limit a defense to 1000 words unless the prosecution is also so limited, and that is not the case. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a prosecution/defense process, and you are arbitrarily conjuring up what is and is not "correct" to suit your needs ad hoc. Everyone else has judiciously used their 1000 words, while you are nearing 2000 mark. Ante  lan  talk  02:10, 14 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry
Now four arbcomm members have agreed that I engaged in "abusive" sockpuppetry, but the link provided does not seem to indicate an example of abusive sockpuppetry: rather it is simply a documentation of different activities that were done at the time I engaged in sockpuppetry. If someone at arbcomm could simply explain why the adjective "abusive" is being included I would appreciate it. ScienceApologist 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Without delving too deeply into the entire history of the accounts—I, at least, am of the opinion that returning to pursue old disputes under a new name is a violation of the spirit of the policy, if not necessarily the letter of it—your use of multiple accounts in a single deletion discussion is per se an abusive use of them. Kirill 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure I understand this completely:
 * Are you suggesting that if someone is harassed IRL so that they feel it necessary to stop editing under an particular account, that if they return to edit Wikipedia under a new account they should avoid areas where disputes were occurring?
 * Are you suggesting that if someone has to stop editing in an account because of IRL harassment that they should not return to an active AfD discussion after changing to a new account?
 * ScienceApologist 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not areas, necessarily—although that may be necessary, depending on their past activity—but certainly interpersonal disputes. It is ultimately the responsibility of a user that chooses to change accounts to ensure that their behavior does not become a case of harassment by sockpuppet.  Your picking of a fight with Iantresman via a newly-created account was, at best, in very poor taste.
 * Yes. Participating in a deletion discussion with several accounts is prohibited; there is no exemption for victims of harassment, or for anyone else. Kirill 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would appreciate it if these two behaviors were specifically listed in the principles/findings of fact instead of the rather broad claim of abusiveness. ScienceApologist 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under all the circumstances, including ScienceApologist's explanation on the workshop as to why he used alternate accounts, and his statement above that he no longer intends to do so, it would appear that a finding of this nature is not necessary (irrespective of whether one concludes that SA's earlier use of multiple accounts was optimal or not). Newyorkbrad 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as it appears—based on SA's testimony, at least—that he has been inappropriately advised by an administrator that his actions were acceptable, it is necessary for us to condemn them explicitly. Kirill 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then be explicit about what was inacceptable. Simply calling my sockpuppetry "abusive" is subject to wide interpretation. ScienceApologist 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (To Kirill) I don't know that that follows at all. If an editor relies reasonably and in good faith on an administrator's assurance that certain conduct is acceptable, then that is a major mitigating factor, rather than reason for condemning the conduct in an ArbCom decision. A principle, or a comment on this talkpage, suggesting that the administrator in question was incorrect should be sufficient under that circumstance. I also agree with ScienceApologist's comment above. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated discussion

 * 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)"


 * 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)"


 * 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)"


 * 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)


 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, Martinphi can read. The fact is that it appears that only in Wikipedia would one expect the deck to be stacked in favor of the mob.

I wonder though, who elected you the organizer for this process? You certainly are staying in the middle of things. Are you pushing for admin? Oh, please don't tell me you are one. Please, please please. Tom Butler 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Well, I put it on her talk page because Cuerden posted on her talk page. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

That's right. I posted it there because her vote should be informed. I make no apology for that. Cuerden posted there, I posted there, but I limited myself to the most relevant talk page, instead of spamming them all. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Proposals
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * So you would say that tagging the entire Featured Article Candidates page with the POV tag is disruptive? Ante  lan  talk  19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously. Also edit warring with an arbitrator over its placement is also disruptive.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

For the record regarding the block of Martin
I may as well say this here: I would not have normally blocked Martin, but I monitor the Homeopathy page, and have come across Martin as part of various troublesome groups - He was a member of WP:TIMETRACE, had hung out with people now community banned for their behaviour on the Homeopathy page, and I was dimly aware there was an ArbCom case against him.

I reviewed the ArbCom case, and noticed that he was being censured for behaviour on parapsychology articles similar to what he had just started doing on Homeopathy. I also noticed that, whatever the final ruling might turn out to be, it looked very likely that at least some censures would pass against him.

Frankly, I thought he should have known better than to start editing the Homeopathy article into an advertisement piece for it, minimising or eliminating all criticism, and then engage in a small edit war over it.

Jossi thought that the incident was too minor for a block as of yet, and unblocked Martin. This may be the right decision, but this edit summary which evidently refers to Talk:Homeopathy (one of those suspicious talk page threads where an IP editor suddenly shows up and gives a speech that allows all the cranks [see note] to yet again bring up their greiviances.) Suffice to say that his view is at least deluded.

Anyway, that's probably quite enough. If you need anything more from me, poke me on my talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[Note] - I fear "crank" is the right word - Docboat (User:BrianWalker) has repeatedly advocated for removing all criticism of homeopathy from the lead, despite having WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV patiently explained to him each time, and User:Peter morrell's tamer statements include phrases like "pro-science lobby".


 * The record itself: Martin's initial edits . These being rejected and reverted, he places POV tag: . Tag is reverted, he reverts back to tag: Tag is reverted, he again reverts back to tag: . Tendentious enough to provoke some scrutiny, given that the current Arbitration seeks remedies to discourage him from this kind of behavior. - LuckyLouie 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

'''My God. That is really beyond the pale, LuckyLouie.''' Look at that diff, which he actually says was "my edit." That was not the edit which was reverted, but merely one tiny part. Here is the whole thing. Why are you using diffs this way, LuckyLouie? This is of course what he did in his evidence. At the most, only the part of my edit which LuckyLouie gave as a diff should have been reverted. However, be assured that the sentence he gives as my edit is very directly from the source, which is a very reliable and fully mainstream source (and the line is necessary to round out the lead). Here is what the source says:

Source:

Here is what LL actually said, to which I'm responding (so he can't change it):


 * The record itself: Martin's initial edits . These being rejected and reverted, he places POV tag: . Tag is reverted, he reverts back to tag: Tag is reverted, he again reverts back to tag: . Tendentious enough to provoke some scrutiny, given that the current Arbitration seeks remedies to discourage him from this kind of behavior. - LuckyLouie 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the POV tag was reverted the first time merely because I was unable to post on the talk page (see edit summary). Thus, I really only reverted once, and for a very good reason: the general consensus on the talk page.

The POV here is stunning. An advertisement piece? Look at the edit. The misuse of diffs is also stunning. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Adam Cuerden said that, "...one of those suspicious talk page threads where an IP editor suddenly shows up and gives a speech that allows all the cranks [see note] to yet again bring up their greiviances.) Suffice to say that his view is at least deluded...." Cranks? Deluded? These terms make it clear that administrator Adam Cuerden has a predisposition to decide in favor of mainstream thought no matter the merits of the case. Should I assume he has the support of the other administrators?


 * Adam's reference to "troublesome groups," seems reminiscent of my complaints about the skeptics project which have been generally ignored by the admins. Is it appropriate for an admin to so brand a project as he did WP:TIMETRACE?


 * Anyone willing to examine the paranormal articles with an open mind should be able to see that many of the same editors are active in the same areas. They are not bad editors, but they are in strong disagreement. You can block an editor, but others will soon rise to the surface. The edit wars are ideological and Wikipedia rules do nothing to control that problem. As I see it admins should be involved before the problems reach arbitration status, but even that will not work if admins are going to insult their charges and hold them in contempt. Tom Butler 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave a careful note pointing out that I was using the term because they have repeatedly stated outright that they want the article criticism-free, NPOV be damned. And Martinphi is deluded if he thinks "The vast majority of the editors on the talk page are arguing that the article is POV", which is the quote I carefully pointed out and then discussed. Finally, there are some good editors in WP:TIMETRACE, but there was a recent case involving several of them, all using open proxies, creating patent nonsense articles. Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I can better understand your intention in using "deluded." Tom Butler 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. It's been a long day here, and I may not be being as clear as I think I am. Adam Cuerden talk 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of editors editing the talk page at that time. I don't know what one would see if one took the perspective of weeks or something. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Adam, I have asked you before and I will kindly ask you once again: Please keep your disagreements within boundaries, do not involve a WikiProject in your arguments when your intention is to target individuals. I will not provide opinion directly at this discussion or at the discussion of your recent request for joining the Arbitration Com. but I must most certainly comment that it is not the behavior of an Arbitrator (and probably not even of an adminis to drag the name of a WikiProject into discussions in which is not directly involved just for the sake of speculation. Thank you for your understanding.  Dao  ken  21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppetry (3)
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:


 * 1) People who use alternate accounts should not pursue user-conduct issues with other users that they have had previous contact with under other accounts.
 * 2) 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)

Content decisions from Paranormal Arbitration
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? Ante lan  talk  03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Breadth and imprecision have their benefits, and may be intentional. Ante  lan  talk  22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. Ante  lan  talk  23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.   Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we certainly agree on that. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)