Active:
Inactive/away:
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)
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)
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)
Some users are now submitting evidence [1] 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)
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)
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 [2]. 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/?title=Electronic_voice_phenomena&diff=169464973&oldid=169455507
PSYCHOKINESIS:
article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Psychokinesis&diff=169468185&oldid=169461855 (it does not accord with the source) talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=Psychokinesis&curid=24777&diff=169671545&oldid=169670139
CLAIRVOYANCE:
Already acting as if the ArbCom is over (see edit summary):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clairvoyance&diff=169114568&oldid=169113490
ASTRAL PROJECTION:
Svetovid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Astral_projection&diff=169384857&oldid=169314854
ScienceApologist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?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/?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&diff=169483609&oldid=167777048
—— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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 [11] which evidently refers to Talk:Homeopathy#A_Look_from_the_outside (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".
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 [16]. 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:
Nonetheless, many consumers, pharmacists, physicians, and other health care providers continue to use or practice homeopathic medicine and advocate its safety and efficacy.
Source: [17]
Here is what LL actually said, to which I'm responding (so he can't change it):
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)
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)
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:
Being specific would help greatly.
ScienceApologist 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Active:
Inactive/away:
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)
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)
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)
Some users are now submitting evidence [1] 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)
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)
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 [2]. 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/?title=Electronic_voice_phenomena&diff=169464973&oldid=169455507
PSYCHOKINESIS:
article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Psychokinesis&diff=169468185&oldid=169461855 (it does not accord with the source) talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=Psychokinesis&curid=24777&diff=169671545&oldid=169670139
CLAIRVOYANCE:
Already acting as if the ArbCom is over (see edit summary):
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clairvoyance&diff=169114568&oldid=169113490
ASTRAL PROJECTION:
Svetovid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Astral_projection&diff=169384857&oldid=169314854
ScienceApologist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?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/?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&diff=169483609&oldid=167777048
—— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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 [11] which evidently refers to Talk:Homeopathy#A_Look_from_the_outside (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".
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 [16]. 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:
Nonetheless, many consumers, pharmacists, physicians, and other health care providers continue to use or practice homeopathic medicine and advocate its safety and efficacy.
Source: [17]
Here is what LL actually said, to which I'm responding (so he can't change it):
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)
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)
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:
Being specific would help greatly.
ScienceApologist 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)