Quote from LuckieLouie:
His quest versus ScienceApologist's quest to "contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience". [1] There's a bit of a double-standard here that isn't illustrated in an arbitration against a single editor. I don't want to get into a multiple-editor review any more than anyone else, but there's two sides to any coin. Martinphi's activities are not entirely one-sided. A six month block and permanent banning on paranormal articles (including talk pages) is way too excessive in my opinion. There's a difference between putting someone in the corner and kicking them out of the room. Maybe counseling is enough, maybe it isn't. But surely there's a remedy somewhere in the middle. Banning and blocking is usually a sanction applied to vandals and completely useless trolls. Martinphi's not either of those. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Another of what I shall call here an "inaccuracy." LuckyLouie states I asked for more help in enforcing my Paranormal primer. I asked for more help in general, and for more help enforcing the ArbCom on the paranormal. Perhaps LuckyLouie got them mixed up because they are so similar. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
From WP:PROBATION:
This remedy allows for blocking with cause, prevents conflicts of interest on the part of involved administrators, and provides for remedies if either editor feels they are being treated unfairly.
It also does not prevent civil discussion on article talk pages which lead to NPOV articles. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He's the one who raised the arbitration, based on civility. When others let occasional acts of incivility slide, he sought to make an issue out of it with the arbitration. Certainly his own acts of incivility warrant the same remedies he sought against Martinphi.
Other editors have compounded the arbitration beyond civility with a case of pov crusading by Martinphi. Out of all the editors involved, the only other editor who considers Wikipedia a battleground besides Martinphi is ScienceApologist. Certainly if crusading and combat editing is considered a cause in Martinphi's case, it'd be a cause against the editor who raised an arbitration against him if he/she's doing the same thing.
If you examine ScienceApologist's history, he left in June during the Paranormal Arbitration, apparently frustrated with Wikipedia. [3] During the arbitration he argued on the opposite side of Martinphi. He returns in October with a comment that he aims to "contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience." A very short time after that he raises an arbitration against Martinphi. Certainly these things matter.
By all means punish Martinphi if it's deemed necessary, but there's no reason to hold a double-standard. It's been mentioned that talking about ScienceApologist is somehow a deflection from Martinphi. It's not. Punish Martinphi if it's necessary. But if Martinphi deserves more than a warning about his uncivil conduct, or point of view, then everyone who acts like Martinphi deserves the same. Especially if he's the one who decided to take it to the arbitration. Anything less, I'm sorry, would be hypocritical.
And again, I don't think anyone needs more than a warning. Warn them and if they screw it up again they brought it on themselves. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In my book, if one person provokes incivility by committing incivility themselves then they should either drop their claim or accept sanction themselves. perfectblue 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This goes particularly to Martinphi. The Evidence area is for evidence, the statement area is for statements, the workshop area is for proposals and discussions directly relevant to them. The workshop area is NOT for arguments in defense of yourself, the Evidence and Statement areas are for that. If you have any EVIDENCE against the statements being made in by me in the evidence area then please provide your own counter evidence, otherwise keep all defenses of yourself in their rightful areas. Administrators can look at your statements and evidence to see what your explanations are concerning the incidents before proposing remedies. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that Kirill has proposed this as a remedy on the proposed decision page. My question is, what about accidentally editing from an IP address? I understand that most editors will do this occasionally. ScienceApologist is a very prolific editor, and over the course of a year such an event may be fairly likely. I think that, if some version of this passes, there should be some way for him to "claim" an accidental anonymous edit, and not have it count as sockpuppetry. Cardamon 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote from LuckieLouie:
His quest versus ScienceApologist's quest to "contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience". [1] There's a bit of a double-standard here that isn't illustrated in an arbitration against a single editor. I don't want to get into a multiple-editor review any more than anyone else, but there's two sides to any coin. Martinphi's activities are not entirely one-sided. A six month block and permanent banning on paranormal articles (including talk pages) is way too excessive in my opinion. There's a difference between putting someone in the corner and kicking them out of the room. Maybe counseling is enough, maybe it isn't. But surely there's a remedy somewhere in the middle. Banning and blocking is usually a sanction applied to vandals and completely useless trolls. Martinphi's not either of those. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Another of what I shall call here an "inaccuracy." LuckyLouie states I asked for more help in enforcing my Paranormal primer. I asked for more help in general, and for more help enforcing the ArbCom on the paranormal. Perhaps LuckyLouie got them mixed up because they are so similar. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
From WP:PROBATION:
This remedy allows for blocking with cause, prevents conflicts of interest on the part of involved administrators, and provides for remedies if either editor feels they are being treated unfairly.
It also does not prevent civil discussion on article talk pages which lead to NPOV articles. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He's the one who raised the arbitration, based on civility. When others let occasional acts of incivility slide, he sought to make an issue out of it with the arbitration. Certainly his own acts of incivility warrant the same remedies he sought against Martinphi.
Other editors have compounded the arbitration beyond civility with a case of pov crusading by Martinphi. Out of all the editors involved, the only other editor who considers Wikipedia a battleground besides Martinphi is ScienceApologist. Certainly if crusading and combat editing is considered a cause in Martinphi's case, it'd be a cause against the editor who raised an arbitration against him if he/she's doing the same thing.
If you examine ScienceApologist's history, he left in June during the Paranormal Arbitration, apparently frustrated with Wikipedia. [3] During the arbitration he argued on the opposite side of Martinphi. He returns in October with a comment that he aims to "contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience." A very short time after that he raises an arbitration against Martinphi. Certainly these things matter.
By all means punish Martinphi if it's deemed necessary, but there's no reason to hold a double-standard. It's been mentioned that talking about ScienceApologist is somehow a deflection from Martinphi. It's not. Punish Martinphi if it's necessary. But if Martinphi deserves more than a warning about his uncivil conduct, or point of view, then everyone who acts like Martinphi deserves the same. Especially if he's the one who decided to take it to the arbitration. Anything less, I'm sorry, would be hypocritical.
And again, I don't think anyone needs more than a warning. Warn them and if they screw it up again they brought it on themselves. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In my book, if one person provokes incivility by committing incivility themselves then they should either drop their claim or accept sanction themselves. perfectblue 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This goes particularly to Martinphi. The Evidence area is for evidence, the statement area is for statements, the workshop area is for proposals and discussions directly relevant to them. The workshop area is NOT for arguments in defense of yourself, the Evidence and Statement areas are for that. If you have any EVIDENCE against the statements being made in by me in the evidence area then please provide your own counter evidence, otherwise keep all defenses of yourself in their rightful areas. Administrators can look at your statements and evidence to see what your explanations are concerning the incidents before proposing remedies. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that Kirill has proposed this as a remedy on the proposed decision page. My question is, what about accidentally editing from an IP address? I understand that most editors will do this occasionally. ScienceApologist is a very prolific editor, and over the course of a year such an event may be fairly likely. I think that, if some version of this passes, there should be some way for him to "claim" an accidental anonymous edit, and not have it count as sockpuppetry. Cardamon 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)