Looking at the "evidence," I have to say that I am pretty shocked that the arbitrators have let this go so far. There is an ethical issue concerning deleting material from a user's personal page. I would call that vandalism under any circumstance. The banner in question is clearly a spoof and it becomes a matter of free speech. The banner in question violates no rule I am aware of. ScienceApologist obviously just does not like it.

There is also an ethical issue with scrounging deleted documents out of the web page bone yard as LuckyLouie has done. Martinphi has a reasonable expectation that the page in question would be gone when he deleted it. That shows clear intent. Documents are deleted for a reason. People change their mind and what is currently presented is what should be argued. Nevertheless, I do not see how what is written by Martinphi violates Wiki policy. I see a lot of the same thing on the Rational Skepticism page. [ [1]] There is no real difference between a "rv" list and a "To Do list."

Much of what is being brought against Martinphi is "I don't like what he did," rather than evidence of deliberate abuse of Wiki policy. I think it would be appropriate for the arbitrators to seriously consider bringing sanctions against the complainants for abuse of procedures. Tom Butler 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In all of the evidences I've presented, I clearly cite what the relevant policy or guideline broken is, whether it be WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, Etc. As far as removing material from userpages goes, It's very allowed. See WP:USER. ScienceApologist, I believe, Was incorrect in removing the tag. However that is not relevant. The relevant fact is that Martinphi responded by attacking him personally. This is unjustifiable as one can clearly see the motivation for removing the template from ScienceApologist's perspective and Martin SHOULD have assumed good faith opposed to personally attacking the editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It is not illegal to do a lot of things that are nevertheless unethical. It is a very relevant point as it goes to the argument that SA was goading him. Martinphi challenged the vandal. I don't see how you can call that unjustified. I would not consider it good faith on SA's part. In fact, I have a very hard time believing that you really think it was good faith. You guys are making this a workplace in which not agreeing with you will result in punishment. Tom Butler 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Tom, Martin's "parody" - which he explains as a critical jab at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism - works against encouraging trust and cooperation between Wikipedia editors. It seems designed to promote the opposite. Martin is well aware of the "us vs. them" rhetoric on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal Talk pages. (During discussion there, an editor who has described himself as neutral observes, "I also don't know why every conversation here has to have a hostile "us vs. them" or "the skeptics are out to get us" comment."' ') Knowing that bad feelings exist, Martin chooses to fan the flames rather than build bridges. - LuckyLouie 01:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Nealparr's response to Perfectblue97, [(LL again giving links out of context, here is the full diff: [2]) I believe]. I do intend the template parody to take a stand against irrationality in the name of rationality. There is a difference between gently lancing a boil with humor, and fanning flames. —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I've seen no evidence that ScienceApologist was "goading" him. As Louie points out above, A good argument can be made that martin's template was disruptive and I can see how ScinceApologist would believe that removing it was justified (Though as I've said, I personally don't believe removing it was justified). So in effect, not only was Martin fueling flames of debate by even having it, he was fueling flames further by using insults and personal attacks as a response to it being removed. I find it disturbing that you're defending such behavior and I find it further disturbing that you're also using personal insults towards ScienceApologist. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

LL again gave a diff out of context, to try and prove a point. Here is the full diff: [3]

Just for your information, I'm not going to participate in these discussions. I've made my case pretty much, and I feel I don't need to. —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

LuckyLouie, the parties on the receiving end of parody usually feel that it is unfair. Otherwise, there would be no need for parody. You assume bad faith by saying that "It seems designed to promote the opposite." Also, since you are one of three editors I have seen defending skeptical content in the EVP article since I became an editor a year ago, I can say with some confidence that you are one of the sources of "us" and "them" amongst editors. You must know this, and so at the risk of not assuming good faith in you, I must say that your protest seems disingenuous. Tom Butler 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Tom Butler said: "I can say with some confidence that you are one of the sources of "us" and "them" amongst editors."- You are encouraged to provide evidence supporting your claim. - LuckyLouie 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

LuckyLouie, I will be happy to. Take a look at [4], especially Ames Research Center Speech Recognition. That is one of the times you all were doing your very best to discredit MacRae--a kind of action that was rebuffed by the later arbitration.

In Rewording of intro you state:

Yes, the "purported" is needed, as evidence for "the unexplained presence of voices" is anecdotal, and the phrase itself is a bit dramatic. Also, WP defining EVP broadly as "a term used to refer to the unexplained presence voices or voice-like sounds" is incorrect. The term "EVP" is not used by international professional audio and engineering organizations such as the IEEE or the AES. Nor have they reported any unexplainable audio anomalies. Any claims of 'what EVP is' must be ascribed to paranormal/EVP/proponents. -- LuckyLouie 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are very clever, as all of the polarizing heavy lifting was done on that page by ScienceApologist and Minderbinder. As witness at [5] you and Wikidudeman "went and got" SA so that he would edit the EVP article. You made essentially the same statement there, insisting that only mainstream sources can be used. By insisting that mainstream organizations must endorse a definition before it can be used in an article about a paranormal subject, you assure that the "proponents" will be forced to argue harder to use the definition used by those who study the subject. Tom Butler 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't see what's polarizing about the quote you've selected. I felt that definitions which are phrased as audio and electrical engineering concepts and promoted by those who study EVP should be clearly stated as originating from those who study EVP. They are claims which are unsupported by authoritative sources. A simple "Those who study EVP say..." will suffice to solve the problem. I have pointed this out a few times, and I don't see where Arbcom "rebuffed" it. - LuckyLouie 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually LuckyLouie, that is not what you are saying. You repeatedly press for the extreme interpretation of Wiki rules, and too often "Those who study EVP say..." is replaced by "purported," as you advocated in that quote. "Purported" is one of those characterizing terms that is always good for a heated debate and you have been around long enough to know that. I have no problem with "Those who study EVP say..." because it is an accurate statement, but you were not saying that to SA. You were clearly goading him into saying "purported."

I obviously cannot expect you to agree that your actions are divisive, but the fact that we are in another arbitration involving paranormal subjects and/or editors who often work in the articles seems to support my point. The very existence of the Wiki skeptics club is divisive, and since it is intended to push Skeptical Dictionary positions which are written to push one side, as admitted by its author, then it seems evident that those of us who have not given ourselves to that agenda are "on the other side" of the editorial debate. Tom Butler 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Nobody but nobody goads me into anything. LuckyLouie actually asked me to give leeway on the EVP article back when I first started editing there. Since then, he has witnessed the brazen POV-pushing that you, User:Davkal, and User:Martinphi have delighted in promoting and has, so to speak, come over to the darkside. When I returned from going into hiding, I made some edits to EVP which Wikidudeman counseled me against doing. That is the so-called "evidence" you are purporting is goading me. Ironically, he was hoping to diffuse the situation. Unfortunately, paranormal advocates don't like it when their subject matter is properly characterized as the snake oil pseudoscience that it is. ScienceApologist 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Note to Arbitrators: ScienceApologist thinks it is proper to "charicterize" things in WP as snake oil pseudoscience. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, he characterized the subject matter as snake oil pseudoscience. And whatever happened to calling things as you see them?-- Prosfilaes 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, he even admits it. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

SA's description of past events in the EVP article is pretty accurate. At one time I fielded a rather naive attempt at mediating a compromise among involved parties. SA's detailed objections to the article's wording prompted me to more closely examine the article's sources. I discovered his objections to be well founded.

Tom, I don't know what to think about your claims against WikiProject Rational Skepticism. You have mentioned this as an issue on Talk Pages more than once. If you feel that the project is divisive and intended to push Skeptical Dictionary's position, I suggest you (nondisruptively) state your case for why it's harmful to Wikipedia and seek feedback from the community, perhaps at the Village Pump, or in the appropriate community resource which oversees WikiProjects. If you have a legit beef, bring it to the community, don't use it as an excuse to remain bitter. - LuckyLouie 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, parties on the receiving end of parody usually feel that it is unfair. That, and the words "receiving end", are exactly the reason that you don't parody someone you work with, because it tends to annoy the hell out of them, and make them not want to work with you. Parody isn't good for Wikipedia.-- Prosfilaes 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You have a valid point and I think all of us would as soon not see the need for parody because it is obviously challenging to its target; however, there may be more to the story than you are aware of. The WikiProject Rational Skepticism has been a source of irritation for many of us because it seeks to foist the Skeptical Dictionary viewpoint on paranormal articles. The tactics taken by many of the skeptical editors have caused much distress for "proponent" editors, even when there has been great effort by the "proponent" editors to find balance.

I have been on the receiving end of ScienceApologist's efforts to discount honest researchers with characterizations ... well characterizations much as he used in that exit essay of his that MastCell apparently wants us to ignore. If he really wrote it, it is amazing that he does not see himself in his criticism of others.

I see the parody as more of a light cast on grievous behavior. Parody is a fine tradition in journalism as can be seen in political cartoons. If you are the target of parody, then perhaps it is time to reassess what you are doing. I know that I spend quite a lot of time doing that every time I read an article claiming something paranormal is illusionary. None of us should be too comfortable with our beliefs. In the case of some of the editors, their certainty that paranormal is impossible leaves little room for civil communication. Tom Butler 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

We differ substantially. I see Martin's "parody" as inconsiderate and thoughtless of his fellow Wikipedians. Being inconsiderate and thoughtless is certainly not an a punishable offense by itself, but it shows a profound lack of judgment and sensitivity. How would it make members of WikiProject Paranormal feel if a vocal WikiProject Rational Skepticism member put a template on his userpage which used the boilerplate of WikiProject Paranormal, but revised it to read: "WikiProject Paranoidal"? And what if they compounded it by listing themselves on the project rolls with the statement, "I am interested in the paranormal in the tradition of Richard Dawkins"? And what if they explained it away by saying, "It's a light-hearted parody on the idea that some members of WikiProject Paranormal are paranoid, har har". I'm pretty sure that explanation would strike people in WikiProject Paranormal as insincere, and the parody itself would make them feel insulted, uncomfortable, and suspicious. Such a "parody" would be encouraging polarization between the two projects and degrading the purpose of Wikipedia. Why would anyone choose that route? I'm sincerely puzzled. If there are grievances that WikiProject Paranormal members are harboring, if they feel embattled and unfairly treated, these issues should be brought out in the open and a forum sought where they can be resolved. Passive-aggressive jabs in the form of "parody" templates aren't the answer.- LuckyLouie 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Tom, I'm familiar with the history. I find the statement that "their certainty that paranormal is impossible leaves little room for civil communication" very very troubling, because that's what NPOV is all about, finding a neutral ground between different viewpoints. Religion for most people is certain faith in the unseen, and yet their believers manage frequently to produce NPOV pages. The belief that the paranormal is impossible is a well-established philosophical belief, and needs to be treated like any other such belief.-- Prosfilaes 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

If I may respond here, it is possible to find a neutral groud with believers who acknowledge that they are only believers. It is not possible to find a neutral ground with believers who think that they have the Truth, and everyone else is not only wrong but should be portrayed as wrong.

LL, that is a wonderful idea, LOL! If anyone wants such a template, and doesn't have the code skills, I'd be glad to make it up for them! —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That wasn't an "idea". It was a "what if" example of behavior that would definitely not be cool. - LuckyLouie 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The difference is between the aesthetic of a democracy, and political correctness. WP, being in need of accuracy, has more of the aesthetic of the democracy, -where you say it like you see it- with fact checking and neutrality added in. If you bring in a political-correctness aesthetic, then you'll be taking offense all the time. —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

What democracy have you lived in? Even in the most ideal democracy, the winners would use the gentle art of friendly persuasion; in the more negative view of democracy, the winner is he who makes the most promises and kisses the right asses, honesty be damned. ( Read my lips: no new taxes has its own article, and sadly enough I think other American presidents have made people forget Bush Sr.'s dishonesty.) "Say it like you see it" is not a principle of democracy, and it's rarely a good principle of human communication; wise people know when to keep their mouths shut or let diplomacy phrase their words.-- Prosfilaes 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, and that's doubly important in a system which, like Wikipedia, functions not on democracy per se but on consensus. "Saying it like you see it" is one thing; tendentious editing another. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In a democracy, you are free to say what is true with quite a high degree of latitude. That is so the truth can come out when necessary, and so that freedom of speech may be maintained (as a good in itself). WP is about Verifiability and NPOV first, and only then consensus (Creationism is the general consensus of the American people). But anyway, my template is nothing more than a gentle touch of humor to lighten a rather radicalized situation. I believe you are functioning from the aesthetic of political correctness. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

When people say things like "very very troubling," they have usually made up their mind, and so I am probably wasting my time responding. Nevertheless, ... Prosfilaes, saying anything is impossible is a statement of faith. I have no problem showing that one view of EVP, for instance, is that it is impossible. I think we have enough quotes from Wikipedia editors to provide sufficient references. However, turning to other theories about EVP, a consensus has seldom been arrived at as to how to describe them because those who feel it is impossible simply will (usually) not budge. Thus, I say there is little room for civil communication. ScienceApologist has demonstrated this many times as he resorts to calling those who wish to study things paranormal, all sorts of names. It is also uncivil to litigate, as in this arbitration, every time an editor gives him an excuse.

Keep in mind that hard research of the phenomena called paranormal is being conducted by qualified scientists, yet including that research in Wiki articles is resisted at every turn based on the opposing editor's assumption that the subject is impossible and therefore cannot be studied. All points should be included. That is why I have always wanted the proposed explanations--phenomenal and mundane--including it is impossible and therefore does not exist--to be described in a continuum with supporting material, rather than as sections of opposing views. If the phenomena exists, then that will eventually be shown. If it does not, then that too will eventually be shown. Likely, the real answer is somewhere in between and may not even be guessed at yet. But Wikipedia is not the place to make the decision as to whether or not anything has been shown. The skeptical editors are trying to make that decision here and that is the source of virtually all of these editing problems.

And LL, bitterness is something that I suppose a person who sees no hope might feel. I am note sure if I have ever been there, however. What you hear in my words is a great disappointed that such intellect as obviously represented by editors here can be so easily influenced by faith. Tom Butler 01:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It is strange that the "paranormalists" here have less faith than the "skeptics". —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The point is, Tom, that editors are entitled to their beliefs. We can have editors who are "certain[...] that paranormal is impossible" and we must find "room for civil communication" with them. It doesn't matter whether that's a statement of faith or not.-- Prosfilaes 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Freedom of speech is not necessarily a property of democracies. Go back to political science 101. Furthermore, there's no evidence that you've lightened the situation; it's a sad trend of people to make offensive remarks, claim they're humorous and accuse anyone who gets upset of political correctness. For another example, the habit of Europeans (and I would bet a pretty penny that you're one) of making cheap irrelevant shots at Americans like you just did has a habit of pissing Americans off, and making the Americans less likely to want to work with them. (Your statement is of course wrong--see Creationism, among other cites.) People who want to discourage cheap shots at Americans want to do so because it doesn't encourage calm productive discussion, not out of political correctness.-- Prosfilaes 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Freedom of speech is necessary to any real democracy. I hava a PayPal account. What kind of pretty penny are you offering? —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Welllllll?? Did your penny suddenly start looking ugly? —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Quote from Evidence by MastCell:

• Per his evidence presented above, he considers constructive users who share his POV, such as User:Nealparr, to simply ride on his coattails as he does the "dirty work" of edit-warring and battling for his POV.

For the record, I only share Martinphi's point of view when he is correct and disagree with him when he is wrong. Sometimes he is correct and sometimes he isn't, the same as everyone else (myself included). -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Never intended to say we agree on everything. Just that I tend to start things, and so I "cause" the controversy. —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Neal: a very good point; perhaps I was painting with overly broad brush strokes there. I'll amend my comment appropriately. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I suppose it is in order to respond to Antelan's protest of Martinphi helping me with the Etheric Studies Initiative. I asked him to help because of his broad range of interest, ability to work with others in Wikipedia and for his online savvy. I would not have done this had I considered him in any way a problem editor. The initiative is an honest effort to bring a little legitimate science to the study of things etheric--some of which you all know as paranormal. It is going to involve people with a wide range of experience and it is important that they feel welcome. The web site for that is here [6].

Of course you are all invited to participate, but we will require your real name and a little background to give us a sense of your qualifications to contribute in specific areas.

Martinphi's online skills have become especially important since we installed the wiki shell for Best Practices Development here [7]. That is a sincere effort to identify what works and what does not based on empirical evidence rather than anecdotal claims. Except for my article documenting my experience with Wikipedia, neither of these web sites have anything to do with Wikipedia. The fact that the subject matter is what you all call paranormal only reflects Martinphi's area of interest. This is also true of Open Source Science [8]. As I see it, he is attempting to educate himself in the field so that ScienceApologist will not consider him a "devoted idiot" [9]. Tom Butler 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I was told that the following isn't evidence or a response and that I was using up my 1000 words in presenting it [10], so I'm placing it here versus on the evidence page, reluctantly obscured:

I am a professional web designer with experience in MediaWiki installs and Wiki markup. In May, User:Annalisa Ventola asked me to help with the installation and setup of MediaWiki at OpenSourceScience.net. Antelan considers this somehow promoting the paranormal POV and being a member of Martinphi's "faction" [11] simply by assisting another editor who's always been nice to me (Annalisa, not Martinphi). If you review my contributions there [12] I never made a pro-paranormal comment in the short time I participated. My contribution was no different than when I helped Wikidudeman fix the problems with the WP:SKEPTIC homepage in May, but that doesn't make me a member of the skeptic "faction". Anyone who is bored will also notice in my design portfolio that I created a site for a few churches, and I'm not Christian. I've designed a site for a Republican Congressman. I'm not Republican. I've designed a site for a baker and I'm not a baker. I help people set up websites for money and am not a member of any so-called "faction". I resent the implication and consider it a mild form of cyber-stalking since it's not the first time he went looking through my off-site activities. In any case, Antelan is wrong. A review of my contributions easily demonstrates I am not a point of view editor. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In retrospect, though, what the hell does it matter? -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Even if there were a COI potential problem of mine or of yours, it would have to show in POV editing. Since this has not been shown of either of us, it wouldn't matter if we owned those other websites or were -GASP- even Spiritualists like Tom Butler. As shown by the finding in the previous Paranormal ArbCom, the Arbitrators have a nuanced, moderate, and rational view of these things. —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You say, even if there were a COI potential problem. Do you believe that you do not have a COI? Ante lan ^talk 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

@Martinphi - I don't even care about all of that. It upsets me that accusations can be made and I have to bury my response that sets it straight. Again, the alleged promotion of the paranormal POV and my association with Martinphi at the off-wiki site consists of these contributions [13]. I never once interacted with Martinphi nor made any comment about the paranormal, pro or negative. End of story. It's stupid. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You didn't have to bury it. Cull all the words you can, and put it in evidence. But since Antelan's evidence isn't damaging, why bother? —— Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

At least now it's accurate. It's still misleading, like I share some point of view because I assisted in setting up the site, but at least it is factually correct. Except for the "faction" part. If Martinphi has a "faction", I'm not in it. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 05:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

There are no 'factions' on wikipedia, so you are, strictly, correct. By all other measures, including your relentless defense of his behavior, however, I must disagree. Ante lan ^talk 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Recommending counseling or probation in lieu of extreme (and hypocritical) sanctions like banning is not "relentless defense". I'm adding myself to the arbitration. If you have a problem with my editing, add evidence or stop making unsupported accusations. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure that you can directly add yourself to the arbitration after it has already been accepted per se, although perhaps you can and at the very least you can become a party to it. Supporting my "accusations," as you know, is simply a matter of gathering diffs. You're not doing anything wrong by supporting him; I just find it to be noteworthy as it pertains to his case. Ante lan ^talk 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No what is noteworthy is that you are consistently mistaken. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Diffs or it didn't happen. If I'm mistaken, I need to change. Ante lan ^talk 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• [14] - wrong, never worked with him. [15]
• [16] - wrong, never said anything about the paranormal. [17]
• [18] - wrong, no demonstrable association, no defense of his behavior, no "implicit approval".
• [19] - wrong, I hardly ever comment about his behavior at all, much less defend it relentlessly.
• [20] - and finally, wrong, I posted two remedies against him, that's hardly supporting him.

Five places you've been wrong just pertaining to my involvement. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In response to your 5 3 points, in order:

1. You both worked on Open Source Science, a website that aims to be an alternative to scientifically accepted peer-reviewed scientific journals. You set up the site, while Martinphi contributes content. Your argument is hairsplitting over the meaning of "worked with". It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
2. As you well know, you are citing a diff which has not reflect the current wording of my statement (which I changed 4 days before you cited the outdated diff). Your point was moot at the time of its writing.
3. Throughout the summer of 2007, you defended Martinphi. If diffs will be relevant to the arbitration, I can provide them. If this is simply axe-grinding, then citing diffs won't be useful and I won't waste my time on this tangential aspect.
4. This is not a distinct point vis-a-vis point #3.
5. Likewise, this is not distinct from point #3. As you know, defending someone can include things such as plea-bargaining, in which one might advocate counseling, partial bans, etc.

Ante lan ^talk 06:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Again, wrong, because you insinuate that "being there" makes me a part of Martinphi's "faction". Michael Shermer, a leading skeptic, endorsed the website [21] which is a heck of a lot more than I've ever done in my puny contributions. Both him and Alcock (leading critic of parapsychology) have done interviews for the podcast. If actual contributions are just splitting hairs, by your logic, both Shermer and Alcock are also members of Martinphi's "faction".
2. Exactly, you were wrong and changed it.
3. Wrong. Throughout the summer of 2007, I often opposed Martinphi and you even agreed with me when I did disagree with him. If diffs will be relevant to the arbitration, I can provide them, but check the parapsychology talk pages and psychic surgery talk pages. I disagreed with Martinphi more than I agreed with him. He's the one who agreed with me often, not the other way around.
4. Point 3
5. I don't know anyone who considers lesser remedies that are still sanctions against someone as "relentlessly defending them". Again the logic is messed up. By this logic I am likewise defending ScienceApologist because I offered probation as a remedy for him instead of banning. I am not defending ScienceApologist either.

You are consistently wrong every time you make a comment about me in this arbitration. I don't even know what your point is anymore. Is it guilt by association? Because there is no association. Heck, the members of the Rational Skepticism project who follow Martinphi's every move spend more time "working" with him than I do. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have never said that "being there on OpenSourceScience" makes you a member of his "faction". I'm saying your on-wiki editing patterns and your defenses of Martinphi do. I want to establish that you are not a truly neutral party offering a middle path; like the rest of us, you have biases and affiliations. Your editing and proposed remedies reflect this. Ante lan ^talk 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is the first time you've actually mentioned any "on-wiki editing patterns" or actual editing on my part. If you have some diffs you'd like to discuss, I'd be more than happy to address them. I am very careful in my editing style to write neutrally in articles and provide quality information. As I've said before, show me a mistake and I'll be the first to correct it. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Neal accommodates Martinphi more than most other editors. However, he is also extremely careful and judicious in exactly what editorial ideas he supports. Sometimes he offers brilliant points of compromise. Sometimes he seems to bend over backwards to prove parity between the paranormal POV-pushers and those who oppose them. I view his attempt to paint me into a punitive corner as exactly that: he doesn't like to see the pendulum swing too far away from his (in my opinion, artificially created) "middle ground". If the arbitration were going the other way with lots of paranormal advocates clamboring for the censure or banning of myself, I'm sure he would be my advocate.

I don't agree with the sense of justice Neal seems to be advocating. It is, in fact, extremely condescending. It's almost as if he thinks he's better than every other person at Wikipedia. That kind of arrogance is upsetting, but it's not as bad as a lot of the baloney that is coming from Martinphi and Tom Butler.

ScienceApologist 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

My editorial ideas are pretty consistent: Keep it mainstream. I don't think I'm better than you. You're an intelligent guy -- probably smarter than I am. If you weren't so contentious with other editors, you wouldn't deserve probation. It's the how you go about it that I'm criticizing. I believe the way you go about things, and that you've been warned previously, warrants probation. That said, I likely would argue against a remedy that asked to ban you. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced by that comment. You have spent far more text against myself and in favor of Martinphi and don't seem to care one bit about his "how". It seems to me that you are simply interested in parity between the sides. I am convinced that Tom Butler's weird equal application of punishment suggestion is the result of your posturing. ScienceApologist 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

There's tons of stuff posted about Martinphi from other editors, what would I post that they haven't? -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, it looks like you are arguing in favor of some sort of parity justice. Despite proposing sanctions on me, you haven't supported any sanctions on Martinphi: in fact you argued for leniency with respect to him. You seem to think that just because other people are arguing that Martin is a disruptive editor, that should be good enough for you stay silent on the issue. Or worse, you explicitly connected your argument for giving me probation with the remedies proposed by others on Martin. That's the problem: you seem to have a sense of fair-play that causes you to treat Martin with kid gloves while damning me to hell simply because others are tired of Martin's activities. ScienceApologist 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have supported sanctions against Martinphi. I posted two of them myself. Recommending probation for you, a sort of "chill out" proposal, is hardly damning you to hell. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

SA, I suppose I would say the same thing if someone suggested a remedy like that for my actions. Your recent "What the hell is this?" post on the EVP discussion page [22] is just one example of your work. Posting like that while this process is underway shows an arrogance and disregard for your "opposition." Your way with words is too often argumentative and that has encouraged other skeptical editors to behave equally and I am sure it is intended to provoke other editors. There are numerous references to this effect throughout this process and in the Paranormal arbitration [23] and your previous action against Martinphi [24]

Of course I was not surprised for your "faction" to rally around you. I am mystified that Antelan is making such a fuss about what Martin and NealParr does off wiki, or whether or not NealParr is part of a faction including other editors who resist skeptical POV pushing. He seems to be saying that it is okay for institutionalized skepticism but not okay for "proponents" to cooperate. Once again, that is hypocritical.

Antelan, what is the point? Please explain why you are so offended and why it matters whether or not NealParr is involved. I will say from my viewpoint that he seems inclined to find his own path. Tom Butler 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a good question because I possibly haven't been clear. My point is to demonstrate that Nealparr is not actually blazing his own path, but instead is on the pro-Martinphi, pro-paranormal side of neutral. I want his statements to be interpreted by the administrators in that light. The rest of us, yourself included, have been pretty up-front about where we stand. Ante lan ^talk 02:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Up front on where I stand: I am not pro-paranormal. I am not anti-paranormal. I just know a lot about paranormal topics, got a lot books about it, liked watching X-files, so I participate in paranormal articles at Wikipedia. It is simply a mainstream viewpoint. I've read most of the books published on the subject for the last 20 years, from both skeptics and believers alike, and all of that doesn't make me pro-paranormal. In fact, honestly, it makes one at best agnostic and at worst apathetic on the topic. Both the skeptic and the believer arguments break down the further you look into them. In talk page discussions, that's where I'm coming from. In actual articles, I set all of that to the side and edit within Wikipedia guidelines and parameters to present useful information about the topic, suspending my own point of view of apathy as much as possible. I am not pro-paranormal.

I also oppose extremism and am a supporter of WP:MASTADONS, which is apparently confused as seeking parity, being inconsistent, or as showing support for the object of the angry mob. To that, I'd say that either inappropriate activity on the part of ScienceApologist happened or it didn't. Here it doesn't matter why I posted the evidence because none of the examples I posted actually involve me.

But your point is about affiliations and being pro-Martinphi. I am not pro-Martinphi, I just don't think he's as bad as you guys make him out to be. I am not anti-ScienceApologist. I just don't think he's squeaky-clean enough to be raising arbitrations based on civility. I don't think either of them needs to just go away. If both of them stopped being contentious, I'd be a happy editor. That's where I stand.

Reverse spotlight: Antelan, you're picking on me and contexting my comments because you think I support Martinphi. Do you support the contentious editing, sockpuppetry, and incivility of ScienceApologist? Because when you say you've been clear on where you stand, you haven't gone so far as to say you support SA in his problematic editing. I've said bad things about Martinphi. Do you have anything bad to say about ScienceApologist? -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

By asking me if I "have anything bad to say about ScienceApologist", you are again manifesting this search for parity between two unequal sides. Martinphi's editing has, in my opinion, shifted Wikipedia's description of pseudoscience-related articles to be "in favor of" rather than "neutral". Because my primary concern is the quality of the material presented by Wikipedia to the public (i.e., Mainspace), Martinphi has been my focus in this arbitration. If I had seen the same of any other editor, I would, equally, be raising my concerns about them. Ante lan ^talk 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That's BS. If you were just concerned about Martinphi's mainspace editing you wouldn't be talking about his "factions" and off-site activities, ie. you wouldn't have dropped my name in there. You guys keep talking about this "parity" thing. That too is BS. Wikidudeman, LuckieLouie, (forget the other's names), and yourself rarely involve yourself in incivility, edit warring, I don't think you guys sock-puppet, and you guys don't go around saying you're on Wikipedia to "combat pseudoscience" or "fight" for anything. ScienceApologist is a combat editor. Calling him on it is not about balancing the scales. It's about arbitration of combat activity. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Different discussion

I'm quite upset by Neal's behavior and his continued refusal to own up to his own prejudices and POVs. It really makes me question what his purpose is at this arbitration and indeed this encyclopedia. I submit that Neal is plainly opposed to the very idea of this arbitration, and he's especially sore that it was I who brought it about. I submit that Neal has a vendetta: basically one that doesn't want to see this festering conflict resolved. Instead Neal seems content to sit on a high horse of bemused "apathy" about the conflict in such an arrogantly supercilious fashion that it seems to me he's simply playing devil's advocate for his own enjoyment. If he was truly as apathetic as he claims to be, he wouldn't have posted anything at all. Well, this kind of rhetoric is an insidious form of gaming, pure and simple, and it is just as problematic when it comes to dispute resolution as a stick-in-the-mud or a flame-thrower because it detracts from the real issues and problems.

Neal seems to crave parity between my actions and Martinphi's even though the evidence clearly shows Martin to be a more disruptive editor. Out of literally thousands of my edits, Neal finds three diffs he thinks are uncivil, unrelated to Martinphi and the other named parties in this arbitration (which I have, by the way, discussed at some length on the Workshop page, and I continue to maintain are not examples of incivility). Why? It seems to me that Neal is on a crusade: content and context of individual editor's actions and the relevance to this case are simply ignored so that Neal can proclaim his apathetic stance while throwing a wrench in the whole operation. Neal seems to delight in the idea that he might stick it to the people who are trying to resolve the conflict. They have blood on their hands, in Neal's eyes, and so he's going to make them taste their own medicine! Ha ha ha!

Neal, of course, makes his appeal to WP:MASTADON. It seems clear to me that he is trying to imply that everyone should be as apathetic as he is or they deserve to be placed under punishment. Neal seems to think that anyone who expresses a strong opinion about content is obviously being uncivil. Except for Martin, of course, who Neal believes is being unjustly crucified by pots calling kettles black. To this end, and to make sure he stays "apathetic" (which is not synonymous with neutral), Neal also refuses to admit that there is any evidence that Martinphi is damaging this encyclopedia. This despite the fact that one of the people opposing Martin in this arbitration went out of his way to give Martin a barnstar. Now if that's not saying something about how problematic Martin is, I don't know what Neal wants. I have actually posted zero in the way of evidence against Martinphi because I know he is problematic enough for others to show it.

ScienceApologist 17:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You at least had well-formed arguments before this tirade. Post evidence to support the above. That's why I did the courtesy of adding myself to the arbitration when I started pointing out Antelan's mistakes. If you feel I am a problematic editor in need of sanctions, post a finding, a remedy, and evidence to back it up. I will, however, comment on three things, the rest is just nonsense. One: I said I am apathetic on paranormal topics, not this dispute resolution. You twisted that into me somehow being apathetic on Wikipedia. Two: You said I don't want this "festering conflict resolved". I do. It'll be resolved when combative editors such as yourself are formally sanctioned. Three: The evidence I posted isn't all the evidence I have. Like you not posting about Martinphi because other editors are taking care of it, other editors are posting evidence about you and I don't have to post everything. If the Arbitration Committee needs more, I'll be happy to provide it, but there's already evidence of sock-puppetry, being incivil, warring with others, pov-crusading, what more is really necessary? Find all of that evidence on me and I'll gladly boot myself. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Your support of martinphi has been tacit and by default through your claimed apathy. However, now that you're directly confronted you've changed your tune and demanded that editors like me be "formally sanctioned". I guess you don't like the lamps being shined on you. The implications of this are obvious: editors who are like me in opposing the POV-pushing of the true believers in ESP and UFOs are somehow the problem and your apathy is the magnanimous solution. Perhaps if you could disabuse yourself of the notion that you are idyllic and perfectly WP:NPOV, you have a bit more credibility. As it is, you've put yourself in an exceedingly dangerous spot claiming not to have a POV is a contravention of the WP:NPOV policy itself. Moreover, you accuse me of all manner of sins: some of which are simply dumbfounding and others that have perfectly legitimate explanations if you took a moment to contact people involved or read the context of the evidence or the policies and guidelines you continue to falsely accuse myself of violating. It's no matter. The evidence does indeed "speak for itself" and I am confident that in the final analysis it is you who come up short. ScienceApologist 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Change in tune? Formally sanctioned through WP:PROBATION for Martinphi and ScienceApologist, if the arbitrators deem it is necessary. I've been saying that all along. Wiki-warring is the problem, not your point of view. I've been saying that all along as well. I didn't say I have a perfectly NPOV on paranormal articles. I said I have an agnostic to apathetic view of the subject that I set aside when I work on them. I don't accuse you of all manner of sins, just the ones that the evidence shows -- in the case of sock-puppetry, confirmed. Heck, just the fact that you sock-puppeted an account called Velikovskian after calling the point of view of other editors "Velikovskian" warrants probation. What's the perfectly legitimate explanation for that? If it's to "keep heated issues in one small area", why'd you continue personally attacking other users with that account, and continue on the same articles? The guideline even says "so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject". It was an attack account, not a defensive one.

Probation is by no means the end of the world. It is a call for you to stop all of that and continue productive editing. You do make quality edits on articles, and I've said that before. Why not just limit your Wikipedia activity to those?

If in the final analysis I come up short, there's a trick to it. The evidence shows that you are a problem editor and could be an excellent editor if the problematic activity is curbed, which is the reason they have probation. It shows that you've been warned previously and that probation is the next step after warning. I'm more than willing to just leave it up to the arbitrators. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps if ScienceApologist didn't have to go around cleaning up the mess left by others in the Mainspace, he could focus more on editing. The same is not true for Martinphi. Based on editing patterns, if there weren't mainstream-focused editors to keep Martinphi in check, Wikipedia would take on a decidedly more pro-pseudoscience stance. Ante lan ^talk 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Heck, just the fact that you sock-puppeted an account called Velikovskian after calling the point of view of other editors "Velikovskian" warrants probation. What's the perfectly legitimate explanation for that? According to Wikipedia policy: "A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article." Having an account that just edits Velikovsky articles with the name User:Velikovsky is an application of such policy, and judging by the leeches who have shown up at this arbitration irrelevant to paranormal article, I sorta wish that I could have a whole army of these things so that I wouldn't be so ridiculously hounded. By the way, what personal attacks are you referring to that supposedly were made with the account User:Velikovsky? The whole point naming it User:Velikovsky was to have an account that was clearly devoted to Velikovsky articles. When that account was active, there was no other account active that edited Velikovsky articles. Jesus, you don't so much assume bad faith as you basically make yourself look foolish. ScienceApologist 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I would question the notion that Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Keeping heated issues in one small area gives any editor a license to create a plethora of sockpuppets so they can violate WP:CIVIL more freely, attempting to conceal the true extent of their edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Neither does it give editors a license to lie about their sockpuppets, and neither does it give them a license to report other editors for harrassment for asking about them. Moreover, ScienceApologist, it does not seem to me that you did in fact use different sockpuppets each for a different "small area" - ALL your sockpuppets were used in the *same* area (fringe/unorthodox/pseudoscience) and they did not prevent "heated issues" from burning you: ironically, your editing is so recognizable for its unremittingly obstreporous style that it soon became obvious to the community, despite your lies and obfustication, that these various accounts were all your sockpuppets (hence the arrival of so many other editors at this ArbComm, whom you characterize as "leeches"). The clause of WP:SOCK you appeal to is designed to *prevent* disruption and allow an editor to make edits without having them viewed prejudicially in the light of what they've done with another account *in another unrelated area* (or vice versa). I contend that a your use of socks has actually caused MORE disruption and caused the community to show even MORE antipathy to your edits and contributions.-- feline1 16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No, that policy allows a user who isn't already participating in a topic to register an alternate account so that he/she can participate without jeopardizing their main account. The policy clearly states: "so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." The way you used it is to go after more pseudoscience articles (the same as you did with ScienceApologist), adding pseudoscience cat tags straight off, and then you went after User:Iantresman‎, an editor you already had conflict with as ScienceApologist. Whatever your personal problems with that user, it's a violation of policy. Like I said, I'm more than willing to let the arbitration committee decide if it was appropriate. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You, Neal, clearly do not know anything of the history of these issues and have now shoved your foot so far down your throat that I'm not sure you're going to be able to get it out. We are treading again on extremely sensitive ground (as witnessed by the reappearance of trolling by Feline) and I encourage you to e-mail me privately if you are interested in understanding where I am coming from. It is clear from the edit history that I was not editing with the ScienceApologist account while User:Velikovsky was active. Letting the arbitration committee decide is fine with me. ScienceApologist 17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

If you have private information to share with the arbitration committee, I respect that. The above is based on available information. I respect the arbcom's wisdom even if they don't agree that probation is in order. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

If my presenting evidence to an ArbComm and participating in its Workshop and Talk pages is "trolling", then may I respectfully suggesting that your own contributions are naught by a vivid & poignant modern renactment the old adage: "when you're in a hole, stop digging".-- feline1 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Another discussion

Tom, it is apparent to me that you have a lot of paranoia surrounding these issues. You seem convinced of factions and cabals acting to thwart your noble cause. You've kept and maintained attack pages about Wikipedia on your website in what looks increasingly like sour grapes for having to deal with people who disagree with you. I'm not exactly unsurprised by your rhetoric as I have had plenty of experience with pseudoscientific POV-pushers like yourself who seem to think similarly. I guess when you are in the position of fighting for legitimacy, the overwhelming dismissal by the mainstream might sometimes feel like a conspiracy that is personally directed against you. I assure you it isn't, Tom. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em. ScienceApologist 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No, paranoid is the editor who just accused another editor of being European, as if that is a curse. Disappointing is that no one called him on it. Wikipedia is a global initiative and there is no call for, nor reason for such "us and them" editing.

SA, I will admit that it is irritating to me to hear someone who uses the cover of "ScienceApologist" say something is impossible and therefore cannot exist (paraphrase I suppose), and say so with such disregard for other people or the good of the community. I have more respect for science than that. I do have a learned response that some skeptics will attempt by any means to destroy that which does not fit their limited worldview. I have come to expect that you in particular will use the facts as they suits you for this purpose and that if the evidence goes against you, you will resort to bullying to win the day. If that is paranoia, then yes, it is a learned thing. You calling me paranoid will not distract discerning editors from the fact that your abrasive editing habits are a large part of the problem here.

And about the article that so offends you [25]. It is all true and is intended to help others should they decide to edit. It is not an attack article unless you are the editor it is warning people about. Are you saying that it is politically incorrect to have an opinion? You certainly have one. Tom Butler 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Accusing someone of being European? What in the high holy hell are you talking about?
2. If something is possible then it may or may not exist. If it is impossible than it certainly doesn't exist. I'm not sure why this is so controversial.
3. I'm sorry that you've been conditioned into being paranoid. Hopefully you will learn to overcome it.
4. You are certainly welcome to have an opinion on anything you want. However, there is a code of conduct here that some may find is breached by your article that "is all true".

ScienceApologist 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, maybe that was an obscure reference. I am referring to Prosfilaes' comment about "...the habit of Europeans..." [26] His comments would seem to say that Europeans are not welcome here. Silence of others is too often assumed by the perpetrator to be tacit approval

I have not attacked Martinphi because, as I have said too many times now, I feel that he has been goaded into most of his actions. The three editors I said should be equally punished, should the admins decide to punish Martinphi as you so dearly wish, are the ones I see most guilty of the goading. It should not take a "scientist" to figure that out. It is my "paranoid" thought that, if the admins remove Martinphi, then you three will have your way with the EVP article. I do not think you can realistically expect me to think otherwise.

The tone of your posts is becoming more and more aggressive. Am I to feel intimidated? You are clearly attempting to insult me or intimidate me. Perhaps we should agree to stop addressing each other directly before this becomes an admin issue. Tom Butler 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

1. What Prosfilaes' statement has to do with my statements, I cannot begin to fathom.
2. I am happy you haven't "attacked" Martinphi as no one deserves "attacking". Again, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from on that front either. I would never expect you to "attack" your ally in paranormal POV-pushing.
3. I am not surprised that you are afraid that Martinphi's removal would upset your designs on the EVP article. You have made it abundantly clear that you have no qualms about wanting to see a promotional advert written for your obscure AAEVP group in place of an article that reports with fairness the lack of evidence for such a phenomenon. I could quote you the relevant policies and guidelines: WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, but you've seen them before and clearly have done some heavy midrash to the point of getting the exact opposite out them than was their intent.
4. I don't think you should feel intimidated at all. We are supposed to be writing a goddamn encyclopedia, not engaging in internet warfare.

ScienceApologist 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It wasn't about MartinPhi's nationality. It was about the irrelevant and provably false jab at Americans ("Creationism is the general consensus of the American people") in a way most common to Europeans. It may be a small minority of Europeans, but it's enough to make most Americans who visit unmoderated international forums very sensitive. But I noticed you didn't mention that, nor did MartinPhi see fit to reply to that.-- Prosfilaes 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, that is essentially true: 55% of Americans believe in Creationism... but not particularly relevant to the major issues being discussed here. Ante lan ^talk 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

55% is not a consensus, and that question asked was about humans, not evolution in general. The Creationism article cites a Science article--"the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%", which is the antithesis of consensus. The statement didn't need to be made, and MartinPhi hasn't made the simple claim that it wasn't intended as an anti-American slap.-- Prosfilaes 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you suggesting that humans occupy a unique niche that is distinct from "evolution in general"? Ante lan ^talk 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Bible gives the names of the first two humans and assigns them a unique status above the animals, and the people answering the questions are human (and want to be special). Some people are willing to accept that the animals evolved, but not humans. I had a biology teacher who was uncertain about human evolution, but solidly convinced about evolution in general. The question of human evolution and evolution of life are two somewhat-distinct survey questions, no matter what the science says. -- Prosfilaes 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It's always interesting to hear about others' beliefs. Thank you for discussing yours. Cheers, Ante lan ^talk 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That's funny, because I wasn't discussing my beliefs.-- Prosfilaes 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I was talking about this belief: The question of human evolution and evolution of life are two somewhat-distinct survey questions, no matter what the science says. Ante lan ^talk 01:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That's not a belief. It is a fact that they are literally distinct survey questions, and it is a disprovable assumption that they will produce distinct results when asked. As I said, in my experience, there are people who would answer yes to evolution and no to human evolution, and the other way is logically absurd, meaning there should few people to counterbalance that change.-- Prosfilaes 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that probably when you put the people who actually believe in creationism the way the fundamentalist churches teach it together with those who believe in guided evolution and other such concepts, that we probably have what one might call a general consensus for creationism in some form. Don't be so sensitive, Prosfilaes, I never meant to step on your own beliefs. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It is troubling that Martinphi's " utmost" effort does not include bothering to familiarize himself with the FA process before threatening to torpedo it. Ante lan ^talk 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. It was a mistake. Now show some good faith and stop hammering on it, why don't you? —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure that one purpose of this Arbitration is to hammer out what has happened. It wouldn't much make sense for me to stop highlighting problems that require resolution. This is one example of several over the course of months; it is not the whole picture, but it is illustrative. Ante lan ^talk 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Unlike some people here, I have both the ability to admit my mistakes and accept the rulings of the ArbCom. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Admitting your mistakes is a bit more involved than just saying, "Yup, I was wrong, now stop making such a big deal about it." It entails understanding why your actions are perceived as problematic, and ideally not repeating them. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a very consistent pattern:

1. edit inappropriately
2. get caught
3. claim ignorance
4. claim that you've mended your ways
5. demand acceptance

The problem is that you still edit in a troublesome fashion, despite the numerous times that this sequence has repeated itself. Ante lan ^talk 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Diffs or it didn't happen. If I'm mistaken, I need to change. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm glad my writing is so instructive for you. Ante lan ^talk 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, it was a perfect response. Thanks. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that I have to note the irony here. You scolded Martinphi for not including Diffs, but you don't include them yourself. Please just provide the diffs, 'kay. Let's not turn this into a who-said-what. perfectblue 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You can reference his RfC, for starters. Ante lan ^talk 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Using Word to do the counts, I find that Martinphi's evidence section is currently at 1825 words, which is way more than the 1000 word maximum. (I am including the part where he acts as a proxy for a banned user). Everyone else has managed to stay under the 1000 word limit. Cardamon 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply