Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Comments by uninvolved editors before the case was accepted

Comment by User:Nealparr

What ScienceApologist refers to as a personal attack on a WikiProject is nothing more than a parody. A parody is one of the most civil forms of criticism in civilization. I'd also like to see any pending arbitration stay on topic and not result in "How should Wikipedia handle paranormal topics" redux. One's enough. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Bubba73, Fyslee, Martinphi and others

This arbitration request isn't about paranormal topics. It's about civility. The paranormal articles here at Wikipedia are only the environment in which the activities the complaining parties are talking about occured. Whether those complaints of incivility have merit or not, it's not about the paranormal articles themselves. I personally think the parody banner in the original complaint wasn't uncivil. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:LuckyLouie

A look at the user's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows. One that stands out in particular is his rather lengthy disruption of the FA Talk page which included bizarre accusations of abuse of administrative powers. Recently I made the mistake of listing my suggestions for improving Electronic voice phenomena as a Good Article review . I wasn't aware that as a former editor, I could not formally review the article. Martin used this as a pretext to accuse me of "bias" and that all my "suggestions and editing have been biased". He also seems convinced that bias stems from being "part of the Rational Skepticism project which has as a goal to bring Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia.". I have honestly had my fill of Martin's bad behavior. I don't have the time or energy to resist such zealotry. If the community chooses to ignore his continued POV campaign, I will simply avoid articles in which he is involved...as many others have apparently decided to do. -- LuckyLouie 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I was asked to comment here by ScienceApologist. As I mentioned in the previous ArbCom case on the subject, I believe that Martinphi's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a warrior first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. His approach throughout that ArbCom was to minimize his violations, and he clearly came away with the message that "...the Arbitrators have confirmed my understanding of NPOV in the paranormal articles. You need to accept this." I felt then that the case, which was very broad, didn't adequately take into account Martin's behavior. I still feel that way.

Martinphi has taken the ArbCom case as a complete vindication; he continues his old tactics, but now buttresses them with edit summaries such as "Rv per ArbCom". In fact, he maintains a page of edit summaries citing the ArbCom case, for use in content disputes. The FA page disruption cited by LuckyLouie is another indication that there's a problem here which wasn't dealt with in the previous ArbCom. To me, the bottom line is that this Martinphi views Wikipedia as a battleground first and foremost; this informs his approach to editing; and he has taken the prior ArbCom ruling as a vindication of his approach, which I think is a serious problem. I would strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case as unfinished business from the previous ruling, looking specifically at the behavior of Martinphi and any other user whom the Committee believes should be scrutinized, myself included. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Profg

A look at ScienceApologist's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing, violating the spirit and letter of consensus, civility, and no personal attacks. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows. I believe that ScienceApologist's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a POV-warrior first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. As such, his RfA should be viewed in that light. --profg ^Talk 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had run-ins with 'ScienceApologist' in the past too. I find him to be unremittingly obstreporous and prone to wikilaywering. He appears to regard swathes of other editors as "opponents" and his style nearly always seems to result in unnecessary acrimony. He apparently gave up editing for a few months recently, but luckily another editor called User:Nondistinguished stepped in to fill the breach. However, that fellow seemed to give up when he lost several nominations for deletion, and a short while later, ScienceApologist returned...--feline1 09:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit! I now see "Nondistinguished"'s user page is tagged with an indefinate block for being a sockpuppet of Science Aplogist. ScienceApologist repeatedly denied to me that "Nondistinguished" was him, and indeed referred me to an admin for "harrassment" for raising the issue! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Feline1#Stop%20harassing%20me ) Classic! :) --feline1 09:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Profg by uninvolved Fyslee

This is a very bad time to make a POINT violation and is an omen of bad things coming from this user. AGF can only be stretched so far. I suggest that profg remove the comment and come up with something original and constructive. Having done so, profg is also welcome to remove my comment at that time. -- Fyslee / talk 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bubba73

I have read the above and I am familiar with this user's history. I support and agree with the statements of ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, MastCell, and Fyslee. Bubba73 (talk), 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - and WikiDudeman and Raul654. Bubba73 (talk), 04:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth (if anything) User:Profg was blocked and then he was unblocked, but very restricted in his editing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jim62sch

While my exposure to MartinPhi has been somewhat less than my exposure to others of his ilk, I've had sufficient exposure to know that Wikidudeman has hit the nail on the head with his synopsis of MartinPhi's activities. That Profg has come to MartinPhi's defense is hardly surprising, given that they are cut from the samed ragged cloth. (Of course, Profg is busily wikistalking a few people, thus explaining more definitively his involvement here, and his defense of MartinPhi should be rejected by same in the manner that one would swat away a particularly nettlesome fly).

In any case, the RFA should be accepted by Arbcom as MartinPhi has worn out the community's patience with his POV warrior behaviour, his tendentious editing, and his use of sockpuppets. •Jim62sch• 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Orangemarlin

My exposure to MartinPhi has also been fairly limited. But Wikidudeman, MastCell and others here have laid out a series of issues with regards to the MartinPhi regarding his behavior. These set of edits exhibit his tendentious editing attitude and plain disregard of WP:NPOV. His agenda is to attack what is supported by reliable sources and place his own opinion into the article. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Moreschi

Not especially involved here, but I was unimpressed by Martinphi's editing at Talk:Radionics, where he poured oil on the fires for no good reason. IMO he's quite clearly pushing an agenda, and also has a lengthy record of tendentious editing and sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi. Others above have confirmed my dim view of this editor. I'd urge ArbCom to accept the case, and then promptly ban Martinphi for a year. Moreschi ^Talk 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by JoshuaZ

Martinphi says in part in reference to his previous RfAr. that "the Arbitrators took the most essential points from my essay (the one deleted as POV from my userspace), and incorporated them into the decision". I think that any arbitrator will be able to glance over the decision and his essay and see that that statement at best indicates a deep misunderstanding of the previous arbitration. In some ways this demonstrates the depth of the problem with MartinPhi- even when the ArbCom doesn't seem to agree with him he sees things like they. JoshuaZ 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Michaelbusch

I concur with Apologist and the statements re. the previous RfAr. I've been involved with Martinphi in several editing disputes (e.g. Crop circle and telepathy), and find that he is unwilling to accept the scientific consensus in many areas. He may attempt to justify his actions by invoking WP:NPOV, but NPOV doesn't mean we should grant psuedoscience false appearance of legitimacy, and the ArbCom decision on Psuedoscience states that Wikipedia will adhere to current scientific understanding. Martinphi is apparently unwilling to accept that, and, as Apologist correctly notes, has not been gracious about it, to say the least. Michaelbusch 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Butler

I am very impressed at how quickly the skeptical community was able to rally at ScienceApologist's side. I have not followed Martinphi's edits in other than EVP, but I think the edit that apparently triggered this was when Martinphi undid SA's unilateral editing of the EVP article [1]. This is an old battle between skeptical dictionary advocates and people who think paranormal subjects should be accurately described. All of the conflicts have had the same group of skeptics involved, especially ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, and of late, Wikidudeman.

This is simply a tactic to eliminate a competing editor. Since Martinphi is so greatly outnumbered by skeptical editors, he is sometimes given no choice but to be aggressive. Removing him will only give the field over to those who think anything paranormal must be shown as fiction no matter what the evidence. Tom Butler 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Wikidudeman

But you cannot ignore the fact that the complainants are the same people in every other complaint about things paranormal and people who edit them. They are the same people who are virtually always applying terms such as pseudoscience and who attempt to fill articles with caveats designed to show the reader that anything paranormal is fiction because it is impossible. As noted above ScienceApologist just did that in on the EVP page a few days ago--again. That is the point exactly. Martinphi is just the most successful editor resisting the point of view pushing. Tom Butler 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by davkal

I note from the above that many of the main protagonists from one side of the recent paranormal arbcom are simply restating the same tired old accusations against martinphi. What should be noted, all that really needs to be noted, is that with regard to virtually every specific point about martinphi's basis for editing, the arbcom found in his favour. That is, for the best part of a year martinphi stood firm against regular abuse and threats, from editors and admin alike, and maintained that his interpretation of wiki policy was the correct one. The paranormal arbcom pretty much vindicated every aspect of his stance. It is therefore extraordinary, to my mind anyway, that those same editors should simply lie low for a few months and then start exactly the same debate again as if that arbcom never happened.

As regards the current (non)reason for this request for arbitration: the "Really RationalSkeptcism" project template. If there isn't such a project then there should be, and if there is, where do I sign up. The failure of those members of the current RationalSkepticism project either to agree with, or even understand, what exactly happened in the recent paranormal arbcom, and why, tells one all one needs to know about why such a project is essential. Davkal 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Wikidudeman's comments by davkal

In his summing up on the main page, Wikidudeman says:

"This user is highly disruptive, pushes POVs at all costs, shuns long held wikipedia policies such as AGF, POINT as well as many others."

And here is what Wikidudeman had to say to Martin less than one month previously:

"I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"

Davkal 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Northmeister

As a recently involved editor at EVP, whereas I mediated between Martinphi and Wikidudeman, I can attest that Martinphi has been gracious, understanding, willing to uphold Arbcom decisions, supporting consensus editing and all that makes editing Wikipedia good. Unfortunately I've also noticed due to my recent intervention at EVP a sorry history of dispute involving editors that are members of the RationalSkeptics project. They've made it there personal goal to change articles on the paranormal in a manner that the previous Arbcom case decided was wrong. As a genuine skeptic myself - this is disappointing.

This decision caused the present dispute:

Adequate framing 6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Arbcom is clear here. If an article is framed then the reader will understand the context and words like 'claimed' and such need not be used. The present dispute seems to derive from an edit made by ScieneApologist in which he clearly violated the Arbcom decision and used such a violation in order to cause a dispute with Martinphi. Which, probably feeling with all the past goading I've seen from the RationalSkeptic's here of this user obviously caused disruption to occur again. This time Martinphi doing his duty as a good wikipedian should, upholding an Arbcom decision made that another user was not following.

I've also seen a similar disregard for the spirit of the previous decision from Wikidudeman, who earnestly desires to be an administrator; but has acted not much in the vain of one. In my previous stated attempts to work out compromise between the two parties at EVP, on several occasions Wikidudeman refused to engage in real discussion; it was only after repeated prompting by myself that he finally did so. This behavior is disturbing; and I could fully understand the frustration Martinphi must feel in dealing with those who refuse to abide by Arbcom rulings.

I think the problem lies here with the RationalSkeptics project and their editing patterns with paranormal articles, which they wish to dominate and change in a manner that gets the Paranormal editors upset obviously. Their manner of change was the subject of the previous Arbcom and the previous Arbcom rejected their methods. Repeatedly since, they, including ScienceApologist and Wikidudeman have tried to skirt the decision - violating directly and indirectly the decision. I feel as an out-side observer to all this - that the best remedy would be a block on editing from the RationalSkeptics project on any article framed as paranormal or generally accepted as a paranormal topic. This would quiet many of the disputes including the current one. Further to this, I would suggest Arbcom clarify that all articles so framed might be best to title with an (paranormal) to them in order to present to any reader that such said article is paranormal in nature and should be read as such. Last, that all said article have a healthy skeptics section that is well referenced, that compliments the article rather than dominating it as the RationalSkeptics editing patterns seem to be doing; which if unchecked would damage many articles across wikipedia and violate the spirit of WP:NPOV. I fear that if this present Arbcom does not address root cause of the previous case and this one, then there will be endless disputes in the future due to the Inquisitorial or Crusading nature of the "RationalSkeptics" against any topic related to the paranormal.

Lastly, I can not speak of the behavior of Martinphi outside of EVP, nor in the past; but I can certainly understand his frustration with those who have an active agenda with paranormal articles - an agenda opposed by Arbcom once. I can't speak either for Wikidudeman or ScienceApologist and why they feel a minor altercation at EVP would warrant a new Arbcom case. Nor can I speak for those who have left editing due to the nature of hostility now present at paranormal articles. What I can say, is that I am a open-minded skeptic of paranormal material and am ashamed of the tactics used by the RationalSkeptics and how they treat believers in the paranormal here. I fully understand as a skeptic, that paranormal articles will not be dominated by skeptical analysis and fully expect a healthy but pithy skeptics section to each article. I also fully understand that those who are active in the paranormal or have belief thereof, will edit such said articles. The RationalSkeptics project members who I've observed don't; and thus the endless disputes and goading of Martinphi. --Northmeister 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Related requests for clarification

Request extension of RFAR/Martinphi-ScienceApologist to deal with multiple article disruptions

There is an ongoing problem with articles covering fringe scientific topics. As seen in the above case request, fringe articles are clearly targeted by a determined group of editors interested in inflating the legitimacy of the topics and de-weighting the scientific or evidence-based view. It is part of the wikipedia way of doing things that neither admins, nor arbcom, can make content rulings. Admins could be given more advanced tools for dealing with disruption, though.

Two prior cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, dealt with narrow topics and resulted in bans for a few single-purpose editors and "cautions" to ScienceApologist. As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, Martinphi is placed on probation and ScienceApologist on civility parole, but these remedies do not begin to address the broad range of disruptive behavior and continual disruption at multiple articles. There have been multiple complaints filed against ScienceApologist, mostly groundless or incredibly minor, by editors seemingly more interested in getting rid of him than editing collaboratively, and ScienceApologist has unfortunately taken the bait more than once and responded in an inappropriate manner. There has also been edit warring on multiple articles, and at least two three disputed articles are currently protected.

I believe that a broad article probation covering the entire topic is needed to give admins the tools to deal with this long-running battle. I propose giving admins discretion to ban individual editors from pages they edit disruptively, for the short or long term, enforceable by blocking, and/or to place editors on revert limitation. Because the three previous cases have resulted in only probation for one editor and civility parole for a second, out of a large group of interested editors, has not given administrators an effective means of dealing with this long-term problem area. Thatcher 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please propose specific language for a motion that potentially affected editors and the committee can review. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to use the ultra-broad general sanctions imposed at Israel-Palestine, but 1RR and page bans are needed to impose some sort of order here. Thatcher 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

May I comment here? Anthon01 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, general discussion is permitted. Thatcher 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments here are encouraged. To be most helpful, they should deal with how problems on these articles can be minimized going forward so that accurate, NPOV articles will be written and a harmonious editing environment maintained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all recognize that Homeopathy is a controversial science, but pseudoscience is a pejorative that seems to be part of the problem here. Because what we need to move forward is an environment where editors treat one another with respect and let the sources speak for us in the article space. —Whig (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: If the definition of Pseudoscience applies to Homeopathy, then WP:SPADE. This type of useage is not inappropriately pejorative. (See also List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition does not fit in my opinion, but without bringing content issues here, that list is clearly NPOV disputed, and the ArbCom has spoken on this issue before. By their definitions, I believe Homeopathy qualifies as an alternative theoretical formulation, but certainly not obvious pseudoscience. —Whig (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's a problem. Thatcher 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more conservative when stating what "we can all recognize" or agree upon. I certainly don't agree that Homeopathy is not pseudoscience (it is rightly included in Category:Pseudoscience), nor do I agree that the term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative - and apparently neither does the Arbitration Committee. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what I said, I think we can all agree that it is controversial. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to use the ultra-broad general sanctions imposed at Israel-Palestine - Thatcher, what are those sanctions? Perhaps some of them would be appropriate here. Fwiw, I generally support your motion. Dlabtot (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, here is the link to the Palestine-Israel sanctions. Thatcher 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thatcher, if you read past the rhethoric and look at the actual page disruptions, especially the ones that lead to a page being locked, you'll find that only one or two editors cause it while everyone else is participating on the talk page, acting civily and with respect for each other, trying to reach consensus despite individual differences in viewpoint. There really are only a handful of editors (less than five) who don't care about that process and just want their way, wiki-process be damned. The rhetoric you read from them centers around their view that the wiki-process of trying to develop consensus needs to be changed because they feel it is broken, when surprisingly this system seems to work for everyone else but them. The system isn't broke, just some editors don't care about it. Check the logs on the two articles you used as examples and see who caused the pages to be locked, and why. In both cases it's because they (admittedly) didn't care about the consensus-building process. They're the same ones that are saying massive reform needs to take place. While they're busy disrupting pages and saying Wikipedia is broken, everyone else is on the talk page trying to address actual problems. Please don't confuse their view as a correct assessment of the problem when they're the ones that are acting like WP:MASTADONS. Everyone else seems to be able to get along just fine. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know to whom you are referring and perhaps it is best if you don't name names. Maybe. The point is that aside from a few single purpose accounts that have been banned for significant problems (Like User:Richard Malter and User:Asmodeus), three arbitration cases have not either resolved the problems of these articles or given admins tools to resolve them. Unless you can convince the Arbitrators to open a case against the 4 or 5 specific editors you are thinking of, the ability to levy page bans and 1RR limitation should allow admins to get these disputes under control. And if you are correct, then only those 4 or 5 editors will be affected. Thatcher 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would never dream of filing an arbitration case against the 4 or 5 mastadon editors who are actually disruptive, even if I wanted to, when vexatious complaints are considered part of the problem and any admin can ban me for it. As I'm sure you know, misreadings and misinterpretations are common at Wikipedia. I was just pointing out that there are far more editors willing to work together on these articles than those who don't, and that the handful of mastadons are the real problem. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The range of articles covered by Thatcher's proposal is remarkably broad. Of course, I've often agitated for something similar, so I can't argue with it. I'd only say that admin discretion is paramount: these articles are frequented by single-purpose agenda-driven accounts which edit-war, edit tendentiously, etc. These sanctions should not hit editors who have to deal with such accounts, but they run the risk of being used in such a manner. That said, provided there's some standard recourse for review of sanctions (via WP:AN/I and/or ArbCom), I would find myself hard-pressed to disagree with Thatcher on this. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • Odd you mention that, because it's exactly what led to this whole flareup. I can't mention names for fear of being sanctioned, but one editor that is a self-admitted agenda-driven editor had sanctions placed against him after two arbitrations where he was found to be consistently uncivil. He calls some people some names, someone complains, and the editor gets blocked. A few days after he is unblocked he edit wars against RfC consensus, someone complains, he gets blocked again, and two articles get locked down because of his massive edits that resulted in edit warring. A few days after that he is uncivil again and gets blocked again. In the wake of all this, a bunch of supporting editors say he's being "provoked" (though no one talked to him before the edits) and say that none of this is actually his fault but rather vexatious litigation. These editors are all riled up and calling for better tools to stop editors from "picking on him" (some of these people are admins). Look, I usually get along with the editor, and don't have a problem with him except when he's gone all angry mastadon, but sometimes we do disagree. How am I not supposed to be afraid of admins running around with banning powers on anyone they feel is disruptive?, some of whom clearly want to "avenge" him. It's just one editor who started this whole thing, while acting like your typical, angry, agenda-driven editor. Everyone else was mostly getting along. (Note: I didn't mention names and tried to be as civil as I could and still explain the situation the way it happened; please don't ban me). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why make the pretense of not naming names when you've done all but that? Although he cannot respond here due to his block, I've notified the ostensibly innominate user. Please, if a discussion like this ever comes up about me (even if not by name) at a place like this, extend me the same courtesy. Antelan ^talk 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had thought to I would have, but it's not like he can be sanctioned for anything I'm saying. He hasn't done anything new. My point is that these are broad ranging sanctions that could be misused, especially considering the exact circumstances involved that we're apparently not supposed to talk about because it's considered picking on someone. I don't understand any of this, quite frankly, because it focuses on possible future disruptions from a broad range of editors, when there's logs that show the locus of the dispute already in a small handful of editors. The locus is in editors who see Wikipedia as a battleground, not normal editors who get along and participate in normal content disputes. He knows how I feel about it, that I don't want him sanctioned further, and that I'd just like to see him stop being contentious. I'll send him a note. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, if arbitration members feel it is a necessary addition to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case to impose sanctions on a broad number of editors to prevent disruption, it's not that bad of a proposal. The current wording needs to drop the "vexatious litigation" part in a bad way though, because that's the part that is going to cause even more headaches as it's too open to interpretation. The proposal is effectively saying the ArbCom is tired of hearing about disruptions on these articles and is going to empower admins to deal with it by providing blocking tools. However, no one actually involved in the dispute is allowed to ask for help in resolving the situation because it may be interpreted as "solely to harass or subdue an adversary", in which case you'll be blocked too. Instead the only way to resolve the dispute is to hope that an uninvolved administrator happens upon the dispute by chance, reads through all the discussions, understands what's going on, and sides with you. Otherwise, you could get blocked just for telling the administrator that a disruptive editor made two reverts instead of one, or that someone called you a name. It happens. Busy admins don't always know what's going on and can interpret your good faith complaint in a bad way. I personally don't think that editors who try to work well with others, and don't see Wikipedia as a battleground, should be sanctioned and limited in what they can do here, but that's just my take on the subject. I am fully convinced, though, that imposing restrictions on what someone can complain about is just going to lead to more headaches. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• So then, do you think that there should be no sanction for vexatious litigation? That someone should be able to bring repeated frivolous actions until they wear down their opposite number? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On one hand people are saying there's serious problems in these articles that to led to massive disruptions, and that editors should reign themselves in and follow normal dispute resolution processes. Then they say complaining is frivilous. The two views aren't compatible. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they are compatible. Nobody is saying that complaining is frivolous. Frivolous complaints are frivolous. If someone is both litigious and can't tell the difference between frivolous and serious problems, they will quickly discover the difference. This isn't all that different from Wikipedia under normal conditions. Antelan ^talk 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied below. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented) If I may, here are two diffs the underscore the problem we are having with moving forward on many of these pages.[2] [3] I am not certain that admin tools alone will solve this problem. Regardless of the merits, I suspect admins, in good faith, could be found who would support both sides of these discussions. There are also admins, who in good faith, believe that discouraging "minority or fringe views" are more important than civility. Because of that, I am concern about the misuse of additional tools against editors who support the inclusion of RS/V minority views on fringe topics. Anthon01 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a valid point - it illustrates the fact that the Quackwatch article is being disrupted, as it has been for years, by voceferous opponents of mainstream medicine and Stephen Barrett, and that this is winding up those who are here to write an encyclopaedia rather than serve an agenda. So much so that several people believe you, Anthon01, to be Anthony Zaffuto, and thus almost certainly an unacceptable party on that page per the restrictions and ban on Ilena Rosenthal. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have made my point exactly. Here is an admin who has it in for me. IMO, he has it in for me because is certain situations I have opposed SA. It is probable that in most situations I would agree with SA. However in these cases it isn't so. Like SAs current attempt to purge wikipedia of most mention of homeopathy. Guy has admitted himself he has a prejudice against non-mainstream writers. What do I do about that? I see pattern with your accusations. They are baseless and diffless. Why don't you prove it! When are going to stop your baseless and diffless accusations? Anthon01 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the content or merits, Guy is baselessly accusing and attacking me personally. Is there a remedy for admin abuse? Anthon01 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made a claim. Who are the several people? Isn't there a policy against revealing personal information "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: ... * disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). Where do I address this issue? Anthon01 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume Guy was referring to this discussion of you on the Administrator's noticeboard, but Guy can correct me if I'm wrong. Antelan ^talk 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two questions here: (1) How can you reliably distinguish single-purpose and argumentative-but-new editors from new editors? To be frank, I don't trust the judgment of some administrators involved in this area when they label some editors as SPAs and trolls. (2) Under these sort of restrictions, what would have happened to User:MatthewHoffman? Would he have been indefinitely blocked? Should indefinite blocks be handed out as liberally as they are? (I see the provision here says that the blocks should be escalating - a point I wholeheartedly agree with). OK, that was more than two questions, but I don't want to see editors who participate constructively on talk pages banned merely because they argue for the wrong weight in an article. They can be wrong without being disruptive. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the committee finds the inclusion of "vexatious litigation" to be a problem they can remove it. As anyone can see from the recent discussion of Martinphi at WP:AE, while I agree that Martinphi's current probation could allow him to be banned from pages like RFC and RFAR for making disruptive complaints, I would be very reluctant to actually do so. In response to Carcharoth, probations are usually enforced incrementally. If this expanded authority were passed, I would unprotect Homeopathy and WTBDWK and place all editors on 1 revert per week limit, while encouraging talk page discussion. The next step would be bans from the article while continuing to allow use of the talk page. Actual bans from talk space are very rare, even under Arbitration, and should obviously be used with caution. In the case of MatthewHoffman, if he was found to be disruptive, the sanction would call for an article ban, not a total ban, and he could appeal as indicated. Thatcher 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Are there restrictions on what other admins can do and how this interacts with other processes? For instance, what is admins disgreed on what to do and one of them carried out an indefinite block for reasons related to that article, or if a community discussion based on behaviour at that article ended up with a complete ban of a particular editor? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the terms of the remedy, a user would have to have been banned from some articles and/or violated a 1RR limit and been blocked at least 5 times before we started talking about an indefinite ban under the remedy. Arbitration remedies do not supersede ordinary admin action but are meant to give admins more tools; they do not immunize the editor from ordinary and normal discretionary actions. Suppose an editor was placed on 1RR for all pseudoscience articles, and later edit wars on an unrelated article; he could blocked for edit warring with or without violating 3RR at any admin's discretion like any other editor can be. Likewise the community can discuss and implement a community ban for someone even without that editor having reached his sixth blocking offense under the remedy, such discussion to be subject to the usual rules for such things. Thatcher 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support wholeheartedly these new restrictions. I think we have been too accommodating so far and that has not resolved much. These articles can and should be able to achieve NPOV and stability if the opposing parties would allow/encourage wider participation. I attempted offer help at the Quackwatch article and some other articles, but iy is extremely tedious and after a while whatever gains are made, are lost again in the never ending disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the ""vexatious litigation" item, though. Users need to have a way to alert admins and others without the fear that if they do, they will get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your (and Nealparr's) concern. But the history of the present case shows that vexatious litigation has been an ongoing problem with these users. I'd rather leave this in and have it be applied with the same judgment and common sense we must use in any other administrative provision. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing problem? Let's look at that. Vexatious litigation is a "frivilous" complaint meant solely to remove an opponent, and here that's being defined as a disruption worthy of blocking. That's odd, because the whole purpose of the arbitration committee, and the arbitration enforcement page, is for people to come and complain about their opponent civily and seek remedy, presumably to have that opponent sanctioned for their actions. Again, calling that frivilous is incompatible with also treating dispute resolution seriously. This proposal criminalizes normal dispute resolution processes, with the possibility of blocking, and instead leaves the interpretation of what's frivilous up to any random admin. I have a problem with that. Namely because I was the one who pointed out that ScienceApologist has a history of being incivil in this very arbitration. I posted diffs stating that he was warned for incivility before, and then posted diffs showing that he continued doing so. In the arbitration I was accused by other editors, I think even an admin, of doing all of that just to support Martinphi. By this definition and remedy, apparently I was being frivilous and should be blocked because at least one admin thought I was frivilous. What common sense is there in that? The dispute resolution process is supposed to be about showing evidence of problems in opponents. It's probably for that reason that vexation litigation isn't in WP:DE, WP:DR, WP:HARASS or any other guideline that I'm aware of. When you have what you feel is a legitimate complaint you're supposed to take it to an authority who can help you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the vexatious litigation clause were left in, it would be subject to the same admin discretion as the other remedies, plus could be appealable. Plus. if someone who had cried wolf too many times then had a legit complaint, he could ask and admin to review it and, if legit, the admin could temporarily lift the restriction. I'd rather not have to write that level of detail into a remedy that should be interpretable with common sense, but maybe it should be specified. Eh. Thatcher 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would probably help if you established a basis for including it first before adding detail on how to interpret it. So far I've only seen people file complaints for what they believe are legitimate complaints. It's not been established that any complaint has been raised in bad faith. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand it's hard to keep up with everything, but for what it's worth, several notices have been filed here, at ArbEnforcement, on the Admin Noticeboard, and elsewhere. I think there's a reasonable basis for this vexatious litigation element, and I'd be willing to go through the effort of compiling links to different filings if you haven't seen them. That said, I am OK with whatever, if anything, the Arbitrators decide. Antelan ^talk 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A list doesn't demonstrate bad faith is my point. All the filings against ScienceApologist could be in the list, his filings against Martinphi could be as well, it could include filings that I'm not aware of, and the list would still not demonstrate that the intent was anything other than to resolve what they felt was legitimate disruptive editing. Filing complaints is not bad faith, nor is it disruptive (as this proposal suggests) especially when everywhere you turn it's what's encouraged instead of being disruptive. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "vexatious litigation" a self-correcting problem? Because anyone who brings (for example) a request for arbitration, becomes subject to that arbitration... I'd also like to note that this whole matter of "vexatious litigation" really seems to be a veiled reference to Martinphi's request above - which is in its essence, no different from the one we are commenting on here, except that it was brought by an involved party, and was therefore couched in more one-sided terms. Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the built-in self-correcting mechanism, don't admin already have tools to deal with vexing complaints? Anthon01 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors can show us something which they considered to be vexatious litigation against ScienceApologist or Martinphi and explained to us exactly why they feel this way. Right now, I don't know how admins could draw the line if we as a community don't identify exactly where that line lies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. We weren't born yesterday. This was pointed out in the latest of many postings to the ArbCom enforcement page, and you were involved in that discussion. This situation is characterised by entrenched positions. There are more editors pushing the pseudo / fringe POV on most of those articles, and the pro-mainstream POV is a lot closer to NPOV. No attempt has been made by either party to work with the other, and there is a constant attempt by the pseudo and fringe side to continually redraw a new average between the current article content and their POV, a creeping fallacy of false middle. The repeated postings to the arbcom enforcement page are as close to harassment as makes no difference, and it needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That didn't even come near to answering my question. What I am looking for is an example of what editors considered to be vexatious litigation against ScienceApologist or Martinphi and an explanation. What I am not looking for is hostility. You talk about parties coming together to work, but all I see to get from you is grief. All the time. Again, all I was asking for is an example and an explanation. Just provide a link and a rationale. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your inability to see the problem speaks volumes. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And your hostility speaks tomes. All I am asking for is a simple example so I know what is meant by vexatious litigation. Again, all I am getting is grief from you. Please check your attitude. Now then, you say that you dealt with "vexatious litigation" recently in an ArbCom enforcement in which I was involved. Can you please point me to it because I don't recall such a thing? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I am hostile to people who are trying to leverage an ArbCom finding into a ban on one of the few people on this project with the determination and knowledge to resist the blatant abuse perpetrated by fans of the paranormal. In fact, if it were left to me, I would simply ban such people from all articles on these topics, as they consistently show a complete inability to follow policy. SA is more patient than that. But he can still be provoked, and the repeated vexatious abuse of process against him is one of the ways he is being provoked. Solution: stop doing it, and start working with him and throwing your weight behind policy. Unless you, too, are unable to resist the temptation to rewrite articles in the pretence that supposed paranormal powers have any kind of objective reality. You could start by helping us rid the project of Ilena's meatpuppet Anthon01, whose actions on and around Quackwatch are in clear defiance of the ban on Ilena and whose tendentious editing is becoming increasingly blatant. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite telling when he receives awards and is encouraged and enabled in his disruptive behavior, spamming pages, tendentitious argumentation, etc.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More abuse from Guy and still no answer to my simple question. In my defense, I am not doing what you characterize as doing - "blatant abuse perpetrated by fans of the paranormal". Nor am I a "fan of the paranormal". I don't understand why you are so abusive to me and how you are able to get away with such incivility. In your tirade above, please note that you tell me to stop doing it and by it you mean "repeated vexatious abuse of process against him (ScienceApologist). Yet still, you don't provide me with any examples of what you (or Wikipedia as a whole) consider to be "vexatious litigation" against SA. Now, you are accusing me of such behavior and I am afraid that I must insist on evidence. Finally, I don't know if Anthon01 is a meatpuppet as you have accused him, but unless you have uncontroversial evidence of such, I don't think it is proper of you to levy such an accusation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should take a moment of reflection here - there are people who are compensated to cast doubt on modern science - they are professional PR individuals. There are no individuals compensated to set the record straight - those people are required to be volunteers who love knowledge. This is a real and substantial problem, and it resonates throughout this project. The difference between the two is obvious and readily transparent. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a pure volunteer myself, it could easily be viewed in the opposite way, with a strong financial interest of pharmaceutical interests versus alternative medicine practices that rely on no patented methods. I think there are a wide mix of editors from every perspective, and assuming good faith is the best policy. —Whig (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); [4]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

MartinPhi has begun editing WP:CIVIL in ways that make it more strongly prejudicial to his opponents. He mentions ScienceApologist as one of the users he wants it to come down more strongly on:

“ Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility ”

The bolding is Martinphi's, and for anyone with even a passing knowledge of MartinPhi-ScienceApologist, it's obvious who he's referring to in that sentence.

See also [5] (wants certain words to be "actionable" in themselves.) [6] List of his highly-biased examples of presumably actionable words, including, of all things, "POV-pusher"] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACivility&diff=207794751&oldid=207779327 (Argues against letting other people know editing of the page is ongoing, because people who are against his views might be brought in)

I have spoken to him on his talk page: [7] his response was to ask me:

“ Why didn't you ask ScienceApologist not to edit CIV? ”

ScienceApologist's only edits to WP:CIV were to revert Martinphi's POV pushing on that page, as far as I can tell, and thhe last one was over a week ago. Martinphi is still editing today.

To Martinphi: Your edit by SA is from 17 April, his last one to WP:CIV is 23 April, and the number is fairly small. Only one comment from him is on the current talk page, and it's from 18 April. If you want Science Apologist cautioned, you have to actually tell someone when it happens, not expect them to do it retrospectively two weeks later. You, however, have been much more visibly active on both the policy page and the talk page for several weeks (SA's edit to mainspace seem entirely devoted to reverting additions by you), and mention him as a major reason for your changes on the talk page. The evidence against you is far stronger. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tom Butler: Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured. As for Littleolive oil, I apologise, I did not know how to investigate and get at the truth, so mentioned a preliminary observation that I probably shouldn't have. I have deleted it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Martinphi is still one of the most active people on WP:CIV, so it might be nice to have some statement on whether that's appropriate soon. If it is, fine, but I'd like to hear some statement on that soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

This editing of WP:CIVIL is being done by three sides, so let's not look at just one. The three sides are: pro-science, pro-pseudoscience, and a few neutrals. Of course, it's merely one facet of the larger debate which currently has at least three separate threads going in various places at arbcom. I say again, serious most stringent remedies need to be put in place on this area quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

I have edited CIV, and participated on the talk page, and my experience is in one of the most uncivil parts of Wikipedia- the paranormal. My experience has given me an excellent perspective for editing that page. Where would an editor gain experience needed to edit CIV? At articles where everyone gets along? The paranormal involves many editors who are highly uncivil, for example calling people or groups "deletionists," "believers in scientism" "true believers," "nutcases," or morons." The Arbitrators have already been treated to a large amount of evidence on this. So I'll just say that no, SA is an Archetypal case, but not by far the only one. SA also edited CIV, removing exactly the stuff he often does [8]. Shoemaker didn't warn him, even when I asked why he only warned me, claiming SA isn't editing CIV.[9] I hadn't been editing there recently till he called my attention to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker says:

"Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured."

Never said that. Mentioned him as an extreme case. This is a serious misrepresentation, AKA false evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Public statement

I am getting EXTREMELY TIRED of people calling me things like "pro pseudoscience" sometimes in a subtle way as I believe Rlevse does above (if I'm wrong, you can stop reading now). If Rlevse can find ONE INSTANCE where I have been pro pseudoscience, I would like to see it. I would immediately take it back. I feel very insulted that someone like Rlevse would say that to me, as I strive to always be on the side of good sourcing and science (see recent history of Reiki). If I'm wrong, and Rlevse feels I'm one of the neutrals, I'd like him to tell me so. Otherwise, I would like him to stop insulting me by characterizing me in front of the ArbCom as pro-pseudoscience.

But I see absolutely no reason why I should put up with insults from an ArbCom clerk on this page. I expect insults from SA and his friends, but I would expect that an ArbCom clerk would be neutral, or at least get his facts straight. Or, if there is a legitimate difference of opinion, that he would be able to provide diffs to support such a characterization. Either he can't, or I really need to rethink my editing on Wikipedia. But at the very least, why has Rlevse drunk the poisoned rhetoric that SA and company spew about my supposed pseudoscientific POV?

Why am I putting this here? Because I want to make a public statement which the ArbCom members themselves might read: stop characterizing me that way, or support it with evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

This is a frivolous complaint. Shoemaker's Holiday is the editor who recently used the "Be Bold" excuse to hijack the Civility article with out discussing his massive changes. I can see now that his boldness has turned to advocacy for ScienceApologist's desire to water down civility so that it is acceptable for him to call people a moron[10]. In fact, SA is the one who has had to be reverted because he repeatedly removed "moron" from the article where it was used as an example of incivility [11].

Rlevse is correct in that there are several viewpoint being expressed, and Martinphi's is just one. Martin has also not shown a determination to resist consensus as you have.

Holiday, I would be careful about meatpuppet accusations without bringing evidence. Tom Butler (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

Given the situation between ScienceApologist and Martinphi, it is tragic, but probably predictable, that the argument has now moved up to the policy level. Regardless of the outcome, I would hope that Martinphi would not change the policy in an attempt to use his changes as a weapon against ScienceApologist, and vice versa. Antelan^talk 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

It may be appropriate for both editors to be prohibited from making edits to policies and guidelines in any way related to their disputes over the rules, if the arbs believe there is a stong possibility their rules edits may be related to their ongoing disputes. It's OK for people to have disagreements over interpretation of the rules, but it's not at all OK to bring that dispute into live policy. I see no indication that either user should be prohibited from contributing to the talk pages of those policies and guidelines. I don't see any reason to believe that either editor expressing their opinion and receiving feedback on the talk page should be a problem. Just a thought. *hands out salt grains* Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask the arbitrators to review WP:FRINGE, both the current dispute and the general history of the guideline. It appears to often be a proxy battleground for the opposing sides in this general dispute, with some editors ignoring the requirements of consensus and general open collegial editing. Vassyana (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

Since this subject has been raised, I think it may be helpful if ArbCom could clarify whether or not a number of SA’s comments violate his ArbCom restrictions on Civility and Assuming Good Faith, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted. He is constantly being rude and insulting to editors he disagrees with, this continues despite many WP:AE reports (some of them frivolous, but some are very legitimate examples of SA violating his ArbCom restrictions). In virtually all the blocks, admins who seem to back his editing style push to have him unblocked or unblock him directly, sometimes against the consensus and objections of other Admins and editors, such as this.

Are ScienceApologist's edits uncivil, or are they acceptable behavior? Here are some examples; I know there are a lot, but there's really no single edit that is truly damning, it's the overall pattern, a constant stream of abusive, uncivil comments directed at his opponents: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Dreadstar † 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm always uncomfortable when editors involved in an interpersonal dispute modify core policy pages in a way which will presumably affect that dispute. When an editor has a history as... colorful... as Martin's, that's doubly true. Edits such as this, in which he adds several terms used by ScienceApologist in the context of creating a definition of "actionable" incivility, suggest a clear connection. I would be happier if Martin would restrict himself to discussion on the policy talk page rather than editing the policy directly. The same would go for ScienceApologist. I don't think that contentious editors pursuing a personal battle make good policy. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raymond arritt

I broadly agree with the statement by Rlevse above. The best outcome would be if policy pages had wider scrutiny that was representative of the community as a whole. Does it bother anyone else that every policy describes itself as "a widely accepted standard" when in fact they are heavily influenced by battles between a very few editors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<drive by comment> You could say the same about some articles... </drive by comment> Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Woonpton

I couldn't find an empty template, so I just copied the one above, hope that's acceptable.

I've been surprised and dismayed and a little confused, between reading the "Governance Reform" discussion where it seems to be agreed that it's very difficult to change policy even when there is consensus in the entire community, to find how easily a few people can change policy willy nilly as in this case, simply by editing policy pages. But I wouldn't characterize the current dispute as a battle between "pro-science" and "pseudoscience" editors per se; instead I would say what is happening is that a few people are trying to change the policy to broaden the definition of incivility, and a few other people are (rightly, in my opinion) reverting it back to the status quo. I don't see the reverters as "changing policy" to further an agenda, but simply respecting the principle that policy should only be changed with broad community consensus. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree that it would be better that policy pages - and, especially, such crucial ones as this - were better monitored and had a wider gamut of participation. However, I don't see that, beyond exhorting greater involvement by the community at large, there is much that the Committee can usefully do. James F. (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Editing core policies should be done only on a full and mature consideration of the full circumstances and never because of a single case, especially not one in which the user making the edit was involved. However, no arbitration committee resolution is needed on this, because contentious edits to core policies are fundamentally disruptive and editors who persistently disrupt can be blocked by any administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Involved users

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification).

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

Martinphi is under an editing restriction because he " has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits" (Finding of Fact #2, sans links). It is becoming increasingly clear that he has not yet learned proper Wikipedia behaviour. and, as the restriction is due to expire in November, I am asking that it be extended a further year.

For instance, here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today [24] does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through,[25] then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.[26]

Here is a recent Arbitration enforcement thread about his editing of policy.

I think that Martinphi's statements in the Paranormal Request for clarification a bit below this one are also relevant. In the face of every arbitrator clearly stating that the finding of fact does not set out an explicit content ruling, but was simply an effort to understand the party's points, he continues to insist that the arbcom, in fact, made a content ruling, and that he should be able to use it to push his point of view.

Martinphi has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes him very frustrating to work with. The Arbcom restriction somewhat mediates that, but I don't think he has demonstrated any real improvement in the last year that would justify the restriction's removal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that he be banned from editing policy. Besides the examples from above, back in April, he specifically admitted to editing WP:CIVIL in order to better use it to attack ScienceApologist. [27] [28]. (Background, abridged: he was adding words he had seen ScienceApologist and other people he disliked using to the Civility policy as "actionable" examples of incivility. [29] [30] [31]) Between this, today's editing of WP:NPOV/FAQ (described above), and the more recent WP:NPOV incident (courtesy duplicate link), I don't think he can be trusted to edit policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to below: I quoted a lengthy diff to try and give some background. I then gave several specific diffs that further support my point, for instance, [32], which I discussed above.

I would also encourage the Arbcom to review Martinphi's edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from 29 August to 7 September or so, which should give clear evidence of the patterns of editing I could only hint at in this brief summary.

Statement by Kww

Wanted to concur that MartinPhi does not seem to have learned the lessons that the original editing restriction was intended to convey. It seems to have driven him towards behaviour that is even more damaging: the constant editing of policy pages to slowly transform them into polices that favor his views. I would fully support an extension of the current editing restriction, and I think an editing restriction on policy pages should be considered.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by source-verifying Coppertwig

In Shoemaker's Holiday's (SH) statement above, some diffs SH gives do not appear to support the statements SH makes.

SH gives this diff, saying "here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience... does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology." I do not see any such claim, or anything reasonably similar, in that diff. The diff is actually a diff of 7 revisions by more than one editor. In that diff, the words "relevant" and "apply" appear, but only within comments by Shoemaker's holiday that appear in that diff, not in any comments by Martinphi; except where Martinphi says, "Please don't mis-apply it": which seems to me to express clear intentions to support, not discard, policy.

Shoemaker's Holiday then said "He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through" and gave this diff: [33] I don't see anything in that diff that I would call an attack. I didn't see any statement by Martinphi that he intended to force any particular change through; instead, he was talking about more than one possible outcome of this difficult situation; he also mentioned others "editwar[ring]" and "push[ing]", but did not use those verbs in any statements about his own actions.

I contend that participation in policy discussions by those who openly discuss the way the policy is used at articles they edit is a frequent, accepted and productive part of normal policy discussion. Just to illustrate this, here is a comment in a recent discussion at WT:NOR which appears to be an example of this: [34]

There are difficult questions involved in how to apply policies to fringe topics. I think much discussion will be needed to further develop the policies in this area; it won't be easy, and will require input from editors with a variety of POVs. I commend Martinphi for addressing some of these difficult questions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Concur with Coppertwig: the diffs Shoemaker provided simply don't support the argument that Shoemaker is trying to make. I know little about the circumstances that brought these editing restrictions into play, but I see no reason to extend them from what's been given here, and certainly no reason to increase them by imposing Shoemaker's suggestion of a policy editing ban.

It's clear that Martin and Shoemaker disagree about some fundamental points of policy, and it's equally clear that neither is shy about stating his side of the disagreement. That's a good thing: vocal disagreement - so long as it's sincere and well-mannered - can only make better policy. Casting disagreement of this nature as disruptive misses the point of policy discussions entirely. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by olive

Concur with Coppertwig: Have I stepped into an alternate universe? I initially decided not to comment here because I couldn't believe that anyone who has been watching Martin's editing in the last few months could take seriously what is being said here. I've met Martinphi on a few of the policy pages where I have been working, and did a little work on Psychic. Here [35] he is obviously working in consort with editors who have multiple views on the topic of NOR. Martin has been clear, measured, intelligent in his comments, and obviously is collaborative in his editing. Yes, he's also strong and forthright, but needs to be given the editing environments on some of these articles. I would say on the policy pages there is very little friction among the editors, and whatever is there isn't coming from Martin. Here, he and OrangeMarlin although apparently in disagreement agree to compromise on Psychic. [36][37]. I understand as Ludwig mentioned that editors can disagree, and may have strong differences of opinion, but as with Martin and OrangeMarlin there are other, less disruptive ways of dealing with it than an Rfa.(olive (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrator views and discussion

• No further action by the Committee at this time. Thanks you to all the editors for raising their concerns in the proper venue. But for now, I'm not prepared to make or modify editing restrictions based on the information provided. In order for me to add or change the restrictions, I want the input of a broader group of editors as well as the users that regularly are in conflict. I think we will get a better outcome that way. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Martinphi-ScienceApologist_clarification. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy

A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

Request archived here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.