Quote from LuckieLouie:

He may have taken the lack of sanctions against him as a "green light" to move forward with his quest...

His quest versus ScienceApologist's quest to "contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience".[1] There's a bit of a double-standard here that isn't illustrated in an arbitration against a single editor. I don't want to get into a multiple-editor review any more than anyone else, but there's two sides to any coin. Martinphi's activities are not entirely one-sided. A six month block and permanent banning on paranormal articles (including talk pages) is way too excessive in my opinion. There's a difference between putting someone in the corner and kicking them out of the room. Maybe counseling is enough, maybe it isn't. But surely there's a remedy somewhere in the middle. Banning and blocking is usually a sanction applied to vandals and completely useless trolls. Martinphi's not either of those. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Martin is not a "completely useless troll", I think that his participation on Paranormal related articles generally does more harm than it does good in my experience. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning is not applied solely to vandals or completely useless trolls. In fact, the greatest damage to Wikipedia is generally caused not by obvious trolls or vandals, but by editors determined to advance their POV by whatever means necessary with no regard for WP:CONSENSUS. The idea that a vandal or obvious troll is the worst threat to the encyclopedia rings false in my experience. I think I've made my feelings clear in my evidence section: I think Martinphi's tactics are unconstructive and highly unlikely to change at this point. Whether ScienceApologist's approach falls into the same category is a valid question and one which I have no doubt the Arbitrators will consider. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying Neal, but Mastcell is right. If you have an issue with ScienceApologist, you should file for a separate Arbitration dealing only with him. Swinging the focus of this Arbitration onto ScienceApologist to possibly take the heat off Martin isn't wise. Martin doesn't think he's done anything wrong. In fact, he asks for more help in being disruptive and enforcing his Paranormal Primer. Also, as you know, he is willing to compromise the integrity of an article to favor special interest POV, as he did with the EVP article. Isn't that why you refused to help edit it? If I was doing that kind of stuff on Wikipedia, I'd expect to be gone, no questions asked. - LuckyLouie 20:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the EVP article, I considered what Tom Butler was looking for to be unrealistic and stemming from a conflict of interest, and didn't want to waste my time getting involved. It didn't have anything to do with Martinphi. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that both he and Martinphi are organizing members of the same investigative committee, right? It's difficult for me to understand how Martinphi's involvement is not stemming from a COI but Tom Butler's is. Antelan ^talk 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Martinphi's affiliations are. Tom Butler on the other hand runs the AA-EVP (that was even mentioned in the article) and I didn't agree with the approach he was asking for in the article. Just being the guy who runs the thing isn't that bad. It's no COI just to be involved. It was his approach to the article that I didn't want to participate in. I've dealt with Mr. Bulter before on the mediumship article and he absolutely did not want it defined in terms of spirituality, New Age, or religion, only in terms of science. I found that frustrating. I don't think Martinphi shares that same approach. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you won't take my word for Martinphi's affiliations. Maybe you'll take Tom Butler's.[2] Antelan ^talk 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you're missing my point. Affiliation with an organization isn't an issue. It's whether that affiliation creates a conflict of interest, shown through the approach taken in the article. In Tom Butler's case I feel it does and that was enough for me not to get involved in the article. I have no idea, nor care, whether Martinphi's affiliation creates a conflict of interest on that article. I don't see what your point is. LL asked if Martinphi was the reason I didn't want to participate in the EVP article. I said no because he wasn't. Minutia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about minutiae. I'm (actually) confused by your statement though. If I understand correctly, you declined to become involved in the EVP article because you felt that Tom Butler had a COI in it. Why would someone else's conflict of interest make you avoid involvement? I re-read above, and you said you didn't want to get involved due to it being a waste of time and energy. Letting the fox guard the henhouse is probably not the ideal response to the situation, but I can certainly identify its appeal from time to time. Antelan ^talk 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Louie, I have to disagree a little. ScienceApologist's conduct is fair game for examination in this proceeding. I haven't seen much evidence offered in this regard to date, but ArbCom certainly makes a practice of looking at the originators of a complaint in addition to its target (and any other involved parties). If there is evidence of misconduct by ScienceApologist, then it could be appropriately presented here, though using that approach solely to shift scrutiny away from Martinphi's tactics is likely to be unsuccessful. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. SA's conduct is fair game here should Neal have a problem with it. - LuckyLouie 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with ScienceApologist's conduct. SA has his point of view, Martinphi has his point of view. The compromise between the two usually ends up being the best article. My sole point in requesting a lesser remedy is exactly because of that. Having a point of view isn't necessarily good grounds for dismissal and my observation is that the only reason people bump heads so often is because a lot of editors want specific wording so often. I think editors should be sanctioned for uncivil conduct, excessive reverts, things like that, including Martinphi, but I don't think editors, Martinphi or ScienceApologist or anyone else who takes these things seriously but mostly plays by the rules (as opposed to trolls), should be severly punished. There's WP:PROBATION or that one revert thing, or other things that aren't so severe. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to one time when ScienceApologist was willing to compromise? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a time when he has been materially wrong in a dispute with you? Antelan ^talk 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another of what I shall call here an "inaccuracy." LuckyLouie states I asked for more help in enforcing my Paranormal primer. I asked for more help in general, and for more help enforcing the ArbCom on the paranormal. Perhaps LuckyLouie got them mixed up because they are so similar. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:PROBATION:

Probation at Wikipedia is a formal, procedural warning against a Wikipedia editor, generally regarding specific conduct on a group of articles. It generally follows an Arbitration Committee finding that a particular user has edited one or more articles in a disruptive or objectionable way (e.g., by edit warring).

A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is permitted to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation. If they edit an article in those subject areas in a disruptive or objectionable way, however, any administrator who is not involved in the conflict may ban them from editing the article. The banned user may continue to edit the talk page, making suggestions as to content and discussing content. A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access.

This remedy allows for blocking with cause, prevents conflicts of interest on the part of involved administrators, and provides for remedies if either editor feels they are being treated unfairly.

It also does not prevent civil discussion on article talk pages which lead to NPOV articles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's the one who raised the arbitration, based on civility. When others let occasional acts of incivility slide, he sought to make an issue out of it with the arbitration. Certainly his own acts of incivility warrant the same remedies he sought against Martinphi.

Other editors have compounded the arbitration beyond civility with a case of pov crusading by Martinphi. Out of all the editors involved, the only other editor who considers Wikipedia a battleground besides Martinphi is ScienceApologist. Certainly if crusading and combat editing is considered a cause in Martinphi's case, it'd be a cause against the editor who raised an arbitration against him if he/she's doing the same thing.

If you examine ScienceApologist's history, he left in June during the Paranormal Arbitration, apparently frustrated with Wikipedia.[3] During the arbitration he argued on the opposite side of Martinphi. He returns in October with a comment that he aims to "contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience." A very short time after that he raises an arbitration against Martinphi. Certainly these things matter.

By all means punish Martinphi if it's deemed necessary, but there's no reason to hold a double-standard. It's been mentioned that talking about ScienceApologist is somehow a deflection from Martinphi. It's not. Punish Martinphi if it's necessary. But if Martinphi deserves more than a warning about his uncivil conduct, or point of view, then everyone who acts like Martinphi deserves the same. Especially if he's the one who decided to take it to the arbitration. Anything less, I'm sorry, would be hypocritical.

And again, I don't think anyone needs more than a warning. Warn them and if they screw it up again they brought it on themselves. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take serious issue with what seems to be your assumption that I have acted anything like ScienceApologist, and that I have engaged in "crusading and combat editing." It is not crusading to want a subject or group of articles to conform to NPOV. It is not crusading to think that POV pushing from a skeptical perspective needs to be resisted. And it is not combat editing to revert or edit out things like I present in my evidence. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Punish Martinphi if it's necessary. But if Martinphi deserves more than a warning about his uncivil conduct, or point of view, then everyone who acts like Martinphi deserves the same ". This sounds too much like a veiled plea bargain, i.e. "Let Martin off with a warning and I won't pursue a ban against SA". - LuckyLouie 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's that view and the view that it's fair. Either way I'm not interested in banning anyone. As I've repeated, they both bring their own quirks into the mix. The remedy asks for WP:PROBATION where they decide their own fate. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe User:ScienceApologist left in June at all. It appears he merely switched to using a sockpuppet called User:Nondistinguished. Yet he repeatedly denied this was the case to me and reported me to admins for "harrassment" and violation of WP:NPA for asking him about it. Beyond giving you that further info, I agree wholeheartedly with what you're suggesting, NealParr.--feline1 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be investigated? - perfectblue 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, SA never left. I don't want any plea bargain. I don't know exactly what the definitions of crusading or combat editing might be, but I do think that Nealparr's assumptions need to have evidential diffs behind them. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my book, if one person provokes incivility by committing incivility themselves then they should either drop their claim or accept sanction themselves. perfectblue 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This goes particularly to Martinphi. The Evidence area is for evidence, the statement area is for statements, the workshop area is for proposals and discussions directly relevant to them. The workshop area is NOT for arguments in defense of yourself, the Evidence and Statement areas are for that. If you have any EVIDENCE against the statements being made in by me in the evidence area then please provide your own counter evidence, otherwise keep all defenses of yourself in their rightful areas. Administrators can look at your statements and evidence to see what your explanations are concerning the incidents before proposing remedies. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Kirill has proposed this as a remedy on the proposed decision page. My question is, what about accidentally editing from an IP address? I understand that most editors will do this occasionally. ScienceApologist is a very prolific editor, and over the course of a year such an event may be fairly likely. I think that, if some version of this passes, there should be some way for him to "claim" an accidental anonymous edit, and not have it count as sockpuppetry. Cardamon 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the remedy in question is to prevent intentional sockpuppetry of the sort noted in the evidence; it isn't meant to sanction ScienceApologist for being unintentionally logged out (on a reasonably infrequent basis, of course). Kirill 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about users who are commonly accused of being a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist but aren't? Perhaps this could be noted somewhere so that no mistakes are made due to the unfortunate confusion? --Philosophus ^T 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]