First of all, if you had bothered to actually read that thread, the other members were demanding an apology from you @strypey for being disruptive in a hit and run trolling to a peaceful conversation.
Second of all, there is no libel in a factual statement.
Third point, I've moved on from bothering to engage with you where no reason can be had on the PPNZ health threads, even though you have deleted those comments for being "procedurally incorrect" according to your definitions.
Fourth point, you persist in raising petty discord where nobody else in the party agrees there is any need to do so.

In conclusion, I have lost interest in this entire conversation. There seems to be no way for you to realise this fact, which is regrettable.

This seems to have devolved beyond a mere philosophical disagreement into personal attacks. From the perspective of a newer member of PPNZ, I am disappointed to be confronted, so soon after joining here, with these, as @zl4bv has called them, "playground arguments". Being new around here, I'm not really aware of the interpersonal history between @strypey and @andrewmcpherson, and whether this is representative of a pattern of behaviour.

However, might I suggest a tool which I've seen used with some effect in other online communities. An interaction ban (for example Wikipedia's WP:IBAN policy) could be implemented to censure any online interaction between, or commenting about, the two parties, for a specified period of time.

The problem, of course, is that any such prohibition couldn't really be enforced beyond the confines of our own Loomio group, and even then, what would such "enforcement" of the ban look like? There would need to be the threat of further punitive action should the ban be breached by either party.

The call in this thread currently seems to be jumping immediately to this stated "further punitive action", without attempting to quell the current disquiet between these two members. This is not the first time, from reading other threads pertaining to Strypey and Andrew McP, that "further punitive action" has been called for without some intermediary measures being considered first. In light of Ben's "playground arguments" comment, I think some "time out" is called for here, instead.

I'm happy to cease interacting with the other party on this matter, and have said so consistently for a month now.
The thing is, those comments were deleted for claimed procedural irregularities by the other party, so I am not confident that the other party is mature enough to move on.

My response to the meta-discussion by @andrewmcpherson on the other Loomio group:

"I should apologise to the entire group, as my associate has a grudge against me for not agreeing on an issue

Factual error. @andrewmcpherson may believe this, but it's just not the case. Yes Andrew and I disagree, but I have disagreed with everyone here at some point in time. I don't have a problem with dissent. I do have a problem with trolling, personal attacks and smears, misrepresentation, and filibustering. These are the behaviours I have calling Andrew out on, and asked to party to address, to keep our forum a pleasant and productive place to engage.

which is now settled by a recent central government decision.

Factual error. The government moved the decision-making from one local government body (city and district councils) to another one (district health boards). Nothing is "settled" by this.

I had not thought that he would cross over groups and make more cowardly political attacks

This a blatant lie and a smear. My comments on vaccination made no reference to Andrew McP, and contained no political attacks. There was a general comment on how these controversial discussions often devolve in quality, and people become verbally aggressive in defending their assumptions and prejudices. I think the relevant figure of speech here is "if the cap fits, wear it".

while the rest of my party has rejected both his proposals to strike my right to free speech

Again, a blatant lie and a smear. Neither of my proposals were about denying Andrew's right to free speech. They were about limited, short term removals of speaking rights, enforcing the Code of Conduct in response to his increasingly abusive behaviour in this forum (and now others). But Andrew is happy to smear me by making a bogus public accusation.

however I guess if he will alter my comments to say what he wants

Accusation of malicious intent. As pointed out by @tommyfergusson Loomio is altering Andrew's proposal outcome statements due to a bug, but again, Andrew is happy to make a bogus public accusation in another Loomio group, that I "alter his comments".

simply because he started the threads and controls them,

Agnother blatant lie and smear. Yes, I started most of the threads in question, but I do not control them. Any member can alter proposal outcomes to say what they feel is a more accurate statement of the outcome. Since we started using Loomio, I have always attempted to make sure the group (and any subgroups) have multiple admins to protect against abuse of admin powers for political purposes.

then he is not reasonable on these matters

I can't imagine how I could have been more reasonable in the face of Andrew's escalating campaign of character assassination against me.

I am truly sorry to every regular participant here that strypey has tried his trickery on this group, it seems he cannot pass up serving his cherry picked "research" as evidence on health.

Two more accusations of malicious intent.

I am deeply embarrassed to be associated with the grudge which I have stated for the past month that I have no further interest in.

Then why bring it up in another Loomio group?

It's hard to know whether Andrew McP is willfully lying, or whether he has lost the ability to distinguish between fact and delusion.

First of all, if you had bothered to actually read that thread, the other members were demanding an apology from you @strypey for being disruptive in a hit and run trolling to a peaceful conversation.

I read the thread. There were no such comments. Look for yourselves.

Second of all, there is no libel in a factual statement.

I think I've demonstrated otherwise, see above.

Fourth point, you persist in raising petty discord where nobody else in the party agrees there is any need to do so.

At least one other member, @hubat, agrees that your comments on both the Health and Genetic Engineering threads are unreasonable, and in violation of the CofC.

Third point, I've moved on from bothering to engage with you where no reason can be had on the PPNZ health threads... In conclusion, I have lost interest in this entire conversation. There seems to be no way for you to realise this fact, which is regrettable... I'm happy to cease interacting with the other party on this matter, and have said so consistently for a month now.

Yet he continues to engage in his vendetta, and has now spread it to another Loomio group.

The thing is, those comments were deleted for claimed procedural irregularities by the other party, so I am not confident that the other party is mature enough to move on.

I'm not even sure what this means. Which comments? Which procedural irregularities? Which party?

I do suggest an IBAN, as per Andrew McP's current proposal, and per my comments above. However, I feel that it may be best for other active members here to propose and vote on it, and that both Andrew and Strypey recuse themselves from voting on this matter.