| Revision as of 14:53, 15 October 2007 editDavid.Mestel (talk | contribs)Rollbackers5,396 edits comments | Revision as of 21:51, 16 October 2007 edit undoDavkal (talk | contribs)3,141 edits comment by davkalNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| 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. ] 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | 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. ] 16:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==== Comment by ] ==== | |||
| 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. ] 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:51, 16 October 2007
Comments by uninvolved editors before the case was accepted
Comment by uninvolved 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 Misplaced Pages handle paranormal topics" redux. One's enough. --Nealparr 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages.". 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 00:25, 8 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)
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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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)