This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LuckyLouie (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 17 October 2007 (add evidence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:00, 17 October 2007 by LuckyLouie (talk | contribs) (add evidence)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log, as those will have changed by the time people click on your links. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by User:LuckyLouie
User:Martinphi Is a Single-Purpose Account. The Bad Kind.
Martinphi uses Misplaced Pages as a platform for advocacy. In his ongoing battle against "pseudoskeptics", he has conducted a long term, single minded campaign to enhance the status of Parapsychology and related fringe and paranormal concepts on Misplaced Pages. IMO, he's been clearly pushing this agenda from the beginning. Just a few examples:
- "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Misplaced Pages, because I keep getting "stuff" from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study. "
- "Perfectblue, I have no question myself that it (Parapsychology) is a science. But you should look at the Psychic talk page. We need to get this decided as a matter of policy on Misplaced Pages....I want to have thought of all angles, because the pseudoskeptics will run roughshod over us if we don't win."
- On an article Talk Page, gives a 10th grader advice on how to recognize the subtle manifestations of psi and precognition.
- "I think it is very important for people to understand that for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, parapsychology is a science."
- Wants the Parapsychology article to feature one section larger and more prominent than others to create a specific impression on the reader.
Such remarks as above coincide with a long period of tendentious editing of paranormal articles which is well-documented by a previous RfC and Arbcom focusing on his behavior. Despite being advised by the community that his approach was inappropriate and disruptive, his advocacy and tendentious editing continues, which he now portrays as a passionate personal effort to uphold NPOV:
- During a prolonged FA Talk Page disruption (a situation where he demanded Parapsychology be categorized as a science), he threatens, "Unless this situation is resolved, I have no choice but to do my utmost to keep articles on the paranormal or fringe science from achieving FA status, because I cannot be sure that they will be placed under the proper heading (as with Parapsychology), or that the headings will be NPOV. "
- Makes multiple accusations against administrator User:Raul654, saying he "treated this subject (Parapsychology) purely out of your own POV. That was abuse of power", and warns him, " I think you need to reconsider your use of your admin powers".
- He cites "people don't like Parapsychology" as the only reason for the dispute, claims that Parapsychology is "singled out" for lesser status" and likens the situation to "apartheid".
- Maintains in his userspace a collection of arguments promoting Parapsychology as a science, which he has employed as ammunition in Talk page conflicts.
- Maintains an off-Wiki essay (formerly posted in his Userspace) espousing his views of how Parapsychology and paranormal subjects must be treated on Misplaced Pages and alleging these views were "censored" by Misplaced Pages. (In the last 24 hours, he has edited the essay to remove the large display header which read, "THIS CONTENT WAS CENSORED ON WIKIPEDIA". A snapshot of the unsanitized version may be viewed here: ) The essay features links at the top of the page to anti-Misplaced Pages material by Dean Radin and Tom Butler, two paranormal proponents who also claim their fringe views are censored by Misplaced Pages.
- Maintains in his userspace a collection of edit summaries (Pre-marked "rv per Arbcom") for use in reverting unwanted changes to paranormal articles, which he has employed often.
I don't feel this Request for Arbitration is driven by bad faith, but by an observable pattern of persistent behavior. During periods when Martinphi is under scrutiny by RfC or Arbcom, he will proclaim innocence, moderate his tendentiousness, and make "showpiece" edits and concessions which portray him as civil and objective. But as soon as the threat of sanction has passed, he returns to pushing his POV agenda at an accelerated pace.
At present, Martin appears totally unable/unwilling to recognize that his POV-Warrior behavior is problematic and that Misplaced Pages is not a suitable place to battle perceived systemic bias against Parapsychology and the paranormal. Judging by the links being recently collected in his Userspace such asWikiProject Countering Systemic Bias and Removal Of Adminship, I foresee future disruptions from Martinphi ahead.
Attempting to delete evidence used in Arbitration
- Recently written comments in Martinphi's Userspace in which he describes his solitary mission on Misplaced Pages: "What shall I do? " (Read entire entry for context. )
Martinphi requests Speedy Deletion of that page, one minute after creating it.
User:Fyslee asks the page not be deleted during current Arbitration.
Martinphi refuses. Explanation: "Irrelevant".
Martinphi blanks comments of User:Fyslee.
I remove "db-user" tag, ask Martinphi not to delete the page, as it is relevant to the current Arbcom.
Martinphi blanks my comments, replaces tag.
Evidence presented by Wikidudeman
Martinphi frequently assumes bad faith
- calls good faith edit from ScienceApologist vandalism
- keeps links from out of context edits from me to use against me in case of some future request for adminship
- user throws AGF out the window and accuses Raul of "abusing admin powers"
- More examples of not AGF
- More examples of not AGF
- user ADMITS he does not assume good faith
- user states he denies good faith for another editor
Martinphi frequently insults other editors
- calls Science Apologist 'vandal'
- user calls established editors administrators "trolls"
- user states that it's "even worse" that Raul is an arbitrator
- user references perceived censorship and encourages other similar users not to change their editing habits due to the "trollishness" of others
Martinphi threatens to hijack wikipedia
Other troublesome edits from Martinphi
- claims that parapsychology is "singled out" for special scrutiny
- user keeps lists of types of articles or edits to revert on paranormal articles
Martinphi has used sockpuppets in a disruptive manner, and also lied about it initially
Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi
Other attempts have been made and have failed to resolve problems with Martinphi
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi
Evidence presented by User:Tom Butler
The evidence shows that Martinphi has been an active editor, and has contributed to many articles that are controversial, and clearly marked by the Rational Skepticism Project ] as targets for inclusion of the Skeptical Dictionary viewpoint. I think it would be impossible for anyone who does not accept that radical viewpoint to be an active editor without irritating Rational Skepticism Project members. Keep in mind that Martinphi has made some very good contributions and only some are contested by the Rational Skepticism people--especially the signee of this grievance.
Things User:Martinphi has done to help
Things Martinphi has done as a cooperative editor
Wikidudeman asked ScienceApologist to help out on the Electronic Voice Phenomena] article], which he did by making unilateral edits to bias it toward the skeptical view ]. Martinphi restored the intro and asked ScienceApologist to discuss the changes first ].
LuckyLouie egged ScienceApologist on concerning what is and is not allowed for references, demonstrating that he and Wikidudeman are using ScienceApologist as a champion ].
Wikidudeman hosted a sandbox for the Parapsychology article rewrite]. Several people, myself included, felt that their input was ignored during the process. Later Wikidudeman made the same proposal for the article ]. His proposal was rejected several times. Subsequently Martinphi eventually was instrumental guiding the article to the point he and others felt it was ready for "outside" opinion and submitted it for Good Article status. That was rejected, but Martinphi is now one of the editors working with one of the "judges" to implement his suggestions for the article see Failed GA Tom Butler 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.