Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Martinphi-ScienceApologist

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Antelan (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 23 October 2007 (→Martinphi works with virtually all members of his "faction" in off-wiki projects: pov). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:14, 23 October 2007 by Antelan (talk | contribs) (→Martinphi works with virtually all members of his "faction" in off-wiki projects: pov)(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" and "paranormal haters", 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. "
  • "I want a ruleing on parapsychology as a science for the purposes of Misplaced Pages."
  • "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 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.
  • Exhorted Wikiproject Paranormal members not to modify their behavior or make any concessions.

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.

Martinphi games the system

  • Martinphi cites a specific section of policy to support evidence of abuse by User:Raul654.
  • Martinphi then makes nonconsensus, nondiscussed edits to that specific section of policy, changing "simple" to "obvious" .

Martinphi has added an additional hurdle by specifying that vandalism must be "obvious" in order to warrant page protection by an Administrator. This can be taken as a possible attempt to bolster his claims against User:Raul654. Even if unintentional, Martin's editing of policy pages is highly problematic, because it effectively prevents his actions from being evaluated on the basis of the policies as they existed at the time of his actions.

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

user threatens to hijack wikipedia process to make a point

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 Martinphi

This edit sums up my attitude since the ArbCom on the paranormal. I have made a great effort since then to be a irreproachable editor.

Want to know my wikiself better?

Please look at my actual edits and contributions... but the diffs presented as evidence against me are very out of context. This has happened before- I seem to make lots of edits which sound much worse when taken out of context (:

Some misleading evidence

Wikidudeman doesn't tell you that I promised to vote for him in his next RfA if he stays NPOV for a year- so I have to collect evidence.

I never lied about or abused a sock puppet, as Wikidudeman's personal attack says (one meat puppet mistake).

Recently Wikidudeman said:

Martin has been editing here for a long time and it's possible to work things out with him if you try.

He even gave me a barnstar .

LuckyLouie says I "Exhorted Wikiproject Paranormal members not to modify their behavior or make any concessions." Well, yes, I didn't think that potential complaints that it was "graphical POV pushing" to have nice colors in our project templates was sufficient reason to stick with ugly colors. Why not read the paragraph above that response?

LuckyLouie says I have a list of edit summaries referring to the ArbCom, but fails to note that I put those in just a few days ago, after recent disruptions.

LL says: "Maintains in his userspace a collection of arguments promoting Parapsychology as a science"- but you are not told that this was (I think), a draft which was at one time a (misguided?) addition to the Parapsychology article.

ScienceApologist

I said I wasn't assuming good faith in ScienceApologist. Wikidudeman doesn't tell you that ScienceApologist had just removed -I won't say vandalized- my parody template, saying that it was a personal attack, and that I'm not a member of Wikiproject RationalSkepticism, which I am. Instead of discussing it with me, he removed it, then edit warred with me over it- I thought it was vandalism. He's since continued to attack me, even after I apologized for calling him a vandal, and he's continued to say I have an offsite attack page. He also refused to apologize when Wikidudeman asked him to .

"Bullshit."

ScienceApologist's purpose on WP is to continue to contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience.

Antelan

Antelan assumes bad faith. For example, there is no ] see this. Many diffs are very out of context (Antelan gives this but not this), but he's right that I used a wrong edit summary , and I shouldn't have said this.

Attack site

Here is the updated version of my "attack site," and here is the version SA was talking about. Tom Butler's page isn't an attack either, if read carefully.

User:Raul654

Maybe I was wrong to make such a fuss on the FA talk page. Let me try and explain why I was upset:

1. Raul edited the page from his own opinion about the subject, rather than from the sources. He put Parapsychology under "Religion, mysticism and mythology" .

2. He ignored the consensus of the ArbCom.

3. Most especially that he protected a page where he himself was in a dispute, which is clearly against policy. (link is to version of policy before my recent change- see LuckyLouie's attack/evidence).

I also believe that such behavior is worse in an Admin, and even worse in an Arbitrator, in whom the community places so much trust. That's my opinion. It's a moral stand I have to take. If you want to censure me for it, I'll take the punishment.

I probably took the issue too far. I didn't understand the special status of the FA page. I didn't know that Raul had been asked to oversee the page (and no one explained for a long time, even after I asked what was going on). I thought he was just another editor who disliked the paranormal.

If paranormal articles are going to be given unfair treatment on the FA page (against consensus), isn't it only right to argue against putting them there? When I said I'd have no choice but to do my utmost to keep paranormal articles away from the FA page, I meant I'd vote/argue against it, if they are going to be treated unfairly. To mis-interpret what I said as a threat to disrupt Misplaced Pages is a violation of AGF. I also have other reasons to be trepidacious.

When the situation was finally explained to me, I accepted the explanation and dropped the subject. That last edit also explains well where I was coming from, and why I acted as I did.

What shall I do?

I'm really the only person out there a lot of times who wants to uphold the previous ArbCom which the skeptical community has said you guys got so wrong. I keep getting edits like the following:

Mccready

Svetovid: "transparently childish self-deception"

Fyslee: "quack "scientists" don't count"

I have edit warred to keep these edits out- though I've made a great effort to take other actions whenever I could, like removing disputed sections to talk pages, trying to get editors to discuss, etc. I can't take all those editors to mediation. I don't have time. Please tell me how to handle this- I really don't know )-:

Civility

I believe I've been much more civil- than those who accuse me. Sometimes I do say things bluntly, but these are not personal attacks, and there's no evidence I do, except perhaps my calling ScienceApologist a vandal, for which I apologized.

Disruption

I have not disrupted WP, nor threatened to do so.

Agenda on Misplaced Pages

I have been accused of having an agenda on Misplaced Pages. That is true. I wanted parapsychology and related articles represented fairly. I also knew from my studies that parapsychology was a scientific field, even if psychic/psi phenomena are not real. Personally, I do think that there are probably some paranormal phenomena which are real. I'm not sure which ones, and I believe they have not been proven scientifically. I never wanted to suppress skepticism (see all my efforts to have it extensively discussed in Misplaced Pages, now deleted). But I do feel that certain editors have a bias against paranormal topics. I believe they want to tell the reader what to believe, not just neutrally present the facts and sources.

Working with others

I enjoy and value harmonious collaboration, including with skeptics of the paranormal (see comment), if they are neutral editors- and sometimes even when they are not. See our work on the Parapsychology article which achieved FA status; our current work on Electronic voice phenomena (both led by skeptics). If the respite achieved by the Paranormal ArbCom had lasted longer, there would be more examples.

AGF

There is a huge push to say I fail to assume good faith. I can only ask that you look at the history, and bear in mind that, to quote the AGF page without adding emphasis: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."

Other material you may want to review:

More diffs

I may have made a mistake........

FAQ on my userpage

Evidence presented by MastCell

Martinphi views Misplaced Pages as a battleground

I don't think we need to go further than Martin's own words and statement for this. Highlights, though, include:

Martinphi's approach is inimical to consensus-building

Martinphi has consistently appropriated the self-image of the lone, heroic defender of NPOV (see his evidence above, under "What shall I do?") He's repeatedly argued (as above) that the end justifies his means, including edit-warring and disruption, because he's the only one who understands and correctly applies NPOV. This worldview is entirely antithetical to WP:CONSENSUS. If you start from the position that you're right and that any means you employ are justified, then it's very hard to work within a consensus-driven system like Misplaced Pages. The end result of such an approach is evident in Martin's statement above - he wonders why no one else appreciates how right he is, why he gets so little "help" pushing his POV, and why people keep making a big stink about his edit-warring and disruptiveness.

Martinphi is admittedly disruptive, but "in a good way"

In Martin's evidence above (under "Civility/disruption"), he states that:

I have been disruptive. The thing I'd like the ArbCom to decide is whether "disruption" is in-and-of-itself bad. I don't see it that way, because it is a matter of what I've been disrupting... There's no question I've been disruptive- but I hope it's been in a very well-sourced and NPOV way.

I would also like ArbCom to decide whether disruption is in fact bad, or whether disruption is a good thing so long as it's done in a "well-sourced and NPOV way" and the disruptor is convinced he's right.

Addendum: For the record, despite protestations to the contrary, Martin does meet the definition of a disruptive editor: he's refused to make any concession to community input (see his earlier RfC or behavior since the last ArbCom), and his tactics have driven away constructive contributors (RIP User:Minderbinder). 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Things are not going to change

It's unrealistic to expect Martinphi to change his behavior when he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, that his disruptive behavior is "good" for Misplaced Pages, and that the prior ArbCom was a 100% vindication for him.

After the previous ArbCom, Martinphi wrote that: "Because my editing has been NPOV, my failures -such as edit warring which is the main thing I did wrong- are all in the category of 'he acknowledged them and won't do them again.'" But he has.

User:Tsyko is an obvious sockpuppet whose evidence should be struck

Tsyko (talk · contribs) is a brand-new account who appeared at this RfArb with a strong command of Misplaced Pages jargon. They also display a few other canonical signs of sockpuppetry, which are hardly secret but which I won't list here. This account is pretty clearly an obvious, disruptive sock of someone with a grudge. I would encourage this account to be checked against Iantresman (talk · contribs) and its evidence to be struck as coming from a sockpuppet. MastCell 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

I left Misplaced Pages for a time because I was having a difficulty editing and was being hounded by numerous attack accounts


This is a particularly sensitive subject for me, but there is definitely precedent:

I followed policy and procedures carefully all along the way, with some administrators (who will remain nameless) advising me. Obviously, User:Morven did not know.

Due to the sensitive nature of this activity though (I have had problems with being tracked down and harassed in real life!) I will ask the arbitrators to e-mail me privately regarding it, if they want details.

I will comment no further with regards to this matter except through private channels.

I returned when the situation at Misplaced Pages became easier for me to handle.

This is all I am going to say in public about the sockpuppetry. ScienceApologist 22:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tsyko

Reading through ScienceApologist's evidence, and doing some research, I do not think that his diffs support his argument:

1. ScienceApologist's "Departing essay" describes "editors that are ignorant or outright cranks devoted idiots lunatic fringe editors". These are unambiguous personal attacks.

2. ScienceApologist lists several attacks, but most read as criticisms of behavior, and not attacks against the individual. For example, the first listed "attack" is polite and does not attack the person as claimed.

3. ScienceApologist says that his sockpuppet accounts "followed policy and procedures carefully all along the way", but looking through Philosophus's contributions, we find that:

Further research shows the following:

4. When ScienceApologist says that he "left Misplaced Pages for a time", he changed usernames. user:Morven has identified four more sockpuppets, User:Fradulent Ideas, User:Mainstream astronomy, User:Nondistinguished and User talk:Velikovsky.

5. As User:Mainstream astronomy, ScienceApologist claims to have been harassed and left Misplaced Pages (for the second time in as many weeks) on the 16th July, but had actually changed usernames again, this time to User:Nondistinguished... on the 16th July.

6. Another editor who thought ScienceApologist was using sockpuppets improperly, was reported by ScienceApologist as more harassment.

My findings show that it is ScienceApologist who makes personal attacks on other editors, and uses sockpuppets in a way that does not carefully follow policy and procedure. When other editors criticize, ScienceApologist claims harassment and hounding out of Misplaced Pages. --Tsyko 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist says he is not Philosophus, so I strike thru my comments on using the account as one of his sockpuppets.
ScienceApologist has also responded to this criticism in his usual way. --Tsyko 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nealparr

ScienceApologist remains uncivil after being warned

ScienceApologist has been formally warned in previous arbitrations to remain civil and treat other editors with respect (Arb:ScienceApologist and Arb:Pseudoscience). Since being warned, he has continued to be uncivil and should be placed on WP:PROBATION, the next step after being warned. He could be counseled or warned again, but it's sort of redundant.

  • Tells an editor he is not old enough nor has enough expertise to dictate Misplaced Pages content after the editor sought outside input. (Dated June 2007, post-arbitrations)
  • ScienceApologist's "Departing essay" describes "editors that are ignorant or outright cranks devoted idiots lunatic fringe editors". Although he didn't specify an editor by name, and this can be used to show how he feels about multiple editors, he was personally attacking User:The way, the truth, and the light after being blocked for WP:3RR on Thermal energy (as explained in his essay). The issue isn't whether ScienceApologist was trying to improve the article or whether his edits were justified, it's an example of how he loses civility when he becomes frustrated. (Dated June 2007, post-arbitrations)

(Sorry, I'm a little busy, so this is just a placeholder with more to follow)

--Nealparr 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Antelan

Martinphi applies different standards to edits across all namespaces depending on how they support his POV

Mainspace

  1. Based on his sympathetic editing philosophy, Martinphi maintains it is POV-pushing to inform readers in the first paragraph that psychic surgery is considered a total hoax by the US FTC.
  2. When hedge-words make the scientific point of view look less dependable, Martinphi will insert them readily.
  3. ... but when hedge-words are applied to the nonscientific point of view, Martinphi invokes "ArbCom" (presumably, the Paranormal ArbCom) to excise them.
  4. While those who believe that parapsychology is a science retain the label "scientist", those who do not believe become labeled "other critics."

Talkspace

  1. Martinphi interrupts a real discussion on my talk page to gloat, "isn't it too bad ArbCom is so misguided?"
  2. When one user makes the case for Psychic surgery to be tagged as Quackery, in opposition to Martinphi's POV, Martinphi sarcastically responds that he "can't get ] to work" instead of offering a substantive reason for why he disagrees with such a categorization.

Metaspace

  1. In this arbitration, Martinphi defends his sarcastic statement (highlighted above) regarding his Category:quackery comment by noting that there is no such category. However, Martinphi has tagged himself to a similarly nonexistent category, Category:Skeptical_Wikipedians, from which he could extrapolate that tagging people or articles with as-yet nonexistent categories does, in fact, "work".

Martinphi widely and frequently misuses edit summaries

His edit summaries are often not descriptive of his actual edits:

  1. rv POV pushing is not a valid or civil edit summary
  2. On many occasions, his edit summaries invoke the ArbCom instead of summarizing.
    • Martinphi implies that changing the phrase "is a term used to describe" to "denotes" was per the ArbCom
  3. Martinphi peppers his edit summaries with sweeping claims and statements of his beliefs instead of summaries of his actions.
  4. Martinphi does not simply state that he is reverting vandalism, but he backhandedly compliments a repeat user by saying, "incorrect, but at least you weren't vandalizing like the last time"

Martinphi works with virtually all members of his "faction" in off-wiki projects promoting the paranormal point of view

  1. Martinphi and Tom Butler are both Etheric Studies Committee Organizing Members
  2. Martinphi, Nealparr, Atsakiris, and Annalisa Ventola all work on OpenSourceScience.net

(Links will be provided privately only to administrators in order to preserve privacy.)

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.