Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Martinphi-ScienceApologist

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 22 October 2007 (Revert to revision presumably by ScienceApologist- It states in the lead "do not edit in anybody else's section," you can make this point in your own evidence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. In his ongoing battle against "pseudoskeptics"[1] and "paranormal haters"[2], he has conducted a long term, single minded campaign to enhance the status of Parapsychology and related fringe and paranormal concepts on Wikipedia. IMO, he's been clearly pushing this agenda from the beginning. Just a few examples:

  • [3] "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, 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. "
  • [4] "I want a ruleing on parapsychology as a science for the purposes of Wikipedia."
  • [5] "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 Wikipedia....I want to have thought of all angles, because the pseudoskeptics will run roughshod over us if we don't win."
  • [6] On an article Talk Page, gives a 10th grader advice on how to recognize the subtle manifestations of psi and precognition.
  • [7] "I think it is very important for people to understand that for the purposes of Wikipedia, parapsychology is a science."
  • [8] 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:

  • [9] 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. "
  • [10] 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".
  • [11] 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".
  • [13] Maintains an off-Wiki essay (formerly posted in his Userspace) espousing his views of how Parapsychology and paranormal subjects must be treated on Wikipedia [14] and alleging these views were "censored" [15] by Wikipedia. (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: [16]) The essay features links at the top of the page to anti-Wikipedia material by Dean Radin and Tom Butler, two paranormal proponents who also claim their fringe views are censored by Wikipedia.
  • [17] 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.
  • [18] 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 Wikipedia is not a suitable place to battle perceived systemic bias against Parapsychology and the paranormal. Judging by the links [19] being recently collected in his Userspace such asWikiProject Countering Systemic Bias and Removal Of Adminship, I foresee future disruptions from Martinphi ahead.

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

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi

Other attempts have been made and have failed to resolve problems with Martinphi

Wikipedia: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 [[20]] 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[[21]], which he did by making unilateral edits to bias it toward the skeptical view [[22]]. Martinphi restored the intro and asked ScienceApologist to discuss the changes first [[23]].

LuckyLouie egged ScienceApologist on concerning what is and is not allowed for references, demonstrating that he and Wikidudeman are using ScienceApologist as a champion [[24]].

Wikidudeman hosted a sandbox for the Parapsychology article rewrite[[25]]. Several people, myself included, felt that their input was ignored during the process. Later Wikidudeman made the same proposal for the [Electronic Voice Phenomena] article [[26]]. 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)[reply]

Evidence presented by Martinphi

General evidence

I think this edit pretty much sums up what I have tried to do since the ArbCom on the paranormal.

If the Arbitrators would like to get to know my wikiself a bit better, I've put a FAQ in my userpage

I ask that the Arbitrators look at my actual edits and editing patterns........ but not merely the edits presented as evidence against me. Some of those are very much out of context, and even though most of them aren't wrong on their face, many were much more moderate in context. This has happened before, many times, and apparently I make lots of edits which sound much worse when taken out of context (:

For example, Wikidudeman doesn't tell you that I promised to vote for him in his next RfA if he stays NPOV for a year- foolishly getting myself into collecting evidence. Another example: 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 [27]. Wikidudeman says I lied about a sock puppet. I urge you to research that claim.

Please also notice ScienceApologist's use of sock puppets (like, wow!- scroll page) and that his intention on Wikipeida is to continue to contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience. See also Tsyko's evidence.

In LuckyLouie's evidence, the diff showing that I have a list of edit summaries referring to the ArbCom fails to note that I put those in just a few days ago, after recent disruptions.

You are told that 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?

You are even told that [Martin] "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 part of the Parapsychology article (may have been misguided as an addition). I didn't know the page existed.

In spite of what Wikidudeman has to say now, just a while back he had this to say:

Martin has been editing here for a long time and it's possible to work things out with him if you try. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He also gave me a barnstar for our work on Parapsychology [28].

Attack site

ScienceApologist has said that my Paranormal primer essay is an "attack site." Here is the updated version, and here is the version SA was talking about. BTW, if you read it carefully, Tom Butler's page isn't an attack either, nor a recommendation of bad behavior, but a complaint against behavior you will agree was bad. I don't agree with some of the things he says.

Agenda on Wikipedia

I have been accused of having an agenda on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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.

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."

User:Raul654

I made a big fuss on the FA talk page. I believe Raul did things there which are a classic abuse of editorial and administrative powers:

1. That he edited the page from his own opinion [29] about the subject, rather than from what the sources say. He put Parapsychology under "Religion, mysticism and mythology" [30].

2. That 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.

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 make sure they don't get put 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 Wikipedia 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 it, (not out of terror of Raul's threats, but out of a sense that I could not do any good there). 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. Up till recently, the ArbCom took care of much of the dissention on paranormal pages. I had hope the effect would be permanent, but I now see it was not. I am asking you to tell me what I'm supposed to be doing. I am the only editor out there, a lot of the time, who will keep track of these pages and attempt to prevent POV pushing (I monitor 386 pages). There are tons of editors like those who accuse me. I can't take all those editors to mediation. I don't have time. Also, there is limited space for compromise when they are going against NPOV, "encyclopedicness," and the ArbCom on the paranormal. How can I keep the articles from becoming POV without edit warring? I accept whatever the ArbCom decides.

Civility/disruption:

Note: I'm not a good enough wikilawyer. I wrote the below before reading the page on disruption. I realize now I have not violated the guideline on "disruption" at all. I was thinking of it as "standing in the way of what others want to do." Sorry. Same as with calling SA a vandal: WP has a special definition.

I believe I have been civil- much, much more so than those who accuse me. You'll note the lack of evidence of incivility and personal attacks, except perhaps my calling ScienceApologist a vandal, for which I apologized. Numerous accusations, as if I spend half my time spewing personal attacks at people. Where is the evidence?

I've continued to work with people like LuckyLouie and Wikidudeman who I know -ahem- think very poorly of me. However, I have been disruptive sometimes as well (see note above). 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. I see myself as disrupting POV-pushing (general distain for the paranormal and OR), and I feel that editors are upset that I carry out this disruption. But is such disruption, if done in a civil way, against the spirit or rules of Wikipedia? There's no question I've been disruptive- but I hope it's been in a very well-sourced and NPOV way. I don't believe I've disrupted Wikipedia, only POV-pushing.

There are editors such as Nealparr who are considered by many -some- to be neutral editors. But they don't do what I do- rather, they tend merely to support my general position after I've done the dirty work. They don't monitor the articles as I do, and they don't eliminate POV-pushing like the above. They usually leave it in place.

I feel I'm basically alone in performing a necessary function on the paranormal articles. I feel that I need help- I'm tired of playing the bad cop. The ArbCom should look at what I do, and either say that my general influence on the articles is bad, or give me some (more) support. Actually, I'm tired of it and I can't do it forever- it's taking too much of my time. But there just is no one out there to whom I can pass on the function.

Please consider my overall effect on the paranormal articles. See what they were like when I arrived.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

I left Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 [and] devoted idiots [and] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia. --Tsyko 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence&oldid=166198053"