Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice 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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by User:LuckyLouie

[edit] 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.
  • [9] Adds phrases such as, "scientists who do reguard parapsychology as science " to sentences in Parapsychology article.

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:

  • [10] 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. "
  • [11] 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".
  • [12] 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".
  • [14] Maintains an off-Wiki essay (formerly posted in his Userspace) espousing his views of how Parapsychology and paranormal subjects must be treated on Wikipedia 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.

[edit] Martinphi games the system

  • 23:42, 21 October 2007 [20] Martinphi cites a specific section of policy to support evidence of possible abuse by User:Raul654.
  • 23:58, 22 October 2007 [21] 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.

[edit] Martinphi has a deeply flawed understanding of Wikipedia policy and process

Actively misrepresents recent Arbcom decisions in multiple Articles and Talkspaces:

  • [22] "This (Arbcom decision) is not really open to interpretation; parapsychology is serious science, and deserves to be recognized as such"
  • [23] "the Arbitrators have confirmed my understanding of NPOV in the paranormal articles""
  • [24] "The Arbitration Committee essentially institutionalized my understanding of what NPOV was."
  • [25] "the Arbitrators took the most essential points from my essay (the one deleted as POV from my userspace), and incorporated them into the decision."
  • [26] "Apparently" is one of the types of words which the ArbCom ruled we don't need to use any more. "
  • [27] Cites Arbcom to enforce his personal definition of psychic powers: "Rv POV pushing. You will just have to get used to the ArbCom"
  • [28] Removes "supposed" from definitions of paranormal abilities. Reduces "those who dispute" to "some who dispute": "Rv per ArbCom on the paranormal - Adequate framing"
  • [29] Removes "supposed" from definitions of paranormal abilities, minimizes lack of scientific acceptance: "Revert per recent ArbCom on the paranormal"

Actively misrepresents WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE:

  • [30] Argues in Talk:Telepathy:"skeptics need not be given equal time, nor does skepticism need to be part of the definition."
  • [31] "Minority and majority status is determined not within the scientific community as a whole"

Cites his own uniquely skewed interpretations of policy, rather than the policy itself:

  • [32] "This is the definition, please see Paranormal page, Talk page for this article, and User:Martinphi/Paranormal_practicum#The_meaning_of_.22paranormal.22"
  • [33] "The "sources inside the field" thing is a very important principle on Wikipedia. See User:Martinphi/Paranormal_primer#Parapsychology_is_a_scientific_field for more."
  • [34] "(User:Martinphi/ArbCom interpretation) consensus of the ArbCom."

Rejects community input asking him to modify his tendentiousness:

  • [35] "The accusations of tendentiousness are only the result of other editor's mis-interpretations of the rules. That is the sole reason I am accused of tendentiousness. "

Refuses to allow that his judgement might be in error:

  • [36] "There is absolutely no case against me if I correctly interpret the rules. If I do not correctly interpret the rules, then the rules need to be amended for clarity "

His position in a nutshell:

  • [37] "My position in a nutshell: I edit out of my interpretations of the rules. I think it is obvious that either I am right, or the rules need clarification. And it is obvious that it would be easy to clarify the rules, if the interpretation held up by others is correct. My edits are justified under my interpretation of the rules, an interpretation which I share with others."

I encourage Arbitrators to read all diffs in context. I especially encourage the Arbitration Committee to invest the time to fully read and comprehend Martin's self-made "Paranormal Primer" [38] [39] which appears to guide his views and behavior as a Wikipedia editor.

[edit] Intends to be at the center of many 'paranormal disputes' in the future

Recent statement:

"FloNight, no one has ever disputed that I am at the center of many disputes. This is the way it is, and if I continue to edit in the paranormal, it will always be that way. The questions are, for example, was LuckyLouie's edit Original research? Was ScienceApologist POV-pushing on Astral projection? This is what needs to be decided. Being at the center of controversies is not a bad thing."

[edit] Evidence presented by Wikidudeman

[edit] 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

[edit] Martinphi frequently insults other editors

calls Science Apologist 'vandal'
user calls established editors and 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

[edit] Martinphi threatens to hijack wikipedia

user threatens to hijack wikipedia process to make a point

[edit] 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

[edit] Martinphi has used sockpuppets in a disruptive manner, and also lied about it initially

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi


[edit] 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 [[40]] 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.

[edit] 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[[41]], which he did by making unilateral edits to bias it toward the skeptical view [[42]]. Martinphi restored the intro and asked ScienceApologist to discuss the changes first [[43]].

LuckyLouie egged ScienceApologist on concerning what is and is not allowed for references, demonstrating that he and Wikidudeman are using ScienceApologist as a champion [[44]].

Wikidudeman hosted a sandbox for the Parapsychology article rewrite[[45]]. 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 [[46]]. 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)

[edit] Wikidudeman and LuckyLouie have instigated an altercation

This is kind of funny. The editor who is posting the most Proposed Findings of Facts in this action [47] is Wikidudeman. Yet he and LuckyLouie are the ones who clearly instigated one of the altercation that caused this mediation. As I noted above, he went to ScienceApologist's talk page and asked for help in the EVP article here [48]. Below is the exchange.

We've been going through an informal mediation concerning the EVP article. The discussions can be found here: Talk:Electronic voice phenomena. We're trying to work on each section at a time and reach a consensus on that. We're at a standstill because the mediator is busy this week however in theory we could do it without him. I think this way is better than simply editing it directly(Until consensus is met) because of potential edit wars. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome back. Since at least one editor has recently been editing the article directly I suppose that means there's no need to wait for consensus or be at a "standstill". It sure could use some attention. For example, regarding the article's introduction, "EVP" can only be stated to have been "observed" in various media if cited by authoritative sources such as IEEE Journals, Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals, International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration, and current academic texts. Otherwise, the observations must be phrased as a claim. - LuckyLouie 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
note on martins page about that. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice that LuckyLouie offered him guidance as to how to edit, rather than making the edits himself. Did he want ScienceApologist to have an altercation with Martinphi?

The last entry is where Wikidudeman complained to Martinphi on his talk page here [49] rather than the EVP discussion page when Martinphi reverted ScienceApologist's edits here [50]saying, "Rv to consensus version. Don't edit till consensus happens," in his edit summary.

ScienceApologist had made the same sort of point of view edits in the EVP article that had caused much grief quite a while ago and he had reason to know it would still. There never has been a discussion of ScienceApologist's edits in the article. Instead, Wikidudeman took it directly to Martinphi, I guess knowing ScienceApologist would be along soon--especially since Wikidudeman posted on ScienceApologist's talk page that he had commented there. I think it is hypocritical to instigate an altercation and then pose as an offended editor to propose findings. Tom Butler 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 (:

Please have a look at the recent history of the Electronic voice phenomena article to see how these subjects are mistreated. Please bear in mind that ScienceApologist is far from the only editor of his type we have to deal with. I do the best I know how.

[edit] 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).

Wikidudeman gives you this, but try reading a few more paragraphs of it [51]. This is the kind of nasty prejudice I have to deal with all the time.

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 [52].

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?

Re this, see this and definition of "denotes" espc #2. Some are my flawed attempts to communicate a nuanced approach. Some are way old -I was just getting to know the rules then [53].

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: [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 a (misguided?) addition to the Parapsychology article.

[edit] 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 [54].

"Bullshit."

"That kind of arrogance is upsetting, but it's not as bad as a lot of the baloney that is coming from Martinphi and Tom Butler"

"paranoia" and other attacks

"What in the high holy hell are you talking about?... I'm sorry that you've been conditioned into being paranoid. Hopefully you will learn to overcome it."

ScienceApologist's purpose on WP is to continue to contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience. He says it's proper to charicterize subjects in WP as snake oil pseudoscience.

[edit] Parody template

My "template" is OK.

[edit] Antelan

I just don't know what to say, his evidence is so... strange.

Antelan assumes bad faith. For example, there is no [[Category:quackery]] [55]. Many diffs are very out of context (Antelan gives this but not this). I did use a wrong edit summary [56], and I shouldn't have said this. I did not "insert" this, I reverted. Ray Hyman and James A. Alcock are 2 of the major critics [57]. Etc. Etc.

[edit] Cumulus Clouds

Even if we ignore the scare quotes in the caption, if the image is presented in the article merely as an illustration, it meets paragraph one here.New image. I uploaded a couple versions trying to get the summary right.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 [58] about the subject, rather than from the sources. He put Parapsychology under "Religion, mysticism and mythology" [59].

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. Re my remark about "my utmost to keep articles on the paranormal or fringe science from achieving FA status," I had no idea how articles become FA. If I'd known, I would not have said such a thing. However, 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 the subject. That last edit also explains well where I was coming from, and why I acted as I did.

[edit] 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" [60]

[edit] Reverting

I have tried very hard since the ArbCom to use reverting only in the most egregious and obvious cases of Paranormal ArbCom violation or POV. But to an extent, I have edit warred to keep these edits out (see above section). 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 )-:

[edit] Civility

I believe I've been civil- much more than those who accuse me. Sometimes I do say things bluntly. I don't think there's evidence of personal attacks except maybe calling ScienceApologist a vandal, for which I apologized.

[edit] Disruption

I have not disrupted WP, nor threatened to do so. Re my remark about "my utmost to keep articles on the paranormal or fringe science from achieving FA status," I had no idea how articles become FA. If I'd known, I would not have said such a thing.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] AGF

Please look at my history, also bearing in mind that "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." No emphasis added

[edit] Other material

More diffs

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

FAQ on my userpage

[edit] Evidence preserved by Martinphi and originally presented by Tsyko, sock of banned Iantresman

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:

  • Philosophus describing another editor as "the idiot"
  • Several contributions to the same AfD as both user Philosophus (8 times) and ScienceApologist (15 times), which is forbidden by WP:SOCK.

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)

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)

[edit] Evidence presented by MastCell

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Martinphi routinely acts disruptively to make a point

Going along with the battleground worldview and ends-justify-the-means mentality, Martinphi has engaged in disruptive activity designed to press home his point rather than use discussion, consensus generation, and other means available to address his concerns. Recent examples include:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Talk 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: As a checkuser has confirmed that Tsyko (talk · contribs) is a sock of the banned user Iantresman (talk · contribs), his evidence has been removed per WP:BAN. MastCell Talk 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

... And "preserved" by Martinphi. MastCell Talk 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

[edit] 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)

[edit] Evidence presented by Nealparr

[edit] 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.

  • [62] Tells an editor he is not old enough nor has enough expertise to dictate Wikipedia content after the editor sought outside input. (Activity dated June 2007, post-warning arbitrations)
  • ScienceApologist's "Departing essay" describes "editors that are ignorant or outright cranks [and] devoted idiots [and] 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. (Activity dated June 2007, post-warning arbitrations)
  • ScienceApologist ignores WP:WTA guidelines ("claims" scattered throughout article) [63] eventhough he knows it is a point of contention with other editors. In other words, he'd rather promote his own point of view instead of working well with others and conforming to guidelines. Even worse, he's inconsistent. While researchers (changed by him to "promoters" or "believers") "claim" things, skeptics "say" things. The edits diffed above were made in a sweeping edit spree while other editors were trying to reach consensus. When asked why he didn't wait for consensus, he said editors were dragging their feet and called it "obstructionism"[64]. He's right that he can be as WP:BOLD as he wants to, but why apply one guideline (WP:BOLD) and ignore another (WP:WTA) while being purposefully contentious? It is because SA is consistently a combat editor. And again, even if arbitrators agree with his pro-doubt edits, I implore you to consider how he goes about this activity. (Activity dated Oct. 2007, post-warning arbitrations)
  • "That's just about the shitties excuse for a reliable source I've ever seen." [65] He's right, but it's purposefully antagonistic. (Activity dated June 2007, post-warning arbitrations)
  • [66] Jumps in on an editor who nicely made a request with "You'd be best to stick to editing articles on subjects that you have researched more carefully. Also, don't rely on religious authorities to teach you science." Unprovoked. (Activity dated June 2007, post-warning arbitrations)

Note to arbitrators: Please let me know if you need more. There's plenty like the above.

[edit] ScienceApologist misuses sock-puppets

  • Morven confirmed that ScienceApologist has four additional sockpuppets [67]. One of these, User:Velikovsky is a strange sort of incivility because when arguing with other editors at the plasma cosmology talk page, he used "Velikovskian" as a pejorative [68] and said "Pandering to Velikovskians is not the job of this encyclopedia." ScienceApologist used this account to further combat with editors he was already engaged in as ScienceApologist,[69] compounding the incivility. He has claimed that WP:Sockpuppets#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area justifies this behavior. That policy allows a user who isn't already participating in a topic to register an alternate account so that he/she can participate without jeopardizing their main account. The policy clearly states: "so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." The way ScienceApologist used it is to go after more pseudoscience articles (the same as he does with ScienceApologist), adding pseudoscience cat tags straight off.[70] After this he went after User:Iantresman‎, an editor he already had conflict with as ScienceApologist and was specifically warned to be civil with in previous arbitrations. (Activity dated July 2007, post-warning arbitrations)
  • Contrary to ScienceApologist's assertion that he never misused his sock-puppets, he used at least two of them in the same AfD (Mainstream astronomy & Nondistinguished). [71] (Activity dated July 2007, post-warning arbitrations)

[edit] Misc

Other warnings:

  • Based on what I read, I am going to caution ScienceApologist to maintain civility with regard to editing articles about some alternative to mainstream science as per the arbitration case. [72] - Eagle 101 (Dec 2006)
  • The absolute most I can do is Caution ScienceApologist, for disruption. - Eagle 101 (Jan 2007) [73]
  • ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language, irrespective of his opinion of other editors' conduct. - Newyorkbrad [74] (May 2007)

Conclusion:

  • ScienceApologist views Wikipedia as a battleground.
  • ScienceApologist combat edits based on this view.
  • ScienceApologist loses civility with any editor he deems is a purveyor of pseudoscience.
  • If you criticize ScienceApologist in good faith, he then makes personal attacks on you.

I am firmly convinced that the above, plus the evidence offered by other editors, warrants probation in light of ScienceApologist being warned five times already. Since we're all here, the arbitration should consider pots calling the kettle black when examining evidence posted about Martinphi. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's enough for me to quit

If anyone wants to see what really goes on in these articles, go check the recent edit wars on the Featured Article status parapsychology. After months and months of working on it, it's probably going to lose it's FA status because of the way editors go out of their way to be disruptive. Honestly, I'm tired of wasting my time and can find more productive things to do. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Antelan

[edit] The Martinphi Manual of Style

Martinphi edits by a nonstandard Manual of Style. He consistently (June August[75] October) accepts articles only when their opening sentence is a definition (not any other type of introduction or overview) that satisfies his sympathetic, not neutral approach to editing. This is not supported by WP:FIVE or WP:MOS.

This is important, because Martinphi then uses his definition-requirement as leverage to exclude wording and content he dislikes and keep all but pro-paranormal wording (see below) from the introductory sentence (even paragraph) of Paranormal articles. At some level, he recognizes that his "intro-must-be-a-definition" approach is not actually a Wikipedia principle or requirement, as you can see from his proposal within this Arbitration to enshrine it as such.

[edit] Martinphi edits in a disruptive, deceptive manner

In this Arbitration, Martinphi said, then retracted, that he had been disruptive:

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.

Subsequently, an Arbitrator proposed a finding that Martinphi had edited disruptively (emphasis mine):

2) Martinphi has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([1]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([2], [3]), threatening disruption of the project ([4]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([5], [6]). Martinphi has admitted deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior.

In response, Martinphi directly messaged the proposing Arbitrator to recant his admission because he didn't understand the Wikipedia meaning of the term (emphasis mine):[76]

There is one point, which comes up due to my ignorance: I never admitted to disruptive behavior. When I said that I was working from a flawed understanding of the term (that I had stood in the way of what others wished to make of articles). I withdrew that edit, because it wasn't true. I don't believe I have been disruptive in the WP sense. That out-of-context quotation is another example of how my edits are used against me unfairly.

In response to this personal message, the Arbitrator withdrew a portion of the proposed decision.

On its face, this might be considered Wikilawyering. This is also deceptive, because in Martinphi's previous ArbCom experience, he accused different editors of being disruptive themselves.[77] [78] This suggests that he either was adequately informed about the meaning of the word "disruptive" and therefore made a deceptive recantation, or that he previously made accusations without understanding the nature of his own accusation, which itself could be seen as disruptive. Therefore, in logical conclusion, Martinphi has also been disruptive.

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

[edit] Mainspace

  1. Wholesale reverting of edits he disagrees with, invoking a consensus that I do not believe exists, saying NPOV when he means idontlikeit, demanding that users discuss their proposed changes with him on the talk page before editing in Mainspace, and other similar behaviors: [79][80][81][82]
  2. Based on his sympathetic editing philosophy, Martinphi maintains it is POV-pushing to inform readers of anything but pro-subject material within the first paragraph. Example: [83]
  3. When hedge-words make the scientific point of view look less dependable, Martinphi will insert them readily. Example: [84]
  4. ... but when hedge-words are applied to the nonscientific point of view, Martinphi removes them, often invoking "ArbCom" (presumably, the Paranormal ArbCom). [85][86][87]
  5. Martinphi applies loaded language based on POV. Example: While those who believe that parapsychology is a science retain the label "scientist", those who do not believe become labeled "other critics." [88]

[edit] Talkspace

  1. Martinphi behaves uncivilly in talkspace.
    • Martinphi interrupts a real discussion on my talk page to gloat, "isn't it too bad ArbCom is so misguided?"[89]
    • Martinphi aggressively baits another user[90]. When the user does not respond, he expands "Well?" to the still-more-puerile "Welllllll??"[91]
  2. Martinphi mocks those who do not share his POV. Example: 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 [[Category:quackery]] to work" instead of offering a substantive reason for why he disagrees with such a categorization.[92]

[edit] Meta-space

  1. Martinphi tagged the entire Wikipedia:Featured articles page with the totally-disputed tag because he didn't like the placement of the Parapsychology article. [93]
  2. 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[94], from which he could extrapolate that tagging people or articles with as-yet nonexistent categories does, in fact, "work".
  3. In this arbitration, Martinphi points to a diff which shows him inserting a word and says, I did not insert this [95], which is untrue.
  4. In this arbitration, Martinphi uses his evidence section to say "I just don't know what to say, [Antelan's] evidence is so... strange." [96]

[edit] Martinphi widely and frequently misuses edit summaries

  1. rv POV pushing is not a valid or civil edit summary[97][98][99]
  2. On many occasions, his edit summaries invoke the ArbCom instead of summarizing.[100][101]
    • Martinphi implies that changing the phrase "is a term used to describe" to "denotes" was per the ArbCom[102]
  3. Martinphi peppers his edit summaries with sweeping claims and statements of his beliefs instead of summaries of his actions.[103]

[edit] Martinphi works with virtually all members of his "faction" in off-wiki paranormal projects

  1. Martinphi and Tom Butler are both Etheric Studies Committee Organizing Members (Confirmed on-wiki by Tom Butler [104])
  2. Martinphi, Nealparr, Atsakiris, and Annalisa Ventola all work on OpenSourceScience.net. (Confirmed on-wiki by Nealparr[105].)

Antelan talk 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Feline1

From observing & interacting with User:ScienceApologist on numerous articles during 2007 (e.g. Immanuel Velikovsky and AfD debates for [| Ralph Jeurgens], [| Pensee IVR], [| David Talbott]) I have found him to be an uncivil editor, self-professedly promoting a single PoV, who sees editing as a "[| fight against cranks and pseudoscience]". This in itself causes edit warring and disruption to the project. However my contention that this editor has gone further than intemperate behavior, by engaging in vexacious wikilitigation against his "opponents" with a view to getting them banned from the project ("WP:GAME") and that this very ArbComm is the latest example of this.

One of his principle methods of "dirty tricks" has been his misuse of sockpuppet accounts:

  • 21 June 2007, ScienceApologist posts a "parting essay" [106],

and takes a six day break, before returning on 27 June and leaving a parting commment.[107]

3 days later, and over the next few weeks, ScienceApologist creates and uses sockpuppets:

  • 30 June, Fradulent Ideas. [108]
  • 10 July, Mainstream astronomy,[109]
  • 12 July, "76.214.223.142", [110]
  • 13 July, Velikovsky [111]
  • 16 July, Nondistinguished [112]
  • On 27 June 2007, when ScienceApologist said he was leaving, he continued to masquerading under five different sockpuppets.
  • On 16 July 2007, when ScienceApologist was masquerading as sockpuppet Mainstream astronomy, and claimed to be leaving again due to being "outright harassed by a certain User:Iantresman",[113]

he continued to masquerade as sockpuppets Fradulent Ideas, Nondistinguished, and under IP addresses 76.214.223.142 and 216.125.49.252.

As presented in evidence by MartinPhi | above , I found the editing style of sockpuppet User:Nondistinguished so distinctivly obstreperous and prone to wikilaywering that I asked him if he was ScienceApologist. ScienceApologist lied in reply, stating "This is the first time that I ever had contact with you since I started my account" | David Talbott AfD and in fact reported me to an admin for harrassment!

ScienceApologist continues to lie about his use of sockpuppets and his "having left" wikipedia in his evidence presented [| above] to this very ArbComm, and I respectfully submit that this casts doubt on the credibility of his assertion that neither is he a sockpuppet of User:Philosophus.

[edit] Evidence of ScienceApologist mis-using sock puppets re: IanTresman ArbComm

It seems to me that in the ArbComm case re: IanTresman, Science Apologist's misuse of sockpuppets misled the community when it formed a judgement:

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mainstream_astronomy&diff=prev&oldid=144910132 ] ScienceApologist as "Mainstream_astronomy" writes "I have been outright harassed .. and can volunteer my time elsewhere".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman

The diff shows how other editors interpreted ScienceApologist's message:

  • JoshuaZ's alleged that he ([antresman] had "repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project [..] is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy.
  • KillerChihuahua's alleged that "Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment"
  • Blueboy96 alleged that "If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be".

Using his sockpuppets Velikovsky and Mainstream astronomy, ScienceApologist left 6 messages on iantresman's talk page up until, and including, the day he was banned, so he was probably aware of the Community sanction discussion... and chose not to put the record straight. --feline1 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on evidence provided by User:Feline1

I know User:Philosophus personally (e.g. offline) and can attest that he is not also ScienceApologist. Michaelbusch 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Perfectblue

While I am in no way excusing un-wikilike behavior I believe that the history of Science apologist should be taken into account here. SA has a history of making overly abrupt claims and statements and of jumping to conclusions without first stopping to research the matter. This behavior tends to "rub users up the wrong way". I therefore content that SA can reasonably be determined to be a source of incivility even if said incivility was actually written by another user. In short, SA provokes people into doing things that they would not otherwise do, and which are not necessarily representative of their character.

For example in this instance (see also [this SA scanned the index of a single book and did not see a specific individuals name listed in it, they then delete a 1/2 citations from different books based on that snap desicsion and made a serious claim accusation agaisnt another user in the process. By their own admission, the user nethier read the books mentioned, nor even had access to them, yet they deleted them as sources anyway.

SA also has a history of making unreasonable demands based on bad interpretations of Wikipedia regs. In this example they are demanding to be presented with a 40+ year old payslip from a then classified program cold war program. A payslip with existed before the common computerization of records, and which in all likelihood has not existed in a physical form for 40 years. If you check out the entire debate, you will see that SC rejected several other sources of information. SC has also violated WP:BLP by making silly and inappropriate comments within article space about people after becoming involved in a dispute about said individual's background with other users. Another highly provocative move.

It is my believe that Martinphi has learned from the recent arbcom, and that behavior before it should be disregarded.

- perfectblue 13:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Cumulus Clouds

[edit] Martinphi ignores Wikipedia convention to support his own POV

Even with open arbitration against him, Martinphi is continuing to disrupt the functionality of this encyclopedia, as is evidenced by his recent edits to WP:IFD. Martinphi asserts that an image, which is almost certainly OR, shouldn't be deleted because it's an "illustration." The caption on this image explains that it is a "self generated image of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything." Almost any other editor would immediately recognize this as OR, however Martinphi wants it retained because it happens to support the edits he has made to that article and others like it. Cumulus Clouds 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Apparently Martinphi knew that his arguments in support of keeping this image were going to fail, so he uploaded two identical copies in order to circumvent the deletion vote being held on the original. This seems perplexing to me, since it appears that Martinphi acknowledged he wouldn't be able to keep the image, but decided to violate the rules so that he could have a copy kept on Wikipedia. In doing so he is undermining the deletion process and the smooth governance of WP:IFD, all in the name of his own personal bias for this image. Cumulus Clouds 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Philosophus

[edit] I am not ScienceApologist

While this doesn't really merit an entirely new section, it has been mentioned in multiple places, and so I think it probably should be added here to make it more visible. I am not ScienceApologist. I am willing to release my identity to reputable admins, and MichaelBusch can also attest to my not being SA. As I state that I am a legitimate sockpuppet on my user page, I am often the target of such accusations, and have been accused of being at least four different editors. --Philosophus T 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by JzG

I have today blocked Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for tendentious editing, attacks, disruption and generally failing to reform after multiple attempt to correct his behaviour. Davkal was engaged in a long-time slow burning war with ScienceApologist, so this may be relevant here. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Northmeister

[edit] ScienceApologist started an edit war, one inciting incident leading to this Arbcom case

  1. Martinphi template edit war started by SA: [114] and [115] and [116].
  2. Which resulted in a threat, and then this ArbCom case. Inappropriate escalation:[117].
  3. Asked to relax about the template edit war:[118].

[edit] ScienceApologist ignores previous Arbcom decisions

  1. POV pushing against spirit of paranormal ArbCom decision: [119]

[edit] ScienceApologist ignores WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and is abusive to others

  1. Incivility - during the current ArbCom: [120]
  2. More uncivil comments: Poor reception of an apology by Martinphi: [121].
  3. Further: [122] and [123] and [124] and [125]
  4. Attacks and accusations, abusive in nature, against one (then two) editors (admins) trying to deal with the mess created at paranormal pages: [126] and [127] and [128].

[edit] ScienceApologist has a POV agenda at odds with WP:NOT that is the root of this Arbcom

  1. Here he makes this agenda clear, and misinterprets WP:Weight: [129]
  2. SA stated that alternate views are not what is needed in this article. Again displaying motivative behavior: [130] and [131]
  3. Removal of tags: [132] when clear discussion is underway: [133]
  4. POV push removing cited content: [134]
  5. Big bang edit warring POV pushing problem: [135] and [136] and [137] and [138].
  6. Revert warring against several editors, all with identical reverts:[139],[140],[141].
  7. More reverting and edit warrring per above:[142],[143],[144].

[edit] ScienceApologist adding fuel to the fire of dispute initiated by him

  1. Adding RFC on Martinphi Oct. 7th: [145].

[edit] Misc. misconduct by ScienceApologist

[edit] ScienceApologist ignores guidelines regarding tagging resulting in warring, violation of WP:Point

  1. Immediate removal of disputed, NPOV and other tags without giving a chance for the editors to add discussion: [146].
  2. Edit wars to keep it removed, even after the discussion about NPOV had begun on the talk page: [147] and [148] and[149] and[150].
  3. Re-adds disputed content without sourcing: [151].
  4. Another NPOV tag revert (removed the very same minute it was placed in the article): [152].
  5. Said tag added in response to an ongoing edit war, this was the last edit before the tag was placed. Here: [153] and [154] and [155]and [156].
  6. Then this tag in response to the above dispute: [157].
  7. Then the immediate reversion of the NPOV tag placement (same minute): [158] and [159].
  8. POV mentioned in edit summaries pertaining to this issue: [160].
  9. See the history: [161].
  10. The discussion started in earnest on the talk page here: [162].
  11. Fact tagging without explaining why on the talk page, despite previous evidence he knew better: [163]. Note no comments on talk page to explain the said tag: [164].
  12. But insists other editors explain their tags: [165] exampling disruptive behavior and instigations in violation of the spirit of WP:POINT.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {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.