Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence

message: Perfectblue, I'm not sure what you mean by this.  The issues and examples I listed have already been discussed, and there has been clear consensus that Martinphi has violated these policies.  But user RfC is really just a way for other editors to comment on behavour and make suggestions to improve it, and Martin has made it clear that he intends to ignore those suggestions.  Because of that, the issues are unresolved, which is a major reason we are at arbcom now.  They have not been dealt with, I hope arbcom does take whatever action is necessary to deal with the disruptive behavour.  --Minderbinder 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do mean by "consensus"? There were clearly a lot of people critical at the RfC but there were also many in support of Martin. There was also a point of fact found out, which was that many of those critical of Martin misinterpreted a rule which said "not rejected" and claimed that it actually meant "rejected". In such clear cases of fact, appeal to majority opinion (even consensus) is worthless.Davkal 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While RfC is not a vote, in terms of sheer numbers many more editors were in agreement with the items listed than in agreement with the defenses of Martinphi.  But the main point is that the issues listed certainly aren't "dealt with" and still need to be looked at, and actions considered, by the Arb committee.  --Minderbinder 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Minderbinder. Martinphi has been anything but "dealt with".Wikidudeman (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "users should note that this issue has already been dealt with in an action against said user" 

message: User:ScienceApologist said I have taken the pro-paranormal-editors side and I am biased in this arbitration. I have posted a subsection in my evidence section to indicate this is not true, what I did is only exposing some of the misbehaviors done by some skeptic editors, nothing is really wrong with that. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now showing your balance by exposing the worst behaviours on the paranormal side? — BillC  talk 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. If Wooyi professes to be neutral, I find his comments about the truthfulness of psychic power somewhat confusing. - LuckyLouie 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I took a side? 

message: Precedent for removing ScienceApologist from wikiproject paranormal. His "evidence" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence#Paranormal_WikiProject lack this information ... 
From wikiproject pseudoscience .... 
# 12:11, 23 December 2005 Christopher Thomas (Talk | contribs) ((rv) Removed User:Reddi's sig. You've had three project members object to your presence on this project, and nobody speak up to support it. Consensus view is that you're not a member.)
# (cur) (last) 12:08, 23 December 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (→Participants - sig again)
# (cur) (last) 05:52, 23 December 2005 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (→Participants - rm Reddi again)
# (cur) (last) 20:19, 21 December 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) m (→Participants - sig)
# (cur) (last) 17:13, 20 December 2005 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (→Participants - rm Reddi. Don't be silly)
# (cur) (last) 16:49, 20 December 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (don't remove my name WMC!)
# (cur) (last) 16:40, 20 December 2005 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (→Participants - rm Reddi. Don't be silly)
J. D. Redding 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a project be exclusive? If someone works on Paranormal articles they should be able to be part of that project. If a project is exclusive and excludes specific people then I don't believe it should be allowed to be a project.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaination of evidence of SA's removal