Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence

message: Quote from Evidence by MastCell:
::* Per his evidence presented above, he considers constructive users who share his POV, such as User:Nealparr, to simply ride on his coattails as he does the "dirty work" of edit-warring and battling for his POV.
For the record, I only share Martinphi's point of view when he is correct and disagree with him when he is wrong. Sometimes he is correct and sometimes he isn't, the same as everyone else (myself included). --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never intended to say we agree on everything.  Just that I tend to start things, and so I "cause" the controversy.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neal: a very good point; perhaps I was painting with overly broad brush strokes there. I'll amend my comment appropriately. MastCell Talk 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I suppose it is in order to respond to Antelan's protest of Martinphi helping me with the Etheric Studies Initiative. I asked him to help because of his broad range of interest, ability to work with others in Wikipedia and for his online savvy. I would not have done this had I considered him in any way a problem editor. The initiative is an honest effort to bring a little legitimate science to the study of things etheric--some of which you all know as paranormal. It is going to involve people with a wide range of experience and it is important that they feel welcome.  The web site for that is here .
Of course you are all invited to participate, but we will require your real name and a little background to give us a sense of your qualifications to contribute in specific areas. 
Martinphi's online skills have become especially important since we installed the wiki shell for Best Practices Development here . That is a sincere effort to identify what works and what does not based on empirical evidence rather than anecdotal claims. Except for my article documenting my experience with Wikipedia, neither of these web sites have anything to do with Wikipedia. The fact that the subject matter is what you all call paranormal only reflects Martinphi's area of interest. This is also true of Open Source Science . As I see it, he is attempting to educate himself in the field so that ScienceApologist will not consider him a "devoted idiot" .  Tom Butler 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Martinphi's work with Tom Butler 

message: It is troubling that Martinphi's "utmost" effort does not include bothering to familiarize himself with the FA process before threatening to torpedo it. Antelan talk 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It was a mistake.  Now show some good faith and stop hammering on it, why don't you? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that one purpose of this Arbitration is to hammer out what has happened. It wouldn't much make sense for me to stop highlighting problems that require resolution. This is one example of several over the course of months; it is not the whole picture, but it is illustrative. Antelan talk 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike some people here, I have both the ability to admit my mistakes and accept the rulings of the ArbCom. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admitting your mistakes is a bit more involved than just saying, "Yup, I was wrong, now stop making such a big deal about it." It entails understanding why your actions are perceived as problematic, and ideally not repeating them. MastCell Talk 05:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do my utmost" 

message: ::This is a very consistent pattern: 
::#edit inappropriately
::#get caught
::#claim ignorance
::#claim that you've mended your ways
::#demand acceptance
::The problem is that you still edit in a troublesome fashion, despite the numerous times that this sequence has repeated itself. Antelan talk 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad my writing is so instructive for you. Antelan talk 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a perfect response.  Thanks.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You can reference his RfC, for starters. Antelan talk 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Martinphi's pattern of editing

message: Using Word to do the counts, I find that Martinphi's evidence section is currently at 1825 words, which is way more than the  1000 word maximum.  (I am including the part where he acts as a proxy for a banned user).  Everyone else has managed to stay under the 1000 word limit.  Cardamon 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 word limit