Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi

message: I purposefully avoided answering criticism that I did not believe that I had enough knowledge of to answer. Having been criticized for this, I am adding to my original answer to meet all points.
I am also stating rather firmly that I believe that this comment on me violates AFG and is an effort to paint me in a bad way so as to try to discredit the answers that I did give. 
This is BAD FORM and violate ad hominem.
perfectblue 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: Here is a link to where a user asks for a 40 year old contractor payslip.  This is highly unreasonable. Even If such records were to still exist, they would likely be on paper in an basement archive somewhere, and would require a "paid" FOIA request and 6 months of waiting. Asking for this is a wiling abuse of WP:V and WP:RS.
perfectblue 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Payslip

message: I'm sorry, but I am not here to "look bad" or "look good."  I am on Wikipedia to participate in an way which is NPOV, useful, and compliant with the rules of Wikipedia.  I do not accept the standard of "if you do anything that doesn't look good or looks 'suspicious,' then you can be asked not to participate."  No.  If I have violated the rules that is one thing.  But I have not, (at least not relative to the the major complaints) and I will not be held to a different standard than any other editor.
If you want to go after all of them the same way, fine.  Go after ScienceApologist first, as he is the worst violator I know of, as the ArbCom decision attests- but it just so happens he is editing on the so-called "side" of those bringing this RfC.  Thus, they don't want to go after him.  Is this an accusation that I am being unfairly prosecuted by those who just don't like my edits?  Yes.  Is this an accusation that those who don't like my edits, and are accusing me of POV-pushing have, by this RfC, raised their own POV-pushing to a new level?  Yes.
The POV pushing by persons such as Minderbinder, ScienceApologist, Wikidudeman, Consumed Crustacean, Guy, and others has to be dealt with.  They are the ones POV-pushing on the articles.  I am not, as my edits most abundantly show - even the ones, among my 1300 plus, which have been brought up on this RfC.  The only way these edits can be construed as POV-pushing is if it is assumed a priori that the subjects of these articles are in fact bunk, and proven to be bunk.  But such an assumption is not justified within Wikipedia, unless it can be sourced.  It is against the rules, because it violates NPOV (and other policies and guidelines).  Therefore it must be stopped, or else Wikipedia will be merely a stage for the posturing of the pseudoskeptical community.  It will have lost its credibility as a bastion of neutral information.
I stand by my editing record and by these principles.  I will not be held to a different standard than any other editor. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling out

message: JoshuaZ, you said, "I'm also profoundly disturbed that the website in question appears to be written by another user here who seems to engage in POV pushing. JoshuaZ 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: This debate appears to be going around in circles by now. I would indeed suggest taking it to another forum, and from the above it would seem that mediation is unlikely to help, so that leaves CN and the AC. >Radiant< 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. MastCell Talk 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly seems obvious that Martinphi is not willing to accept any recommendations made here.  Is there a way to officially close RfC's, or does it just sit here while the next stage is moved on to?  --Minderbinder 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't solve this by banning me.  Take it to ArbCom and have them decide the policy issues.  All my edits are from policy. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circle

message: A case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal.  I assume additional editors may want to add themself or others as involved parties, otherwise participate, or follow along.  --Minderbinder 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom