Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi

This page has been courtesy blanked, with the permission of the party filing the MfD.[1][2] Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User links:

• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notes:

• Martinphi has continually refused to disengage from ScienceApologist. There are numerous examples in which it appears Martinphi takes opportunities to swipe at ScienceApologist or otherwise pick a fight. For example, see the opportunism here, which is discussed here. Despite protestation that the current action in commenting in a thread about SA had nothing to do with SA "at all", Martinphi explicitly admitted that the situation was indeed related to SA: [emphasis added] "Why was I following Ludwig around? Because we were recently involved with SA on other articles."[3]
• ScienceApologist has similarly refused to disengage from Martinphi. There are numerous examples in which it appears ScienceApologist takes opportunities to antagonize Martinphi or otherwise pick a fight. For example, here are a few articles where ScienceApologist has no obvious prior activity, in which SA shows up only shortly after Martin edits the article.[4][5][6]
• Considering the highly disruptive past and long bitter history shared between these users, such examples as above indicate that this entanglement is still an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed.

Resolution:

• Martinphi should not enter into discussions solely to fight against ScienceApologist, or vice versa. "Poisoning the well" against each other is also inappropriate at this point, considering the circumstances, and neither should do that. Both editors should refrain from posting messages to other editors that make oblique references to the other or their past history. Showing up to revert each other is disruptive, regardless of claims about protecting the wiki from each other.
• Martinphi should not make a comment about ScienceApologist himself, and vice versa. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Certainly, both parties are under ArbCom restrictions, but contrary to some assertions there's no need for Martinphi and ScienceApologist to be the ones to raise potential violations. If the problem is actually egregious enough to need to be raised before the sysops or broader community, another editor will do so. These editors work in a topic area that has plenty of other active contributors.
• Martinphi should not edit policies or guidelines based obviously on his interactions with ScienceApologist, and vice versa. Dragging personal conflicts into policies and guidelines that broadly cover activities on Wikipedia is incredibly disruptive. It's practically a textbook case of disrupting the wiki to make a point. If the problem is limited to a single person or a very small topic area, this can be handled with a bit of sense and reasonable applications of already-established principles.
• These restrictions should be enforced with limited, but escalating, topic bans. For example, if the problem arises on Chiropractic, then the offending party should be prohibited from contributing to the article and its talk page. If a second offense occurs on Veterinary chiropractic, the ban should be extended to all chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.

As a further recommendation, but not restriction:

• Martinphi should broaden his Wikipedia contributions, voluntarily, as a show of good faith. Part of the reason editors have a problem with Martinphi is that they feel he's only here to fight with editors on fringe topics, ie. WP:TE. As a show of good faith, he should voluntarily get involved in a wider spectrum of topics that need improvement. This is not a "restriction", but rather some strongly recommended good advice that he should voluntarily embrace. If Martinphi wants to continue in his chosen area, paranormal topics, he can help out on folklore, historical context, cultural views, beliefs, and so on, rather than making edits primarily centered around the fringe science aspects of paranormal topics.

Comment. Further he-said she-said, grandstanding, soapboxing, wild accusations, and so on by anyone involved will be immediately redacted and may result in blocks for personal attacks and disruption. Please direct comments and discussion to the talk page. Vassyana (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Both parties informed of this closure. Martinphi.[7] ScienceApologist.[8]

The purpose of the sanction is to separate these two editors. If one or both of the editors goes inactive for an extended period (weeks, not hours or days), then the sanction is suspended until such time as they are both active again.[9] GRBerry 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ScienceApologist reverted Martinphi at spoon bending, an article which neither editor had ever edited until Marthinphi's edits.[10][11][12] Martinphi did not discuss his removal of information and ScienceApologist did not discuss his revert.[13] ScienceApologist is warned that he has been notified of the resolution above and that such actions explicitly violate the restrictions.[14] Martinphi is reminded removal of sourced information, regardless of source bias, without discussion or explanation may be considered disruptive and a violation of his ArbCom restriction.[15] Vassyana (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon review of their contributions, I noted that ScienceApologist edited psychic to undo an edit by Martinphi.[16][17] I warned ScienceApologist about this edit as well.[18] Vassyana (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ScienceApologist has continued to pursue Martinphi.[19][20] SA made edits related to his complaint.[21] ScienceApologist is banned from spoon bending and reminded of this restriction. He has been informed of this ban, that escalating topic bans will be used for further violations and warned that blocks will be used, if necessary, to prevent violations on user talk pages and noticeboards.[22] Vassyana (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]