| Revision as of 15:27, 16 June 2008 editVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits blanking, closing notes← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:55, 16 June 2008 edit undoVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Closing: closing notesNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| == Closing == | == Closing == | ||
| '''Notes''': | |||
| Closing notes to be added shortly. ] (]) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * 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 ], which is discussed ]. 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: "Why was I following Ludwig around? '''Because we were recently involved with SA ''on other articles'''''." | |||
| * 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. | |||
| *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. There 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 Misplaced Pages is incredibly disruptive. It's practically a textbook case of ]. If the problem is limited to a single person or a very small topic area, this can be handled with a bit of ] 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 ], then the offending party should be prohibited from contributing to the article and its talk page. If a second offense occurs on ], the ban should be extended to all chiropractic related topics, broadly construed. | |||
| As a further recommendation, but not restriction: | |||
| * '''Martinphi should broaden his Misplaced Pages 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. ]. 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 will be immediately redacted and may result in blocks for personal attacks and disruption. ] (]) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:55, 16 June 2008
This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.
- Maintenance use only: Subst either
{{subst:mfd}}OR{{subst:mfdx|2nd}}into the page nominated for deletion.
Then subst{{subst:mfd2|pg=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi|text=...}}into the newly created subpage.
Finally, subst{{subst:mfd3|pg=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi}}into the log.
Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).
Courtesy blanked
This page has been courtesy blanked, with the permission of the party filing the MfD. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Closing
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: "Why was I following Ludwig around? Because we were recently involved with SA on other articles."
- 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.
- 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. There 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 will be immediately redacted and may result in blocks for personal attacks and disruption. Vassyana (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)