User talk:Martinphi: Difference between revisions

User talk:Martinphi/Template

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Martinphi and ScienceApologist are subect to an editing restriction for one year, and ScienceApologist is limited to one account. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martinphi, for suggesting to MIchaelbusch that his harping on COI constitutes harassment. It did indeed feel that way. And thanks for your strong presence in Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Adam's recent block on you is mentioned as one of four case studies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam's recent blocking history is spotty. GRBerry 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your email. If you wish to forward the raw material referenced therein, I will review and if I consider appropriate add more evidence. My sense of the case, based on some early comments and your description is that it may be relevant. GRBerry 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the followup email. I understand the caveats and will review thoroughly before making any use. GRBerry 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made very, very limited use. Thanks though. More of it may reveal things I didn't see right off, but the concerns are peripheral to the expected case focus mean so I'd rather not put in the effort required to evaluate it thoroughly. GRBerry 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your disruptive editing here. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your disruptive conduct, you are hereby banned from Ghost light, Will-o'-the-wisp and their associated talk pages. Shell ^babelfish 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban was lifted, following discussion: [1]. Misunderstandings both on my part and of my actions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahah - don't worry, more people thought I was a guy back when my nickname was Jareth :) Shell ^babelfish 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Oljato-Monument Valley! However, I've reverted your move: not because I consider it vandalism, but because you seem to have moved it because you didn't think it was in Arizona, but I have proof that it is. Please look at this link, at the left edge of the map, the north end of Navajo County. This is an official Census Bureau map, demonstrating the areas covered by the Census, and from it you may see that there is a community of Oljato-Monument Valley in Arizona. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi, since you were the one who archived all of the What the bleep talk page post December 20, will you please un-archive and return the December material to the talk page? On that date, you essentially archived all discussions that started prior to that date, which left far too little current discussion on the page. As I noted on the What the bleep talk page, you truncated conversations that were in progress. Thank you in advance for remedying this, Antelan ^talk 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would just re-add the sections started since December 1, that would be great. I agree that long pages are an annoyance, but I think this is a good compromise. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the article needs re-naming or something? No, but the choice of 'a disembodied soul' rather than any of the other 4 definitions (I think we can safely exclude the last two for the purposes of this article} is a matter of perspective. A ghost is not anything precisely, but is said to be something. Mighty Antar (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case you filed was renamed to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist.2FMartinphi. I also made sure SA was notified as you did not follow the instructions at the top of the page and notify him. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:ScienceApologist have both been blocked for violation of arbcom restrictions. See [2] for more details. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinphi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Rlevse said I am blocked per the ArbCom, but I don't read the ArbCom as being applicable here. My sanction was not the same as ScienceApologist's- it wasn't anything like as severe or even similar:

"Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Proposed_decision#Martinphi_restricted

So I'm supposed to be banned from pages where I've been disruptive, then blocked if I violate the ban. If Rlevese wanted to block me, he should surely have done it outside the boundaries of the ArbCom decision.

I emailed Rlevese, but he has not responded.

Relevant information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Apply_enforcement_to_both

---User:Martinphi

Decline reason:

I've read the enforcement request, comments by everyone involved and perused your recent edit history and am enclined to agree with Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): you have been baiting ScienceApologist into becoming incivil on talk pages, and have filed an enforcement request with cherry-picked quotes intended to make him look bad. That is disruptive, and falls well within the ArbCom ruling. The block is good and will stand. — Coren ^(talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rlevse has been notified of this request. --B (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block is well within the ruling and this case has a particularly long and disruptive history, on both sides. Please read the arbcom enforcement page if you haven't already here . Both blocks, SA and MP are totally justified and this request is merely wikilawyering. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-handling support for this block being upheld. Rlevse is absolutely spot-on here: Martin has obviously acted contrary to the ArbCom ruling, as well as in a manner that has a negative effect on the project. Anthøny ^talk 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you already got one pass when both of you were being disruptive at Ghost light, its very sad to see that you've gone right back into conflict with each other elsewhere. If the both of you can't learn to avoid each other, there's little hope this will end well. Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to say two things: first, I did make a mistake in confronting SA on two articles where I wasn't otherwise involved. But I haven't followed him around to the articles he edits, like Cold fusion, whereas he has followed me around to many of the articles I edit (like Bleep) and Astral projection. I can depend on his showing up wherever I edit, or have made significant edits.

Second, my plight is not, I would think, as important as the fact that the ArbCom itself has lost the power to dictate how its sanctions are to be applied. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [3] Documentary tv show. Crazy rulers of the world: Men who stare at goats (military wackos) Having lots of fun with Ingo Swann. Loads more to come. Watching Joseph McMoneagle? I Hope you have a great 2008! Kazuba (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion posed a direct question to me that I'd already basically addressed on the talk page before you joined the RFC. I thought that gives a misleading impression to readers so I replied to it. If you'd like to discuss, please withdraw that line in your statement and I'll withdraw my response. I'll be glad to discuss this with you on the RFC talk or here. Regards, Durova^Charge! 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin. On Adam's RfC you made mention of meatpuppetry on What the Bleep!?, and I was wondering if you could show me. (I figured I should move my question here since it's off-topic regarding Adam's RfC anyway). Thanks, Antelan ^talk 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a response, 4 days later. I will make a note on the RfC, either to note what you have to say about this or to report that you declined to comment. Antelan ^talk 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most of that stuff was actually C&Ced from the Bigfoot article's timeline, though. :P Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments on Bleep. Please consider commenting here. [4] Antelan believes the discussion should be closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. One other issue: there seems to be some difference between your present and past use of the term "skeptic". Now, you say that it is a proud term. Previously, and this may just be my interpretation, it seemed that you associated skeptics with putting in weasel words or ... having a field day with the main article. Am I misunderstanding your edits, and if so, can you set me straight with a brief explanation? Antelan ^talk 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Levine2112 should be included on the arbitraton. Anthon01 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an encyclopedia. People who believe in nonsense, and all of whose friends believe in nonsense, should not write encyclopedia articles about that nonsense. It's counterproductive, because when people look things up in an encyclopedia, they want the truth, not nonsense. I will stay off your talk page henceforth. Please extend me the same courtesy. Rracecarr (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

can I ask, was there only even one page/one move for the topic 'Channelling (mediumistic)' in 2007?

Strange. I would have thought it warranted more interest. Thanks.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to remove your fact tag, but I was trying to see if any of the older versions actually explained what the subject was (which the old current version didn't really do), so was going back a ways. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the same user as Anthon (which is how you just addressed Abridged on her talk page). Also, I am completely willing to take the responsibility for encouraging Abridged to bring an RfC/U, though I did not author it or add much beyond signing it as accurate before there were calls to ban both of us. I have added a small supplement to the evidence that Abridged gave, and my concerns are more with that behavior than the perceived personal attack which concerns Abridged. —Whig (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been named as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to see a related issue I commented on here for some background. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova/Sandbox/Harris Coulter Here's a sandbox version from a deleted biography about a person who's probably notable enough for a biography, based upon authorship notability standards. I'd like to raise the neutrality and sourcing to a level where this can move to article space. Your input is welcome. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 23:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact tag on the "ISPR" statement was removed on 23 January 2008 by user Lucyintheskywithdada without explanation. I requested a source for this statement on the articles talk page on the 24 January 2008 and none has been forthcoming. --Tascio (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to edit the Spiritualism and related articles like Spiritualism (beliefs) that you recently protected. Since any disruption has been blocked, could you unprotect at least till Nealparr and the other are able to edit, so I can do my thing? Thanks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still able to edit the Spiritualism (beliefs) article. -- tariqabjotu 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is notification that homeopathy and related pages are under article probation. Please see Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]