User talk:Martinphi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:::Hi Martin, I think it would be preferable if you provided assurances that you won't out anybody on-wiki again. To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly surprised that you're talking about having a "personal freedom" to out people. If you provided these assurances, then I guess an unblock could be possible, although you would probably be restricted to the ArbCom case. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::Hi Martin, I think it would be preferable if you provided assurances that you won't out anybody on-wiki again. To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly surprised that you're talking about having a "personal freedom" to out people. If you provided these assurances, then I guess an unblock could be possible, although you would probably be restricted to the ArbCom case. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm sorry, this is a misunderstanding: it is not my personal freedom to out people, but to share what I have written myself, and whatever others have written in response to me. However, that need not include any personal information. When I said "personal freedom," I was talking about the GPL license: these interviews were under the the GNU Free Documentation License yet being censored. I see that doesn't apply to internal publishing though. So you’re right, I do not have a personal freedom to out people and I make a commitment not to ever out anybody on-wiki, that is if I am ever allowed to edit Wikipedia again. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==In the email== |
|||
Well, I just thought this might have some outing info in it, I didn't click the links, so taking it out. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Got this by email: |
|||
I do not know the entire background for your block, but note that SA's RIL identity is no secret, as it has been already reported on the Plasma Cosmology forum at xxxxxxxxxxx, as well as here: |
|||
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|||
So all that talk about outing may be a red-herring... |
|||
==Statement on outing== |
|||
I don't think that noting on a blanked page that the full page exists in the history is outing. However, I did not have any intention of outing anyone. |
|||
==General statement== |
|||
People have been asking me to apologize for myself, but I am not going to. Here is some feedback I got: |
|||
::::The "pseudo-outing" was *not* the block reason and focusing on that incident gives the impression that you are mispresenting the block circumstances. Under an assumption of good faith, it still gives weight to claim that you (unintentionally) misrepresent situations and sources. Lacking that assumption, it not only casts the preceding claim as an intentional act, but also has the appearance of gaming the system. The substantive block reason is that your contribution history allegedly reflects a battleground history focused on ScienceApologist. |
|||
I thought it ''was'' the main block reason. |
|||
As has been made quite apparent, the situation is one of battle. There is no other description which properly sums it up. You can't admit that NPOV editors have been driven away (quite aside from me) and not think it's battle. As I said, the debunkers lose if they are no longer allowed their tactics of disruption; thus, if you make the situation collegial, they lose and Wikipedia, wins. But it's a situation in which someone loses. The losers may win also, but in a way which is good for Wikipedia instead of what they think is good. |
|||
::::If you want to be unblocked, you're going to need to convince people that you are not mainly on en.wiki to battle with ScienceApologist and that you can disengage from the situation with ScienceApologist. You will also need to convince people that you will accede to community norms, rather than relying on an interpretation of policy providing negative evidence of permissibility. |
|||
I have have nearly always disengaged with SA to the extent possible and still edit: if I disengaged any more, I'd just stop editing articles I enjoy. And, in fact, that is what I have for a long time intended to do. I've retired except for the ArbCom. |
|||
But if you allow this kind of thing, you simply weaken Wikipedia: there is already a very strong undercurrent which says that people are not treated equitably and fairly on WP. This only strengthens it. |
|||
Yes, I know apologizing all over the place for myself would probably get me unblocked. But over the years I did the best I knew how in the situation which the admins and ArbCom allowed to develop. I'm not going to apologize for doing my best, especially when the only way I could have done better would have been to stop editing. Even if I did something wrong, you simply shouldn't expect so much of editors, it isn't doable or fair, and makes Wikipedia the encyclopedia where one in a million can edit (if that). '''I'm not superhuman, but I have been asked to be.''' |
|||
I don't need to convince people of anything. They are simply wrong if they think I'm here to battle SA. I used to be here to add content, now for a while I've been there merely to make the situation clear, as I have done in the ArbCom. I have nothing against SA; I defend him by email, when others say far worse things about him than I do; I disagree with him mainly on style rather than content; I think we'd get along well, and have a lot in common if we met in real life. So, I focus on the general situation, not SA, as is very apparent from the way I've acted in the ArbCom. |
|||
The situation on Wikipedia has become clear, and quite a lot of my policy work has been integrated into the current ArbCom. The ArbCom has taken my policy interpretations and made them Wikipedia. |
|||
The problem of debunking and the situation of battle unfortunately persists at this time. Without me and others who actually engaged the debunkers, Wikipedia would never have faced the situation to the (small) extent it has. Accusations of battle need to be tempered with an assertion that other forms of NPOV-central engagement were possible, and in this case they were not. You do not ask people in real life to "not battle" when they have a knife to their throat. Neither should you ask a Wikipedia editor to "not battle" when the situation is purely one of "battle or don't edit at all." That is what Wikipedia asked of me, and of many, many others. The admins, and Wikipedia in general, failed to create a collegial editing environment. |
|||
They know that now, they know how policy has been misinterpreted, and there is a new chance going forward, if a very slim one. |
|||
I do ask to be unblocked, but if not, the fact that I have a legacy on Wikipedia is enough. I will remain in spirit. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* I think you need time off. I have advocated a timed, rather than indefinite revocation of editing privileges. I think that if you had been able to keep to the aim you stated some months back, to scale back your activities here, then we would not have this problem now. I also believe that your personal situation is not unlike SA's, in that you feel yourself needing to act as the lone defender of many articles. Unfortunately there is a critical difference, in that SA is supporting the mainstream and you are supporting the opposite. Please be assured that I personally bear you no ill will and would like to see you return at some point, hopefully after the project has found a way of managing long-term advocacy without first waiting for it to escalate into open warfare. I hope people will forgive this edit to a protected page, but I did very much want to express regret, as a long term opponent, for this situation, and my hope that it will not be the end for you here. I took an extended Wikibreak recently and it helped restore my perspective. I hope I can negotiate a timed sanction here, as I think you may well also feel much less personal about things after a decent break. In the mean time are you active on paranormal.wikia.com? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science]] == |
|||
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published. |
|||
ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere. |
|||
All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution). |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, |
|||
'''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:24, 26 March 2009
Indefinite block
{{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block.Enough is enough.--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Martinphi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have a personal thing against SA, only a problem with the way he acts on Wikipedia, and we've been in contact because he edits the articles I do. Nor have I done anything whatsoever to further any on-wiki (or off-wiki) conflict between us. Tznkai is obviously thinking of my evidence at a recent ArbCom where SA has been sanctioned. But presentation of evidence at an ArbCom is no reason for blocking. I have done nothing else, besides participation in that ArbCom, which would promote any conflict between us. Further, my participation in that ArbCom is not over, and this block will interfere with it. I am a party in that ArbCom. Martinphi
Decline reason:
Saying "no reason given for block" does not make it so; the block reason is clearly provided above. I have reviewed your recent contributions independently, agree with the block, and also find your request for redress to be inadequate. — east718 | talk | 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
- I'm bringing this request up at the ANI thread. Not knowing any of the backstory on this, I don't feel as though I can judge this request myself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently it has something to do with making it clear that a longstanding, but blanked, page is available in the history. According to policy, there is nothing wrong with this (everyone's personal information is so available, such as Shoemaker's), and ScienceApologist has many other links to his real name. I feel it is a matter of my personal freedom that I should be able to share these interviews, since it is part of my own participation. I feel that blanking the page itself was sufficient protection for SA unless the page was to be deleted, because blanking prevents search engines from accessing the information. I wished merely to be able to share these interviews, and see no reason why I should not have made it clear that the interview was available in the history.
- Hi Martin, I think it would be preferable if you provided assurances that you won't out anybody on-wiki again. To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly surprised that you're talking about having a "personal freedom" to out people. If you provided these assurances, then I guess an unblock could be possible, although you would probably be restricted to the ArbCom case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, this is a misunderstanding: it is not my personal freedom to out people, but to share what I have written myself, and whatever others have written in response to me. However, that need not include any personal information. When I said "personal freedom," I was talking about the GPL license: these interviews were under the the GNU Free Documentation License yet being censored. I see that doesn't apply to internal publishing though. So you’re right, I do not have a personal freedom to out people and I make a commitment not to ever out anybody on-wiki, that is if I am ever allowed to edit Wikipedia again. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)