Jump to content

User talk:Martinphi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 26 March 2009 (→‎Indefinite block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely for using Wikipedia as a vehicle to further your personal conflict with ScienceApologist. Further details found in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block/ban of Martinphi. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{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)[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:

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)[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.

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)[reply]
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.
I'm being blocked in the very middle of an unclosed Arbitration in which I am a party. Does someone think that blocking me will help stop ScienceApologist's problems? ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Off-wiki as well. What happens in wiki stays in wiki. Respect people's personal lives and let them edit here. Deal with their editing here, and let them live elsewhere, unfettered and unpunished because they edited at Wikipedia. If editing here becomes a liability for editors in real life because others will out them on- or off-wiki, then we have a very real-life problem. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've been disturbed at seeing some of that happen, as with NYB. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martinphi&oldid=279879454"