Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi

Complaint
I have complained about Vassyana's attempt to "enforce" this at WP:ANI. I will cross-file the report to AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Note about technology
I now use an automated Wikipedia browser which no longer lists who the name of the account who made the change unless I make a direct revert (in which case it is after the fact) or I look at edit history. Therefore I will not be looking to see if Martin is making the change or someone else. Even so, this has already caused a problem at spoon bending and psychic where Martin just happened to be the user making the change in violation of WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT. I will respect the fact that warnings were made, but point out to anyone who cares to read that short of examining who actually is contributing to every article (something I refuse to do), I can do nothing to proactively prevent this from happening. I also will not be reverting myself since the edit I made is a good one and no one has challenged me on the merits. I recommend getting further input to decide whether my response to this request is worth laudability or banning.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If SA is telling the truth (question: which automated Wikipedia browser), then he may not be violating the restrictions. On the other hand, there is something to be said for plausible deniablility, so I only say may not.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it troubling that in just the single day since the remedies above were enacted, ScienceApologist managed to revert Martinphi's edits on two different articles. In the same period, it looks to me like SA edited fewer than ten unique articles.  For someone reverting 'blind', that's a pretty fair bit of overlap.
 * Either SA is – consciously or not – familiar enough with Martinphi's style or edit summaries to recognize Martinphi's work and revert on that basis, or SA is not even reading the edit summaries&mdash;which he ought to do if he's going to revert content edits.
 * On a practical note, what does SA propose that the community do should Martinphi decide that he too will use a wiki browser than anonymizes edits? Should the community sit back and let the two of them continue with their edit warring as long as they're both unaware (wink wink) that each is reverting the other?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Note. This restriction and the use of an "anonymizing" tool were raised for review. The restriction was support and the use of a tool to disregard the restriction rejected. Vassyana (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment(s)
Just a side note, what started out with an admin topic banning Martin has somehow been corrupted into been about Martin and SA, but the nett result being SA is the only person monitored and sanctioned. So what Martin complained about (ie/ being effectively banned by whoever gets to an article first) is now being applied to SA - in complete contrast to the ArbCom restrictions and the initial purpose of the topic ban it should be noted. Shot info (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * moved from primary page GRBerry 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note: (olive (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
 * If one user is violating the restriction and the other is not, the enforcement will be unavoidably lopsided. Regardless, the monitoring and enforcement of the area is not limited to this restriction and is hardly one-sided or biased towards any particular user. For example, see: User_talk:Vassyana. Vassyana (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a amusing comment about how - with enough whining, what started out being about User A, gathered up User B, then had equal sanctions applied for unequal "problems" to Users A & B, and then only User B sanctioned. So the problem is that the original sanction against User A was overturned by a lot of whining about User B.  Just remember, ArbCom disagrees with you and their policies with regard to User A as yet remain unenforced, except unfairly applied to User B.  Shot info (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just remember that what you are asserting as a fact, is actually nothing more than your very strongly held opinion, which also happens to be wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts, regardless of how much you stick your head in the sand. Shot info (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have a difference of opinion. We also apparently differ in that I recognize it as a difference of opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever you say. Shot info (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shot info, the application of the restriction to both users was backed by evidence against both users. Again, if only one person is violating that restriction, the enforcement will reflect that. Also, to be entirely blunt, you are flat out wrong about User A. Review User_talk:Vassyana, which I clearly linked for you. I gave warnings to the editor and followed up on those warnings. The ArbCom restriction has been obviously enforced. Vassyana (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm don't really care about User A being punished now, what amazes me is the fact that It was all about User A, then somehow User B was used as a smokescreen. And hey presto User A was let off (initially) because it was seen to be unfair because of the smokescreen.  Just because User A is still disruptive now as he was back then, doesn't excuse the fact that the smokescreen operated well back then, and (importantly) allowed User B's actions to be judged by the same restrictions that the ArbCom imposed on User A.  Shot info (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI link archived
Please note that due to inactivity on the main page, I timestamped the ANI link, which is now archived here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)