Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:08, 25 July 2007 view sourceMerbabu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,547 edits Tobias Conradi← Previous edit Revision as of 16:21, 25 July 2007 view source Bladestorm (talk | contribs)1,674 edits IantresmanNext edit →
Line 147: Line 147:
:The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place. ]] ] 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) :The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place. ]] ] 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. - ] 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) *'''Endorse''' community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. - ] 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This really is outright disgusting.
<br/>I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.
<br/>First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's ''user page''. Catch is, he went to that editor's ''talk page'' and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. ''Not'' evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour.
<br/>Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category '''did not even exist when the category tag was removed'''. It ''had'' existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained . Also, note that the category was recreated by ], with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to ].
*'''Interesting note''': By redirecting his user and talk pages to "Mainstream astronomy", ] is either asserting himself as being a sock/meatpuppet of "Mainstream astronomy", which would make suggesting that Mainstream astronomy is a pseudonym of ScienceApologist far less of a stretch, or... it means that Velikovsky was inappropriately ''pretending'' to be "Mainstream astronomy", in which case his recreation of a deleted category should ''certainly'' be scrutinized far more heavily than Ian removing a link to said category during the time that it ''didn't even exist''.
Point is, at least ''one'' of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.
<br/>I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a ''single'' case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?
<br/>So, seriously, can anyone here provide a '''single''' diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.
<br/>No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any ''specific'' proof? I'm talking about diffs here.
<br/>Do you have diffs? ''Specific'' actions? Yes or no. ] 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


== Tobias Conradi == == Tobias Conradi ==

Revision as of 16:21, 25 July 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header



Iantresman

This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Misplaced Pages. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I would not object to a community ban. After Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment, Iantresman actually posted on MA's user page to argue! This seems a clear case of Immune to Clue. KillerChihuahua 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you redirect your talk page to your user page, I don't think it surprising for people to edit your user page, possibly by accident.--Prosfilaes 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If you see "I've left because of harassment from Foo", and you are Foo, then its fairly clear the editor isn't interested in your argumentative posts, on talk or user page. That said, this is one tiny bit of the situation, and not the defining one, merely the most recent. KillerChihuahua 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Evidence?
  • I have a pending Request for arbitration on another Administrator.
  • I note that JoshuaZ has provided no diffs supporting his accusations of bad editing against me. Which of my edits have pushed pseudoscience?
  • I am also productive editor with over 20 articles to my name (see my user page).
  • As I noted on the RfA, that User:Mainstream_astronomy
  • has just deleted an 18-month old article, CREIL, with no discussion
  • He's tagged an article on a senior respectable scientist with at least a pseudoscience tag, (under another username), with no justification, added a highly contentious unsubstantiated comment, that was subsequently removed on the ground of original research
  • He's tagged another living person with a pseudoscience tag, again with no reliable source.
  • I currently suspect that User:Mainstream_astronomy is a sockpuppet of user:76.214.223.142, both of whom are contributing to an AfD here

--Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

    • 1) Evidence is the Rfar against you, this is already linked. 2) Your Rfar request against FM was not even mentioned until you brought it up, but now that you have, yes I find it further evidence you are more interested in spurious charges and harassment against those who do not turn a blind eye to your argumentative and contentious flouting of the Rfar ruling. 3) Productive is not an issue; it is even irrelevant. "Look at my articles started" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". 5) Ma's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing a community sanction of Ma, we are discussing a community sanction of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you would tell me which of my statement below is incorrect:
  • FM accused me of breaking the RfAr with this specific edit, suggesting it was "aggressive biased editing"
  • In that edit of 13 July, I removed two tags: Category:Immanuel Velikovsky and Category:Pseudoscience
  • At the TIME of removing the tag, the Category:Immanuel Velikovsky, did not exist as a category; it was created over 2 hours later. I mentioned this in my edit summary.
  • Hence removing Category:Immanuel Velikovsky was a sensible editorial decision, since the category did not exist.
  • The Category:Pseudoscience was removed because the only mention of pseudoscience in the article relates directly to Immanuel Velikovsky, not to the subject "Catastrophism". The Skpetics Dictionary does not have an entry of "Catastrophism", let alone designate it as "pseudoscience". Which begs the question, why was the article tagged as pseudoscience? Additionally, there is no reliable source linking catastrophism with pseudoscience. (Velikovsky also covers astronomy, mythology and geology; do we tag these with the pseudoscience tag?)
  • Hence removing Category:Pseudoscience was a sensible editorial decision.
  • Consequently, this specific edit does not violate the terms of my probation, because it is not "aggressive biased editing"
  • On the contrary, adding the Category:Pseudoscience without a reliable source as justification, is a biased edit. --Iantresman 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You've just validated everything they've said about you. Like FM said, classic Iantresman. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Odd nature, but that's bull. You've obviously made up your mind in advance. Iantresman has raised valid issues, and you (and others) have avoided answering his specific direct questions. Talk about a Kangaroo court opinion! I'm sorry, but a refusal to respond to valid questions and a legitimate defense of his actions is nothing short of that. I still hold that Ian has a right to defend his actions and question charges leveled against him. To deny that right is to deny due process and make a mockery of the legal system on Misplaced Pages. That's just my opinion, of course. Mgmirkin 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's easy enough to do, since Misplaced Pages has no legal system. Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely my point. That's a problem, not a good thing.
  • If there is no "rule of law" here, then how can it be considered a fair and unbiased place to live, work, make edits, etc? As it were. People (especially admins or self-proclaimed "experts") can't simply go around making unfounded statements/accusations that may have direct negative consequences on other users (such as bans), then completely ignore a user's right to defend their action or ask valid pointed questions toward the end of peaceable dispute resolution.
  • This is an issue that needs addressing. This is the issue behind Ian's recent ArbCom request against FeloniousMonk {sp?}, which really should have been resolved prior to a ban (and which some have used as specious "evidence" of malfeasance; defending oneself against perceived false allegations is not evidence of malfeasance, regardless of biased popular opinion). Makes for bad policy to ban someone before they are given a chance to utilize their right to redress grievances that have possible direct impact on said sanctions, etc. My opinion. Mgmirkin 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally would have been a bit more open to hearing Ian's arguments, but when you engage in meatpuppetry rather than request an unblock to let yourself be heard, your credibility here is nil. Blueboy96 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal you have there, Mgmirkin. Can you give us any examples of other websites that have successfully implemented their own court system, complete with promise of "due process"? I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly how that would work within the context of a volunteer-managed online community. Examples of existing systems would help. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I find Iantresman to be superficially reasonable but ultimately obdurate. He flatly refused to suggest any kind of compromise in at least one dispute, on an article where he was already subject to ArbCom sanction, and his demands rapidly became vexatious. His technique is repeatably to pretend at sweet reason while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the fringe or pseudoscientific point of view. This refusal to bend on demands which are rejected for good reason by other editors, or to drop them, makes him a prolific source of wasted effort for editors who would much prefer to be doing something else, but he also interprets silence as assent, so argument is necessary. I had enough of him a long time ago. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering the discussion I saw elsewhere about Iantresman using alternate accounts and trying to get help in his recent edit wars.. I can't help but to agree with the originator. SirFozzie 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hearsay is invalid rhetoric akin to "a friend of a friend of a friend said something specious about someone else, so you should believe it." It's not notable/verifiable and has no place being used as support of an argument here. Cite specific issues or conversations. Please, and thank you. Mgmirkin 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked User:Iantresman. Tom Harrison 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Misplaced Pages and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I do think Ian became less aggressive after the RFAR but that doesn't mean he has stopped causing problems, and Guy's statement is quite accurate. It can be very seductive trying to argue with someone like Iantresman, and as a result a lot of editors end up doing it, a lot, and yet it solves nothing. Mangojuice 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I support the block too. ElinorD (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Per my comments to RfArb, I support this block. Misplaced Pages should never have been allowed to become a game wherein tendentious editors drive off mainstream experts by sheer perseverance accompanied by the superficial appearance of civility (per JzG above - and continuous litigation is not civil, actually.) It has become exactly that sort of game, and I can only hope that this action takes us one small step towards solving the problem.Proabivouac 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. The moment of truth came when he began kicking User:ScienceApologist when the latter was down. The community needs to do a better job of ushering these folks quickly to the door or we will end up with a form of Gresham's Law, in which the bad editors drive out the good. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The irony. It seems that iantresman was replying to the editor, who was obviously not down then, but trying to justify why policy and his ban shouldn't apply to him,
  • And not requiring an Admin to justify their actions, and banning an editor so they can't argue for it, let alone reply, is holding down an editor in my book. That's very big of you. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ian, this is not not how it went. SA had already stated that he was leaving and yet you still kept getting in your digs. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Misplaced Pages by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. Blueboy96 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I oppose a close. Although I think that[REDACTED] is better without Mr. Tresman's participation and endorse Tom Harrison's block, I think for form's sake, the process should not seem hasty. JoshuaZ opened this discussion less than 12 hours ago. I would like these discussions to stay open for a while; we want, I think, to be careful about what kind of precedents we set. Bucketsofg 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precedents have already been set. In this particular case, I see that Admins do not have to account for their claims, Admin are not required to answer questions, Admins may give one editor "leeway", (ie. actually break policy and ignoring it), and ban another editor for complaining.--83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Blueboy96 and Proabivouac: Like when Iantresman was driven from Misplaced Pages by ScienceApologist, after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks,, and was harassed by another editor. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is sadly overlooked here is that while User:Iantresman is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments. User:ScienceApologist was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Misplaced Pages, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Misplaced Pages is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down Jon 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not overlooked; completely irrelevant. "made contributions" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". SA's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing community ban of SA, but of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Deleting two category tags looks like a harsh interpretation of "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling", or as FM described it "aggressive biased editing" --Girls4girls 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Obvious Suspected meatpuppet of Iantresman

Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.

The work of ScienceApologist demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate that he should move on.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web. Ian Tresman has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect. FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!

ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted to group bully tactics.

NB The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!

Soupdragon42 12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT)

  • Since he's continued the same behavior since the last ArbCom case, albeit a bit more subtle and seems highly disinclined to change his behavior, I'd have to support the indef block. Shell 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: Girls4girls (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a throwaway account created to participate in this discussion and a very likely sockpuppet of Iantresman. MastCell 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I altogether dislike both Iantresman's manner, and his ideas of what constitutes science. Nonetheless he represents a minority position, and minority positions should be represented, and I am very reluctant to ban one of the very few people who are willing to maintain views such as his. Obviously, had he been willing to do so in a more temperate manner we would not be having this discussion, for most WPedians would not treat the repeated but polite expressions of even extreme views to be objectionable. Unfortunately, it is by now equally obvious that there is no way of ameliorating his manner of participation, so I do not suggest we do otherwise than proposed here, but I think it necessary to acknowledge the benefits to NPOV that did accompany the disruption. Sound science can well afford to let itself be challenged, even ignorantly, even by the biased, and certainly by the impolite. DGG (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I have been greedy. Please, adjust your watchlist a bit and enjoy greater exposure to those extreme views, with their attendent blessings and mine. Tom Harrison 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? The official checkuser result is "inconclusive", since there is no technical evidence to tie Iantresman to Girls4girls. You may well conclude on the basis of the timing and content of the two edits by Girls4girls that the preponderance of evidence points to it being a puppet of Ian. I don't see how you can consider that "beyond a reasonable doubt". --Art Carlson 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser result showed that the new account which showed up out of the blue to defend Ian was using open proxies, which they wouldn't be if they were simply a legitimate new user who showed up at an odd moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
All right. Up to now I didn't even know what an open proxy is, much less that Misplaced Pages has a policy discouraging them. I don't share your certitude, but at least I see now where you are coming from. --Art Carlson 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Controvert community ban. Strong disagreement. I believe this is a biased decision for some of the reasons listed above. Apparently no right to due process in defending his actions. However, it appears the mob has spoken. Though I still disagree with the mob mentality. Users do have rights and admins/"experts" should be held to a higher standard when presenting evidence, due to their positions of greater authority. The fact that they refuse to respond to legitimate questions and calls for citations/clarification of statements speaks volumes about the bias they have against User:Iantresman. Kangaroo court, pure and simple. Look it up. I'm done. Mgmirkin 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mgmirkin, the Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing guideline was created because some individuals had successfully gamed the dispute resolution process to exhaust the patience of others until productive editors either abandoned certain topics or abandoned Misplaced Pages. It does not serve the site's interests when such tactics succeed in creating semiprivate domains for people who demonstrate consistent contempt for site policies. This site's consensus standard is assume good faith in absence of evidence to the contrary, not due process at all costs. Unsubstantiated accusations of bias and kangaroo court contribute nothing to this discussion. We're assessing damage caused and the likelihood of substantial damage continuing. This is a textbook example of disruptive editing; I'll stand behind this community ban. Durova 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I can understand if you think that you have sufficient evidence to abandon the assumption of good faith for Ian. I can also understand if you judge the preponderance of evidence to indicate that the risk of damage by a speedy banishment is less than the risk of damage of waiting too long. But please don't argue against due process as a principle. A community like Misplaced Pages agrees on rules and procedures, and due process just means following them all the time, not just when you feel like it. If you think the rules and precedures in place are too costly, then you can try to get a consensus to change them. --Art Carlson 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against it as a principle. I'm arguing that it isn't the overriding principle. And I have gotten a consensus to change the procedures that were previously in place: I was one of the principal coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline that applies here. I see no consensus for the argument you propose. Durova 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that JoshuaZ had suggested banning Iantresman, and hardly 5 hours later Tom Harrison had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see de facto ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.

I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:

  • There is no need to implement a block until a decision has been made by the community.
  • A minimum time (e.g. 4 weeks) must be allowed to ensure full discussion and judicious consideration.
  • A ban should be supported by an obvious consensus in the community or a minimum number (e.g. three) of administrators, preferably both.
  • The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision.
  • The evidence for any questions of fact upon which the decision is based should be explicitly laid out (usually as diffs).

(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Misplaced Pages processes has a suggestion, please let me know.)

--Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Art, if you're talking about notification and opportunity for defense I'm in agreement. I wish you had been around in March and April when this was discussed at the policy level. As you advised me, please garner consensus if you want the standard to change. I would not consider it canvassing if you notified me of any relevant discussion that takes place over there. I argued rather passionately for something similar but got overruled. Now I abide by the policy as it stands. Durova 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BAN, bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. This is not the same thing as saying that only the previous Ian-related matters that Arbcom has reviewed have any weight in the matter. The discussion here has weight as well, though this thread is still open for further discussion of the wisdom of a ban. If Arbcom looks over this particular discussion thread, they will certainly be looking into its thoroughness and the amount of data presented. It might not hurt if an advocate of the ban would try to sum up the thread so far. EdJohnston 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. I just re-read the whole discussion, thinking I could try to throw together a summary, even though or especially because I have not yet taken sides on the issue, but the arguments flowed through my fingers like sand. It is clear that Ian has somehow managed to make himself a number of enemies, but that of itself is not a justification for a ban. If he is as bad as these editors feel, then it should be easy to list a half-dozen violations of policy and to cite one example of each. It should be practically trivial for KillerChihuahua to demonstrate "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". Although I would welcome a summary from anyone, I think the one who is obligated to present his arguments is Tom Harrison. He laid an indefinite block on Ian 4 days ago and has neither before nor since wasted a single word to justify it. This goes beyond Ian. It is a question of how this community lives up to its ideals of civility and accountability. --Art Carlson 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the community's ideals of accountability is that editors who persistently, incorrigibily disrupt Misplaced Pages, in the consensus of the community, may be blocked. This principle is codified in the disruptive editing guideline. I've never dealt with Ian (except for his inappropriate jubilation over the fact that ScienceApologist had left the project), and I don't claim to be the arbiter of whether such a consensus has been reached, but the disruptive editing guideline exists for a reason. MastCell 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. Ian must be held accountable for his editing style. You and I must be held accountable for the arguments and tone we bring to this discussion. Tom must be held accountable for his administrative actions. --Art Carlson 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Art Carlson, Tom made the right call. We have already spent far too much time on this situation.Proabivouac 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying he made the wrong call. I presume he spent a reasonable amount of time examining the case and brooding over the proper course of action. I think it would be helpful if he would take a few percent of the time he spent coming to a decision to tell us what his reasoning was. I think this would be good for several reasons. One of them is that being able to refer to a clear set of arguments on this case may save us time and lead to better decision on similar cases in the future. --Art Carlson 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to endorse a mere topic ban, but I can't get past the fact that he drove two users off the project. The community simply can't tolerate someone who creates a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree about the posionous atmoshpere. The point I was making is really that the community can go ahead and topic ban Iantresman (for disruption) with the full backing of the existing Arbcom decision. But on top of that Arbcom enforcement are supposed to be making another decision about Iantresman's probation violation--Cailil 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • endorsing ban per WP:ENC. Misplaced Pages is "yet another mouthpiece for the status quo". Any user refusing to acknowledge that and resorting to protracted campaigning instead has no place here. I am pleasantly surprised that this "community sanction" process can in fact produce tangible results. dab (𒁳) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Echoing the above... I'm sure I'm biased here, but Misplaced Pages is way too tolerant of people with a fringe/minoritarian axe to grind, time on their hands, and no interest in WP:WEIGHT or WP:ENC. It's all we can do to keep our heads above water in a sea of accounts who think an encyclopedia should give equal time to the ideas that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, cholesterol plays no role in heart disease... I could go on, but I'm depressing myself. Anyhow, my point: I would endorse a topic ban. MastCell 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • yes: it is amazing how many people think WP:ENC doesn't apply to them if they just keep waving their hands and changing the topic. We need to become less patient with these. We have WP:FTN now to address this problem, but we really need to learn to waste less time on each incidence. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him. --Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. - Crockspot 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This really is outright disgusting.
I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.
First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's user page. Catch is, he went to that editor's talk page and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. Not evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour.
Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category did not even exist when the category tag was removed. It had existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained here. Also, note that the category was recreated by User:Velikovsky, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole contributions appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to User:Mainstream astronomy.

  • Interesting note: By redirecting his user and talk pages to "Mainstream astronomy", User:Velikovsky is either asserting himself as being a sock/meatpuppet of "Mainstream astronomy", which would make suggesting that Mainstream astronomy is a pseudonym of ScienceApologist far less of a stretch, or... it means that Velikovsky was inappropriately pretending to be "Mainstream astronomy", in which case his recreation of a deleted category should certainly be scrutinized far more heavily than Ian removing a link to said category during the time that it didn't even exist.

Point is, at least one of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.
I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?
So, seriously, can anyone here provide a single diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.
No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any specific proof? I'm talking about diffs here.
Do you have diffs? Specific actions? Yes or no. Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

A previous sanction discussion was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current WP:AN report, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's now four IPs. I would agree that he's no longer welcome, and suggest it's time for an indef. We've certainly indeffed for less! AKRadecki 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I Support an indef block here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
When a user is unwilling to accept blocks and resorts to changing IPs to avoid them, it is time to take a harder stance. I regretfully support this move. Until(1 == 2) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Tobias has been rather disruptive here over the past few months - I think our only option here now is an indef block. His behaviour is now becoming too much for mediocore blocks to stop. It is most unfortunate that I believe that the positives far outweigh the negatives of Tobias being removed from the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As per Until(1 == 2) and Ryan. It is really unfortunate. -- FayssalF - 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tobias has had numerous opportunities to indicate he was going to change. He has not. SirFozzie 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
While I was blocking the block evading IPs, I did engage in a brief conversation with Tobias on my talkpage where he was complaining about his original block on 24 February 2006 and he essentially rejected my comment that by sockpuppeting he is only making it worse for himself. I don't know enough about Tobias to say if his behavior outweighs the value of his contributions, but it seems clear to me he doesn't accept the validity of the ARBCOM sanctions, he doesn't intend to follow them, and he sees the enforcement of the sanctions as illegitimate.--Isotope23 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This very discussion is evidence that the sock puppetry has made it worse for him. I had been for a couple of days, in my mind, lightly debating whether I should open a discussion like this. The sock puppetry report on WP:AN was the last straw for me. It's what made me say "Enough is enough". Without the socks, I would likely still be thinking about it, and quite possibly would never have reached the point of launching this discussion. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
He may not accept the ArbCom's decision, but the ArbCom's solutions are binding. Sockpuppetry does make his situation worse; I support an indefinite block. — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef ban per above arguments. Many opportunities for improvement squandered. - Crockspot 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment He's now up to eight sock IPs today alone. Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi is tracking them now. Five of those are from his breif sock-puppeting rampage a year or so ago, the rest are from today. And predictibally, he's now attacking me for bringing this up, and for being one of the first to block him for incivility, well over a year ago. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant but firm support, per the block log at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. It seems that the guy goes in spurts ... you never know when he's gonna snap. I'm not as familiar with the case as most of the people who have commented, but a cursory reading of the events indicates that this guy is too unstable for Misplaced Pages. Blueboy96 19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is to block indefinitely, I'll take the responsibility of implementing it. I've worked with him in the past, tried to counsel him away from this precipice, and I've never blocked him. If the group comes to agreement that it's appropriate, I'll implement the block and document it both on his user talk and via e-mail. If the consensus is not to remove him from the project, I'll be available to assist in any remediation needed. - CHAIRBOY () 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Until(1 == 2) 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...that'd probably be best. Isotope and I have been involved, with my part being the "corrupt" individual who extended his block to the current month, so a third party is probably appropriate. A consensus seems to exist. As a curious aside, in one of his rants that someone (John?) reverted on my talk page, he listed a definition of corruption as inappropriate activities done for personal gain. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get absolutely no personal gain from adminship, and a small amount of personal loss (headaches, time my wife and daughter think I should be spending with them, etc, etc)...so who here's getting those big paychecks that I'm missing out on? AKRadecki 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, I could implement it as well. I'm already on his list of corrupt admins; no reason to add another name there...--Isotope23 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a conversation I was having with him today in regards to his block in my Archives.--Isotope23 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm on his list of corrupt admins (no doubt near the top), I got one of his missives too, I usually do. I've always hoped that there was some way to avoid indefinitely blocking him but the chasm between his perception of us and our perception of him at this time seems too wide to bridge. The only answer seems to be an indefinite block (with the proviso that if he undertakes to change, to understand what the issues about his approach are, and to contribute productively, it could be lifted.) Hats off to Chairboy for volunteering to implement the block and to mentor. I'm also willing to implement it if need be. so... sadly... endorse indefinite block. If this goes through someone perhaps should update the ArbCom case (log of blocks and bans) pointing to this discussion. Oh, and Akradecki... the check's in the mail, trust me. Now get back to work! ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If this is the result here I'd like to think that Tobias would be welcomed back if he resolved to work on how he deals with his fellow editors.--Isotope23 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A pre-emptive note, there's every reason not to rush anything. While a consensus seems to be emerging, a WP:CS 'ban' is big medicine, and it is in the best interests of all involved to make sure that all sides have a chance to make their opinion known. If that means waiting a few days, then that's the right thing to do. - CHAIRBOY () 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. No rush. Though his continuing IP hopping to drop accusations and attacks around is getting old very fast. (Latest this morning/last night was all over the User and Talk pages of his various IPs and the tracking category.) - TexasAndroid 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that this individual has presumably used 22 socks so far. I don't know if I even have that many socks. I can agree that it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer, but based on the current behavior, I can see how an indefinite block might be called for. Out of curiosity, would there be any way that this individual could, under his own identity, make a comment here in his own defence and/or to agree to terms to allow him to continue in a limited capacity? John Carter 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What contributions to Misplaced Pages does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude, disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? --Merbabu 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bombaplena requesting unblocking

Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let User talk:Bombaplena (and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall:

So. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See no reason to grant an unblock. As you said, the history speaks for itself. SirFozzie 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would just recommend to them they create a new account, tell them that their existing accounts will not be unblocked, and protect their user talk pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)



Iantresman

This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Misplaced Pages. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I would not object to a community ban. After Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment, Iantresman actually posted on MA's user page to argue! This seems a clear case of Immune to Clue. KillerChihuahua 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you redirect your talk page to your user page, I don't think it surprising for people to edit your user page, possibly by accident.--Prosfilaes 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If you see "I've left because of harassment from Foo", and you are Foo, then its fairly clear the editor isn't interested in your argumentative posts, on talk or user page. That said, this is one tiny bit of the situation, and not the defining one, merely the most recent. KillerChihuahua 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Evidence?
  • I have a pending Request for arbitration on another Administrator.
  • I note that JoshuaZ has provided no diffs supporting his accusations of bad editing against me. Which of my edits have pushed pseudoscience?
  • I am also productive editor with over 20 articles to my name (see my user page).
  • As I noted on the RfA, that User:Mainstream_astronomy
  • has just deleted an 18-month old article, CREIL, with no discussion
  • He's tagged an article on a senior respectable scientist with at least a pseudoscience tag, (under another username), with no justification, added a highly contentious unsubstantiated comment, that was subsequently removed on the ground of original research
  • He's tagged another living person with a pseudoscience tag, again with no reliable source.
  • I currently suspect that User:Mainstream_astronomy is a sockpuppet of user:76.214.223.142, both of whom are contributing to an AfD here

--Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

    • 1) Evidence is the Rfar against you, this is already linked. 2) Your Rfar request against FM was not even mentioned until you brought it up, but now that you have, yes I find it further evidence you are more interested in spurious charges and harassment against those who do not turn a blind eye to your argumentative and contentious flouting of the Rfar ruling. 3) Productive is not an issue; it is even irrelevant. "Look at my articles started" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". 5) Ma's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing a community sanction of Ma, we are discussing a community sanction of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you would tell me which of my statement below is incorrect:
  • FM accused me of breaking the RfAr with this specific edit, suggesting it was "aggressive biased editing"
  • In that edit of 13 July, I removed two tags: Category:Immanuel Velikovsky and Category:Pseudoscience
  • At the TIME of removing the tag, the Category:Immanuel Velikovsky, did not exist as a category; it was created over 2 hours later. I mentioned this in my edit summary.
  • Hence removing Category:Immanuel Velikovsky was a sensible editorial decision, since the category did not exist.
  • The Category:Pseudoscience was removed because the only mention of pseudoscience in the article relates directly to Immanuel Velikovsky, not to the subject "Catastrophism". The Skpetics Dictionary does not have an entry of "Catastrophism", let alone designate it as "pseudoscience". Which begs the question, why was the article tagged as pseudoscience? Additionally, there is no reliable source linking catastrophism with pseudoscience. (Velikovsky also covers astronomy, mythology and geology; do we tag these with the pseudoscience tag?)
  • Hence removing Category:Pseudoscience was a sensible editorial decision.
  • Consequently, this specific edit does not violate the terms of my probation, because it is not "aggressive biased editing"
  • On the contrary, adding the Category:Pseudoscience without a reliable source as justification, is a biased edit. --Iantresman 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You've just validated everything they've said about you. Like FM said, classic Iantresman. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Odd nature, but that's bull. You've obviously made up your mind in advance. Iantresman has raised valid issues, and you (and others) have avoided answering his specific direct questions. Talk about a Kangaroo court opinion! I'm sorry, but a refusal to respond to valid questions and a legitimate defense of his actions is nothing short of that. I still hold that Ian has a right to defend his actions and question charges leveled against him. To deny that right is to deny due process and make a mockery of the legal system on Misplaced Pages. That's just my opinion, of course. Mgmirkin 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's easy enough to do, since Misplaced Pages has no legal system. Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely my point. That's a problem, not a good thing.
  • If there is no "rule of law" here, then how can it be considered a fair and unbiased place to live, work, make edits, etc? As it were. People (especially admins or self-proclaimed "experts") can't simply go around making unfounded statements/accusations that may have direct negative consequences on other users (such as bans), then completely ignore a user's right to defend their action or ask valid pointed questions toward the end of peaceable dispute resolution.
  • This is an issue that needs addressing. This is the issue behind Ian's recent ArbCom request against FeloniousMonk {sp?}, which really should have been resolved prior to a ban (and which some have used as specious "evidence" of malfeasance; defending oneself against perceived false allegations is not evidence of malfeasance, regardless of biased popular opinion). Makes for bad policy to ban someone before they are given a chance to utilize their right to redress grievances that have possible direct impact on said sanctions, etc. My opinion. Mgmirkin 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally would have been a bit more open to hearing Ian's arguments, but when you engage in meatpuppetry rather than request an unblock to let yourself be heard, your credibility here is nil. Blueboy96 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal you have there, Mgmirkin. Can you give us any examples of other websites that have successfully implemented their own court system, complete with promise of "due process"? I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly how that would work within the context of a volunteer-managed online community. Examples of existing systems would help. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I find Iantresman to be superficially reasonable but ultimately obdurate. He flatly refused to suggest any kind of compromise in at least one dispute, on an article where he was already subject to ArbCom sanction, and his demands rapidly became vexatious. His technique is repeatably to pretend at sweet reason while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the fringe or pseudoscientific point of view. This refusal to bend on demands which are rejected for good reason by other editors, or to drop them, makes him a prolific source of wasted effort for editors who would much prefer to be doing something else, but he also interprets silence as assent, so argument is necessary. I had enough of him a long time ago. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering the discussion I saw elsewhere about Iantresman using alternate accounts and trying to get help in his recent edit wars.. I can't help but to agree with the originator. SirFozzie 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hearsay is invalid rhetoric akin to "a friend of a friend of a friend said something specious about someone else, so you should believe it." It's not notable/verifiable and has no place being used as support of an argument here. Cite specific issues or conversations. Please, and thank you. Mgmirkin 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked User:Iantresman. Tom Harrison 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Misplaced Pages and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I do think Ian became less aggressive after the RFAR but that doesn't mean he has stopped causing problems, and Guy's statement is quite accurate. It can be very seductive trying to argue with someone like Iantresman, and as a result a lot of editors end up doing it, a lot, and yet it solves nothing. Mangojuice 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I support the block too. ElinorD (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Per my comments to RfArb, I support this block. Misplaced Pages should never have been allowed to become a game wherein tendentious editors drive off mainstream experts by sheer perseverance accompanied by the superficial appearance of civility (per JzG above - and continuous litigation is not civil, actually.) It has become exactly that sort of game, and I can only hope that this action takes us one small step towards solving the problem.Proabivouac 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. The moment of truth came when he began kicking User:ScienceApologist when the latter was down. The community needs to do a better job of ushering these folks quickly to the door or we will end up with a form of Gresham's Law, in which the bad editors drive out the good. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The irony. It seems that iantresman was replying to the editor, who was obviously not down then, but trying to justify why policy and his ban shouldn't apply to him,
  • And not requiring an Admin to justify their actions, and banning an editor so they can't argue for it, let alone reply, is holding down an editor in my book. That's very big of you. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ian, this is not not how it went. SA had already stated that he was leaving and yet you still kept getting in your digs. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Misplaced Pages by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. Blueboy96 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I oppose a close. Although I think that[REDACTED] is better without Mr. Tresman's participation and endorse Tom Harrison's block, I think for form's sake, the process should not seem hasty. JoshuaZ opened this discussion less than 12 hours ago. I would like these discussions to stay open for a while; we want, I think, to be careful about what kind of precedents we set. Bucketsofg 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Precedents have already been set. In this particular case, I see that Admins do not have to account for their claims, Admin are not required to answer questions, Admins may give one editor "leeway", (ie. actually break policy and ignoring it), and ban another editor for complaining.--83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Blueboy96 and Proabivouac: Like when Iantresman was driven from Misplaced Pages by ScienceApologist, after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks,, and was harassed by another editor. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is sadly overlooked here is that while User:Iantresman is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments. User:ScienceApologist was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Misplaced Pages, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Misplaced Pages is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down Jon 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not overlooked; completely irrelevant. "made contributions" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". SA's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing community ban of SA, but of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Deleting two category tags looks like a harsh interpretation of "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling", or as FM described it "aggressive biased editing" --Girls4girls 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Obvious Suspected meatpuppet of Iantresman

Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.

The work of ScienceApologist demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate that he should move on.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web. Ian Tresman has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect. FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!

ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted to group bully tactics.

NB The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!

Soupdragon42 12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT)

  • Since he's continued the same behavior since the last ArbCom case, albeit a bit more subtle and seems highly disinclined to change his behavior, I'd have to support the indef block. Shell 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: Girls4girls (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a throwaway account created to participate in this discussion and a very likely sockpuppet of Iantresman. MastCell 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I altogether dislike both Iantresman's manner, and his ideas of what constitutes science. Nonetheless he represents a minority position, and minority positions should be represented, and I am very reluctant to ban one of the very few people who are willing to maintain views such as his. Obviously, had he been willing to do so in a more temperate manner we would not be having this discussion, for most WPedians would not treat the repeated but polite expressions of even extreme views to be objectionable. Unfortunately, it is by now equally obvious that there is no way of ameliorating his manner of participation, so I do not suggest we do otherwise than proposed here, but I think it necessary to acknowledge the benefits to NPOV that did accompany the disruption. Sound science can well afford to let itself be challenged, even ignorantly, even by the biased, and certainly by the impolite. DGG (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I have been greedy. Please, adjust your watchlist a bit and enjoy greater exposure to those extreme views, with their attendent blessings and mine. Tom Harrison 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? The official checkuser result is "inconclusive", since there is no technical evidence to tie Iantresman to Girls4girls. You may well conclude on the basis of the timing and content of the two edits by Girls4girls that the preponderance of evidence points to it being a puppet of Ian. I don't see how you can consider that "beyond a reasonable doubt". --Art Carlson 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser result showed that the new account which showed up out of the blue to defend Ian was using open proxies, which they wouldn't be if they were simply a legitimate new user who showed up at an odd moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
All right. Up to now I didn't even know what an open proxy is, much less that Misplaced Pages has a policy discouraging them. I don't share your certitude, but at least I see now where you are coming from. --Art Carlson 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Controvert community ban. Strong disagreement. I believe this is a biased decision for some of the reasons listed above. Apparently no right to due process in defending his actions. However, it appears the mob has spoken. Though I still disagree with the mob mentality. Users do have rights and admins/"experts" should be held to a higher standard when presenting evidence, due to their positions of greater authority. The fact that they refuse to respond to legitimate questions and calls for citations/clarification of statements speaks volumes about the bias they have against User:Iantresman. Kangaroo court, pure and simple. Look it up. I'm done. Mgmirkin 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mgmirkin, the Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing guideline was created because some individuals had successfully gamed the dispute resolution process to exhaust the patience of others until productive editors either abandoned certain topics or abandoned Misplaced Pages. It does not serve the site's interests when such tactics succeed in creating semiprivate domains for people who demonstrate consistent contempt for site policies. This site's consensus standard is assume good faith in absence of evidence to the contrary, not due process at all costs. Unsubstantiated accusations of bias and kangaroo court contribute nothing to this discussion. We're assessing damage caused and the likelihood of substantial damage continuing. This is a textbook example of disruptive editing; I'll stand behind this community ban. Durova 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I can understand if you think that you have sufficient evidence to abandon the assumption of good faith for Ian. I can also understand if you judge the preponderance of evidence to indicate that the risk of damage by a speedy banishment is less than the risk of damage of waiting too long. But please don't argue against due process as a principle. A community like Misplaced Pages agrees on rules and procedures, and due process just means following them all the time, not just when you feel like it. If you think the rules and precedures in place are too costly, then you can try to get a consensus to change them. --Art Carlson 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against it as a principle. I'm arguing that it isn't the overriding principle. And I have gotten a consensus to change the procedures that were previously in place: I was one of the principal coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline that applies here. I see no consensus for the argument you propose. Durova 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that JoshuaZ had suggested banning Iantresman, and hardly 5 hours later Tom Harrison had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see de facto ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.

I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:

  • There is no need to implement a block until a decision has been made by the community.
  • A minimum time (e.g. 4 weeks) must be allowed to ensure full discussion and judicious consideration.
  • A ban should be supported by an obvious consensus in the community or a minimum number (e.g. three) of administrators, preferably both.
  • The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision.
  • The evidence for any questions of fact upon which the decision is based should be explicitly laid out (usually as diffs).

(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Misplaced Pages processes has a suggestion, please let me know.)

--Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Art, if you're talking about notification and opportunity for defense I'm in agreement. I wish you had been around in March and April when this was discussed at the policy level. As you advised me, please garner consensus if you want the standard to change. I would not consider it canvassing if you notified me of any relevant discussion that takes place over there. I argued rather passionately for something similar but got overruled. Now I abide by the policy as it stands. Durova 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BAN, bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. This is not the same thing as saying that only the previous Ian-related matters that Arbcom has reviewed have any weight in the matter. The discussion here has weight as well, though this thread is still open for further discussion of the wisdom of a ban. If Arbcom looks over this particular discussion thread, they will certainly be looking into its thoroughness and the amount of data presented. It might not hurt if an advocate of the ban would try to sum up the thread so far. EdJohnston 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. I just re-read the whole discussion, thinking I could try to throw together a summary, even though or especially because I have not yet taken sides on the issue, but the arguments flowed through my fingers like sand. It is clear that Ian has somehow managed to make himself a number of enemies, but that of itself is not a justification for a ban. If he is as bad as these editors feel, then it should be easy to list a half-dozen violations of policy and to cite one example of each. It should be practically trivial for KillerChihuahua to demonstrate "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". Although I would welcome a summary from anyone, I think the one who is obligated to present his arguments is Tom Harrison. He laid an indefinite block on Ian 4 days ago and has neither before nor since wasted a single word to justify it. This goes beyond Ian. It is a question of how this community lives up to its ideals of civility and accountability. --Art Carlson 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the community's ideals of accountability is that editors who persistently, incorrigibily disrupt Misplaced Pages, in the consensus of the community, may be blocked. This principle is codified in the disruptive editing guideline. I've never dealt with Ian (except for his inappropriate jubilation over the fact that ScienceApologist had left the project), and I don't claim to be the arbiter of whether such a consensus has been reached, but the disruptive editing guideline exists for a reason. MastCell 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. Ian must be held accountable for his editing style. You and I must be held accountable for the arguments and tone we bring to this discussion. Tom must be held accountable for his administrative actions. --Art Carlson 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Art Carlson, Tom made the right call. We have already spent far too much time on this situation.Proabivouac 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying he made the wrong call. I presume he spent a reasonable amount of time examining the case and brooding over the proper course of action. I think it would be helpful if he would take a few percent of the time he spent coming to a decision to tell us what his reasoning was. I think this would be good for several reasons. One of them is that being able to refer to a clear set of arguments on this case may save us time and lead to better decision on similar cases in the future. --Art Carlson 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to endorse a mere topic ban, but I can't get past the fact that he drove two users off the project. The community simply can't tolerate someone who creates a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree about the posionous atmoshpere. The point I was making is really that the community can go ahead and topic ban Iantresman (for disruption) with the full backing of the existing Arbcom decision. But on top of that Arbcom enforcement are supposed to be making another decision about Iantresman's probation violation--Cailil 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • endorsing ban per WP:ENC. Misplaced Pages is "yet another mouthpiece for the status quo". Any user refusing to acknowledge that and resorting to protracted campaigning instead has no place here. I am pleasantly surprised that this "community sanction" process can in fact produce tangible results. dab (𒁳) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Echoing the above... I'm sure I'm biased here, but Misplaced Pages is way too tolerant of people with a fringe/minoritarian axe to grind, time on their hands, and no interest in WP:WEIGHT or WP:ENC. It's all we can do to keep our heads above water in a sea of accounts who think an encyclopedia should give equal time to the ideas that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, cholesterol plays no role in heart disease... I could go on, but I'm depressing myself. Anyhow, my point: I would endorse a topic ban. MastCell 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • yes: it is amazing how many people think WP:ENC doesn't apply to them if they just keep waving their hands and changing the topic. We need to become less patient with these. We have WP:FTN now to address this problem, but we really need to learn to waste less time on each incidence. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him. --Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. - Crockspot 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This really is outright disgusting.
I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.
First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's user page. Catch is, he went to that editor's talk page and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. Not evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour.
Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category did not even exist when the category tag was removed. It had existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained here. Also, note that the category was recreated by User:Velikovsky, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole contributions appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to User:Mainstream astronomy.

  • Interesting note: By redirecting his user and talk pages to "Mainstream astronomy", User:Velikovsky is either asserting himself as being a sock/meatpuppet of "Mainstream astronomy", which would make suggesting that Mainstream astronomy is a pseudonym of ScienceApologist far less of a stretch, or... it means that Velikovsky was inappropriately pretending to be "Mainstream astronomy", in which case his recreation of a deleted category should certainly be scrutinized far more heavily than Ian removing a link to said category during the time that it didn't even exist.

Point is, at least one of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.
I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?
So, seriously, can anyone here provide a single diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.
No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any specific proof? I'm talking about diffs here.
Do you have diffs? Specific actions? Yes or no. Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

A previous sanction discussion was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current WP:AN report, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's now four IPs. I would agree that he's no longer welcome, and suggest it's time for an indef. We've certainly indeffed for less! AKRadecki 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I Support an indef block here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
When a user is unwilling to accept blocks and resorts to changing IPs to avoid them, it is time to take a harder stance. I regretfully support this move. Until(1 == 2) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Tobias has been rather disruptive here over the past few months - I think our only option here now is an indef block. His behaviour is now becoming too much for mediocore blocks to stop. It is most unfortunate that I believe that the positives far outweigh the negatives of Tobias being removed from the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As per Until(1 == 2) and Ryan. It is really unfortunate. -- FayssalF - 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tobias has had numerous opportunities to indicate he was going to change. He has not. SirFozzie 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
While I was blocking the block evading IPs, I did engage in a brief conversation with Tobias on my talkpage where he was complaining about his original block on 24 February 2006 and he essentially rejected my comment that by sockpuppeting he is only making it worse for himself. I don't know enough about Tobias to say if his behavior outweighs the value of his contributions, but it seems clear to me he doesn't accept the validity of the ARBCOM sanctions, he doesn't intend to follow them, and he sees the enforcement of the sanctions as illegitimate.--Isotope23 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This very discussion is evidence that the sock puppetry has made it worse for him. I had been for a couple of days, in my mind, lightly debating whether I should open a discussion like this. The sock puppetry report on WP:AN was the last straw for me. It's what made me say "Enough is enough". Without the socks, I would likely still be thinking about it, and quite possibly would never have reached the point of launching this discussion. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
He may not accept the ArbCom's decision, but the ArbCom's solutions are binding. Sockpuppetry does make his situation worse; I support an indefinite block. — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef ban per above arguments. Many opportunities for improvement squandered. - Crockspot 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment He's now up to eight sock IPs today alone. Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi is tracking them now. Five of those are from his breif sock-puppeting rampage a year or so ago, the rest are from today. And predictibally, he's now attacking me for bringing this up, and for being one of the first to block him for incivility, well over a year ago. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant but firm support, per the block log at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. It seems that the guy goes in spurts ... you never know when he's gonna snap. I'm not as familiar with the case as most of the people who have commented, but a cursory reading of the events indicates that this guy is too unstable for Misplaced Pages. Blueboy96 19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is to block indefinitely, I'll take the responsibility of implementing it. I've worked with him in the past, tried to counsel him away from this precipice, and I've never blocked him. If the group comes to agreement that it's appropriate, I'll implement the block and document it both on his user talk and via e-mail. If the consensus is not to remove him from the project, I'll be available to assist in any remediation needed. - CHAIRBOY () 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Until(1 == 2) 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...that'd probably be best. Isotope and I have been involved, with my part being the "corrupt" individual who extended his block to the current month, so a third party is probably appropriate. A consensus seems to exist. As a curious aside, in one of his rants that someone (John?) reverted on my talk page, he listed a definition of corruption as inappropriate activities done for personal gain. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get absolutely no personal gain from adminship, and a small amount of personal loss (headaches, time my wife and daughter think I should be spending with them, etc, etc)...so who here's getting those big paychecks that I'm missing out on? AKRadecki 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, I could implement it as well. I'm already on his list of corrupt admins; no reason to add another name there...--Isotope23 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a conversation I was having with him today in regards to his block in my Archives.--Isotope23 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm on his list of corrupt admins (no doubt near the top), I got one of his missives too, I usually do. I've always hoped that there was some way to avoid indefinitely blocking him but the chasm between his perception of us and our perception of him at this time seems too wide to bridge. The only answer seems to be an indefinite block (with the proviso that if he undertakes to change, to understand what the issues about his approach are, and to contribute productively, it could be lifted.) Hats off to Chairboy for volunteering to implement the block and to mentor. I'm also willing to implement it if need be. so... sadly... endorse indefinite block. If this goes through someone perhaps should update the ArbCom case (log of blocks and bans) pointing to this discussion. Oh, and Akradecki... the check's in the mail, trust me. Now get back to work! ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If this is the result here I'd like to think that Tobias would be welcomed back if he resolved to work on how he deals with his fellow editors.--Isotope23 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A pre-emptive note, there's every reason not to rush anything. While a consensus seems to be emerging, a WP:CS 'ban' is big medicine, and it is in the best interests of all involved to make sure that all sides have a chance to make their opinion known. If that means waiting a few days, then that's the right thing to do. - CHAIRBOY () 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. No rush. Though his continuing IP hopping to drop accusations and attacks around is getting old very fast. (Latest this morning/last night was all over the User and Talk pages of his various IPs and the tracking category.) - TexasAndroid 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that this individual has presumably used 22 socks so far. I don't know if I even have that many socks. I can agree that it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer, but based on the current behavior, I can see how an indefinite block might be called for. Out of curiosity, would there be any way that this individual could, under his own identity, make a comment here in his own defence and/or to agree to terms to allow him to continue in a limited capacity? John Carter 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What contributions to Misplaced Pages does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude, disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? --Merbabu 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bombaplena requesting unblocking

Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let User talk:Bombaplena (and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall:

So. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See no reason to grant an unblock. As you said, the history speaks for itself. SirFozzie 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would just recommend to them they create a new account, tell them that their existing accounts will not be unblocked, and protect their user talk pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions Add topic