Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Melissa Farley

Initiated by Axiomatica (talk) at 03:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Axiomatica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Iamcuriousblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Peter_G_Werner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Talk:iamcuriousblue
• Talk:axiomatica
• Talk:Melissa_Farley

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation June 2007
• RFM
• 3rd party assistance requested

Statement by Axiomatica (talk)

iamcurious blue seems to have claimed some kind of unwarranted ownership of a bio entry for the research and clinical psychologist, Melissa Farley He refuses to let others edit the article and reverts almost every attempt to do so. This behavior has been going on for years now but has gotten so bad recently that all progress on the article has stopped and all other editors but I have given up. There are suggested edits outlined on the talk page, but iamcuriousblue rejects them outright with no discussion. As the article stands, it contains inaccuracies and extreme bias. I submit that iamcuriousblue should either be blocked from this article or the article should be deleted.

Statement by Iamcuriousblue (talk)

First I will note that I have changed the name of the arbitration case to "Melissa Farley" – it should be noted that both parties in this case feel that they have been aggrieved in this case and it was actually my intention to file an arbitration case vis a vis User:Axiomatica. I too feel the other user is severely biased, seems unwilling to put this bias aside in the article creation process, and has continued to demand wholesale removal of cited referenced information critical of the subject of the article, Melissa Farley. In one-on-one discussions, Axiomatica has shown a total unwillingness to budge one iota from their position and has consistently misrepresented Wikipedia policy in advancement of their own position. I have therefore asked that Axiomatica engage in the process of third-party mediation so that we might come to some sort of agreement concerning the shape of this article. Instead, as a reading of these cases will show, Axiomatica has shown an ongoing pattern of simply disappearing as soon as the mediation case is open, and returning months later, well after the case has been closed. This does not give me confidence that this person is interested in good-faith negotiation.

I will also point out that it is not my interest to "own" this article, but simply to insure all views of a decidedly controversial researcher are given fair hearing. I believe there is a procedure by which an article may be handed over to the arbitration committee until some agreement is reached – sorry that I've forgotten the name of this procedure. I will state in advance that I will concede to this procedure, if the arbitration committee is willing. Right now, the only active editors are Axiomatica and myself, and neither of us see eye-to-eye at all on the shape of this article. If I continue to edit to keep the article at what I see as NPOV, Axiomatica complains I am "owning" the article. If I "back off" as Axiomatica has suggested, Axiomatica's clear unwillingness to compromise their stance in any way will result in that user's clear ownership of the article. I am hereby asking the Arbitration Committee to break the zero-sum game that we are now locked in.

By the way, I will note that User:Axiomatica has engaged in a long-term pattern of abusive and bad-faith behavior that I would be happy to detail, but should be self-evident to anyone reading through the archives of Talk:Melissa Farley. If there is any consideration of blocking an editor, I think that this should fall on User:Axiomatica, especially given the prior pattern of bad-faith avoidance of third-party mediation.

I will also note, for what its worth, that User:Axiomatica is essentially a single-purpose account, having edited almost no other articles other than Melissa Farley since soon after creation of the account. I will note that this editor has indicated in the past that they use other accounts, and if it is possible to do an IP sock puppet check of some kind on this user, I am calling for it I am therefore making a CheckUser Request for Axiomatica. For my part, I consider all usernames of this user to be "involved parties", in exactly the same way that Axiomatica has treated both of my usernames. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Second statement by Iamcuriousblue (talk)

How are we supposed to come to an agreement about NPOV when Axiomatica and I cannot even agree what that means for this article? For my part, I have repeatedly invoked NPOV, and this to me means that there is a balance between the claims and views of the individual in question and the criticisms of such by that person's critics. Axiomatica claims, for reasons I can't even begin to fathom, that including the views of critics at all is POV. Yes, having third parties would be very helpful in this regard, however, so far the length and severity of this dispute has scared all third-party editors off. I do want to note that this is not just a dispute over content – I really do want Axiomatica to engage in mediation in good faith, something this user so far has claimed they would engage in, then repeatedly walked out on. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

• Reject. Please get more editors involved; the two of you have been basically wrestling with each other for a long time over something that should be easy enough to work out, given our NPOV and NOR policies; but I see very little participation from anyone but you two on the talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Appeal of community ban of Iantresman

Initiated by Stifle (talk) at 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Stifle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notified Iantresman here [1]
• I will soon leave talk page messages for other users who participated in the CSN discussion. They can then drop by here and add themselves if they wish.
• Messages left in the following diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Stifle (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Not applicable as the matter is an appeal of a community ban. There was no RFC or other prior dispute resolution before the matter was landed at WP:CSN.

Statement by User:Stifle

At the Community Sanction Noticeboard around nine months ago, User:Iantresman was banned with just over 5 hours' discussion. He has indicated a desire to appeal this ban and I am opening it here on his behalf. I feel that while Iantresman was disruptive at the time, the punishment was excessive and the ban should be reduced to time served, perhaps with probation or an editing supervision. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to JoshuaZ and for the avoidance of doubt, I would be inclined to unblock Iantresman to give him a second chance to comply with editing norms. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iantresman

Copied from talk. GRBerry

I feel that an appeal is warranted because some allegations in my Community Ban proposal (a) are now shown to be false, and (2) have misled other contributing editors. Other allegations are (3) unsupported by any examples, or the previous ArbCom case, and (4) there was no due process. For example:

• Allegations made in my Community ban proposal, that I harassed an editor from Wikipedia, were false:

• JoshuaZ stated that I (1) "repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior." (2) was "now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy".[11] A later arbitration case discovered that ScienceApologist himself been using the username Mainstream astronomy, together with the usernames Fradulent Ideas, Nondistinguished, and Velikovsky.[12]
• JoshuaZ was mislead, twice. Other participating editors where also mislead, for example (1) "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,"[13] (2) "Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be"[14] (3) "It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment"[15] (4) "Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated "[16]

• Allegations that a I am a pseudoscience POV-pusher are not supported by any evidence:

• JoshuaZ also stated that I am "a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas"[17], but no evidence has ever been provided by him or anyone else that I push any view at the expense of another. As commented by User Bladestorm (the last Community ban comment) "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."[18]
• JoshuaZ stated I "has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing"[19], but ArbCom never found that I was guilty of pseudoscience POV pushing.

Significant loss of editing privilidges must require due process; Wikipedia makes editing evidence readily avaialble, and without the right to reply to allegations, Wikipedia becomes a kangaroo court. Half a dozen editors basing their judgement on false or misleading evidence, and curtailing the right to reply, is not conensus.

• I will also remind JoshuZ that my previous ArbCom appeal was not aware that some of Community ban allegations were false, nor aware of the ArbCom discussion on "ScienceApologist has used sockpuppets abusively" where you noted that you were "not happy with SA's sockpuppetry"[20]

--Iantresman (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum statement (pasted on behalf of Ian Tresman by --feline1 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC) )

• ScienceApologist, below, has acused me of using sockspuppets during this appeal, and of personal attacks against him. Within the hour I was Checkusered,[21] and cleared by Thatcher131. Removing Sock templates [22][23] and an apology is the traditional respsonse, especially when our previous Arbcom found that ScienceApologist had been both uncivil [24] and failed to extend good faith,[25] towards me.
• Raul654, below, thought that I had a second appeal turned down a few days ago. But ArbCom had not replied to my request to make an appeal at any time this year, and no second appeal was made (is there a public record to the contrary?). FloNight did email me yesterday to say that "The Committee had elected to not over turn the Community ban", but I did not ask ArbCom to overturn the ban, I asked for an appeal (ie. due process). I suspect that "asking for an appeal" is ambgiguous as it is not clear whether asking is the actual appeal, or a request to subsequently make an appeal.
• Charles Matthews, below, has noted my procedural point (4), but said nothing about my evidential points (1) - (3); Were two editors driven from Wikipedia? --Iantresman (talk)
• Sam Blacketer, below, notes whether my "editing [will] cause significant disruption to the cause of writing a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia". There have been no complaints regarding my other articles, [26][27][28][29][30][31] (and many others), most with extensive citations, and in many cases, my own contributed graphics; I also had no complaints as a professional writer in the 1990s, writing my Masters Thesis in the 1980s, or editing a magazine in the 1990s. With a science degree, I think I understand neutrality, verifiability and reliable sources (and that's all verifiable). I don't do "disruption", though some have claimed it. But I have been persistent, and would be again if due process ever fails you. --Iantresman (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum statement 2 (pasted on behalf of Ian by User:Feline1

• Charles Matthews' comments in another Arbcom case here I agree with. (1) Charles writes "I was unable to engage Vanished user in any private discussion of the block"; I too have not been able to engage the Community banning proposers and admins in any dialog. (2) Charles writes of an admin that "seems to attack the whole idea that admin actions are subject to review."; I agree, Admins should be subject to review (3) Charles writes: "I note that even the ArbCom itself cannot hand down an indef block, so I'm certainly troubled by two admins and one other doing it so quickly"; Agreed, I was banned indefinitely by a handful of editors in 5 hours without being allowed a dialog or review *of their statements.
• ScienceApologist's statement that I used a sock to attack him (mentioned above), was found to be false by Thatcher131 four days ago.[32], but has not been struck through. This incorrect statement appears to have now misled Odd Nature who repeats it. This mirrors by Community ban, where my evidence shows a statement to be incorrect, and subsequently mislead several other editors who also repeated it, and used it as a significant factor in their decisions. --Iantresman (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

===Addendum (3) by User:Iantresman=== (pasted by --feline1 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)) (For copying to "Appeal of commuity ban of Iantresman")

• Concluding comment. I've seen in this very appeal how one editor was investigated and blocked for using an abusive sock, and would genuinely like to know how I should react when I suspect an abusive sock against me... without coming across as disruptive.
• I just wanted to reassure Arbitrators that given the choice, I'd rather be editing articles than involved again inb Arbitration. This is not about being argumetative, nor seeking revenge, and I'm sorry that many people are dragged into this, when they too would rather be editing.
• I would also be content in foregoing the ArbCom case (and save everyone the effort), and instead engage in a one-on-one discussion with a mutually agreeable Arbitrator (ArbCom Lite?), and will abide by their decision. I can expand on this suggestion if required. --Iantresman (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

Against what may be my better judgement, I'm writing an off-the-cuff statement here. I may expand this later. For now, I would like to remind the ArbCom that it declined to hear an almost identical appeal from Iantresman a few months ago (albeit before the most recent election). If no one is inclined to unblock then no one wants to unblock and that's more or less the end of the matter. If Ian wants to improve his behavior and convince the community that he can become a productive enough member that his presence would be helpful that something he should have someone take up on ANI or AN and see if he can get a consensus to unblock. However, that doesn't look likely. Ian's request to appeal appears to not include any perception or understanding that he might have been doing anything that earned him his block which does not bode well. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears that some people may be willing to unblock Ian if this case is not accepted, it may be best for the ArbCom to accept this case so we can resolve the relevant issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kwsn-pub

I'm on a library computer right now, but I'm currently looking over the ban discussion. From what I see the primary motivation for the ban was the attacks on ScientistApologist, which seemed to be fueled by revenge from previous attacks by SA. It was stated several times that those attacks drove SA from the project, when in fact it was stated he was already leaving. An interesting item to me is the fact that he was on probation already, and banning him from the areas he was a "problem editor" in could have easily solved the problems from my standpoint. Also, the time from opening of discussion to the block disturbs me, as does the lack of solid evidence. As such, as an admin, I am willing to unblock for arbcom purposes only. Kwsn-pub (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just confirming on my admin account this is my stance, nothing else. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts by AGK

Tentatively, I suggest that Iantresman be unbanned: it has long been the case that Wikipedia always keep an open mind, even in cases where a user has contributed abusively. There is a chance here; Iantresman is not a lost cause, but simply requires the Community (or the Committee) to implement remedial measures to assist him in rediscovering his ability to edit constructively.

I suggest that such remedial measures be, for example, the implementation of a mentoring system, whereby one or more mentors are appointed for Iantresman, as has been utilised in the past. Acceptance of the appointed mentor would be an unavoidable condition, one hopes, for Iantresman, should his ban be lifted by the Committee.

On a tangential note, I would observe that a Request for Arbitration is not the standard method for hearing banned user appeals. The traditional "workshop, proposed decision, etc." structure is not ideally suited for efficient hearing of ban appeals. In fact, it seems to me that all appeals are heard by the Committee via their private mailing list. That, however, is semantics; with regards to the request to be unbanned, I hold that, on a principle of "keeping the door open" for those that truly wish to contribute, the Committee should consider reducing Iantresman's ban to a mentoring remedy, and proceeding accordingly. Anthøny 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As something of a clarification, I am willing to unblock this user, which technically means the community-ban principle is now no longer applicable. Having said that, such an unblock would be conditional, on the basis of, as described in my above comment, Iantresman entering into mentoring. Anthøny 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts by GRBerry

At the last rejection by the committee (3/3/0/1), no admin said they thought this user should be unblocked generally. Stifle is now willing to. That is significant change in the facts and circumstances. Reviewing the situation, what I think the CSN should have done was to impose a topic ban; the tool was authorized under the prior case but never really attempted as is shown by the case log - nor was using it considered in the CSN discussion that I can see. The one year time horizon of the prior case has now expired, but the committee could extend that discretionary sanction while removing the community ban. GRBerry 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts by ScienceApologist

If Iantresman should be given a second chance, I would ask that he not be allowed to troll on any pages related to science or pseudoscience including pages on plasma physics, cosmology, astronomy, Velikovsky, etc. Let him stick to the other pages where he was not so tendentious or disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the above. I just discovered that Ian has returned as a sockpuppet and posted some mean and nasty things about me: [33]. He should remain community banned until he can stop making this so personal. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please also notice: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (2nd nomination). While you're at it, check out how many different abusive sockpuppets Iantresman created to hound me. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Why did this suddenly turn into a flame-me contest? Look at all the meatpuppets come out to play! Is this really a way to start off an unbanning? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ill-referenced opinion by Feline1

In my opinion, Ian Tresman's ban was the result of vexacious wiki-laywering by User:ScienceApologist, who is an incorrigable flamer, proven liar and sockpuppeteer, and who openly professes contempt for numerous aspects of the wikipedia project. Ian was simply a casualty in Science Apologist's self-appointed crusade to purge wikipedia of all those he feels are not proper scientists. He happened to have taken an editing interest in some articles that were in Science Apologist's path, and thus got crushed under SA's steamroller. In retropsect it can clearly be seen that much of the evidence presented at Tresman's 'trial' was unsound (indeed, maliciously so, with a clear intent to deceive and pervert the course of justice), and if this were a court in any respectable legal system, Ian's conviction would be deemed unsound.--feline1 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that the fundamental reason for asking the community ban to be reconsidered is that much of the evidence upon which the ban decision was taken has been shown to be flawed. I am amused to see ScienceApologist attempting to present a red herring with an allegation that Ian Tresman used a sock-puppet to be incival to him: may I remind everyone that not only is ScienceApologist a convicted sockpuppetter himself, he has actually campaigned on wikipedia for policy changes under the banner ["Incivility is sometimes necessary" --feline1 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am bewildered to read below the views of two of the Arbitrators, who have the opinion "said editor has only procedural factors running in his favour ... I really don't know why (in the real world) the ArbCom would want to open itself to the argument 'you ignored a mail of mine, so I'm worth a case'." Tresman's grounds for appeal are clearly set out above, under three points, none of which are to do with the fact that the ArbCom didn't reply to his emails for a couple of months. I cannot understand how such a mischaracterization of the appeal can be given credence. (The first-and most significant in my view-point was that Tresman was banned for "driving away" ScienceApologist and MainstreamAstronomy, which has been since proven not to be the case.) I am also reading on this page the notions that an appellant should not have their appeal considered because (a) they believe the original verdict was wrong, or (b) simply because their were "procedural" problems with the arbitration. LOL! Is this for real? Why would anyone appeal a verdict if they believed it was right!? This is basically denying the concept of appeal on the basis that contemplating it constitutes contempt of court! And whilst I am no expert in the legal systems of the world, I believe that pointing out procedural deficiencies (and discredited evidence) are fairly standard grounds for appeal in most jurisdictions.--feline1 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from Soupdragon42

IMHO Ian Tresman has been the victim of a ScienceApologist witch hunt. SA attacks all science that does not conform to his world view, and flagrantly flouts Wiki rules in this little holy war of his!

Ian Tresman, by contrast, has been polite and reasonable throughout.

ScienceAntagonist has also repeatedly accused me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman, and has yet to apologise Soupdragon42 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Iantresman was a tendentious editor who promoted his own interests and fringe POV on Wikipedia. I see no evidence that the fringe POV he espouses is under-represented as a result of his ban. Some support for the appeal seems to be on the basis that some other editors, whose editing did not serve to advance a fringe POV, are not banned. That does not sound to me like adequate grounds for overturning a ban. Iantresman also gives no indication that he understands that his aggressive advancement of a fringe POV (something which also dominates off-Wikipedia searches for his name) is a problem per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Since violating these principles was a large part of the problem, it's not clear to me how we can believe that Iantresman will modify said behaviour, given that he asserts that there was nothing wrong with his editing. Incidentally, if Soupdragon42 is not someone's sock then I'm a Dutchman. Whether it's Iantresman is open to debate, but I hear quacking.

Addendum: If CheckUser verifies that [34] is Iantresman then I recommend the ban be speedily endorsed. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

First, try the simplest process that might work. This matter should be discussed at WP:AN or WP:ANI to see if there is a consensus to unblock. If that discussion produces an intractable disagreement amongst administrators, then the case may return here. I take no position on the underlying dispute and would be willing to review the matter and provide an opinion at a community discussion. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (2nd nomination). I have blocked that IP account for making personal attacks against ScienceApologist. I have not yet determined whether or not this is an Iantresman sock. This incident might be a Joe job, and I am hoping that Checkuser evidence will clarify the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

@Thatcher. Meat puppetry is also not good. Could you also have a look at the IP? See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman. It would be best to record the results there for posterity. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654

I agree 100% with Jzg - no good can come of unbanning Iantresman. The arbcom has already rejected his appeals twice (at least that I am aware of) - once several months ago and again a few days ago. Why is this even a consideration? Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mukadderat

Iantresman does not show any sign of remorse. Instead he (or his champion) attacks the past process, i.e., engages in wikipedia:Wikilawyering, i.e., sincerely believes he is right and community was wrong, and hence most probably will continue to behave in a disruptive way. I am sure the arbiters will take this into an account. Mukadderat (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Univolved Rocksanddirt

Based on the Ferryloge precedent for review of CSN site bans, I recommend the committee pick up this one. I have no strong opinion right now on the ban itself. If, after review, the user is well banned, so be it. I would not recommend that the case be expanded to "include the actions of all editors." --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't see any harm in reviewing this case. I was disturbed that one statement noted 'no good can come of unbanning' the banned party. While I ponder what effect was intended by the person who made that statement, I don't see any merit in it, particularly because bans are not effective on their own in cases like this one. Based on what I have read here so far, I think other remedies need to be considered, and as such, I am of the opinion that this case should proceed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MGmirkin

Since (if I recall correctly) I commented at the time of the original ban, I may as well briefly restate that I feel now as I felt then that no actual evidence was presented of malfeasance by user Iantresman at the time of his original ban. The ban request was processed in an extraordinarily short time frame, leaving little time for discussion, and amounted to a kangaroo court by people who simply didn't like user Iantresman. Likewise, I feel now as I felt then, the remedy of complete ban from Wikipedia was incommensurate with the *unproven* crime, when lesser remedies may have been available (suspension for a finite period, or restriction from editing specific contentious articles [with the ability to discuss / contribute suggestions on the relevant talk pages]). I think that sums up my position. I would vote for a re-hearing or drop of the ban back to whatever pre-ban status was in place for user Iantresman.

To declare any conflict of interest, I'll note that subsequent to meeting user Iantresman on Wikipedia, I have coincidentally met him in person through another venue and generally found him to be an amicable sort. Regardless of the fact that I now know him in person, I did/do feel that he was treated unfairly in the original ban request by his detractors.

• In response to ScienceApologist's notes in the clerk's section below, as I've previously stated, yes I have since met user Iantresman in person and do know him outside of WP. Regardless of that, I also still feel that the ban request was carried out without sufficient evidence and in far too short a time frame, with too stiff a punishment based upon the lack of supporting evidence, as noted in comments by others on this page.
• And yes, I do have something of a distaste for ScienceApologist's occasionally confrontational style and high regard for his own POV at the expense of others' (as, apparently do several others commenting here), and occasionally wrong statements. I've said so openly on WP and elsewhere and don't deny that. But I prefer not to bring personal feelings into this case, as this case isn't about me or ScienceApologist, but the fact that user Iantresman's ban was not well-founded, provided no evidence and used the most extreme remedy possible when lesser remedies were available and may have been equally effective against the alleged behavior(s) without fully revoking user Iantresman's Wikipedia editing rights on articles not related to his probation, etc. Mgmirkin (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, there was also a pending arbitration request at the time of Ian's ban (initiated by user Iantresman to request clarification of unsupported allegations by an accuser), which was related to the ban itself, but Ian was banned while the arbitration request was being submitted, thus he was disallowed from his own defense on that issue. The arbitration request with direct bearing on the ban request should have been allowed to proceed prior to the ban being effected. One should be allowed to confront / answer one's accusers, lest it later (now) lead to allegations of impropriety. Mgmirkin (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Odd nature

Iantresman was a constant cause of disruption of Wikipedia who was already on arbitration probation at the time community banned him, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation, which found "Iantresman's editing to pseudoscience and science-related articles are characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits against consensus" and "Iantresman has also been uncivil regarding ScienceApologist". He was subsequently blocked twice, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, once for disrupting pseudoscience articles and once for harassing ScienceApologist. Then there's this comment yesterday repeating the attack from User:82.35.165.180 who is no doubt Ian. A person who sees Wikipedia as only another channel to push thier pseudoscience POV and who has a persistent habit even in while asking for readmission from exile of harassing their nemsis is exactly the sort of editor Wikipedia does not need. I ask the arbcom to reject this appeal and continue the community ban. Odd nature (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

It's come to my attention that User:Mgmirkin has failed to disclose the full extent of his personal involvement with Iantresman; both are involved in an off site campaign to enable Iantresman and sideline ScienceApologist. Here Mgmirkin said that he's only casually met Iantresman. Yet in actuallity Mgmirkin moderates a forum on a site that is run by Iantresman thunderbolts.info which has a messageboard with a number of threads dedicated to bashing ScienceApologist [35] There Mgmirkin has accused ScienceApologist of POV pushing on Wikipedia just 5 days before making his statement here. [36]

So we have Iantresman and Mgmirkin running another Website opposed to ScienceApologist and Iantresman seeking to be unblocked, supported by Mgmirkin alleging he was railroaded by supporters of ScienceApologist. Then we get another request for arbitration against ScienceApologist within the week. I think the disruption this case has brought makes it a prime candidate for the arbitration committee to show that gaming the system this way simply results in being shown the door permanently. I've changed my mind and urge the arbcom to take this case. Odd nature (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Coppertwig

One of the major reasons given for the original ban was that Iantresman allegedly drove another editor, ScienceApologist, from the project. But ScienceApologist is now present and editing this page. Therefore, in my opinion, it's time for forgiveness, reconsideration and a second chance for Iantresman. --☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The emperor has no clothes! As MGMirkin says, "no actual evidence was presented of malfeasance by user Iantresman". I've looked through some past history and have found nothing that Iantresman did wrong – unless complaining about injustice against himself is considered disruptive. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

It's interesting to note that one of the edits of his, for which he was warned, and ultimately contributed to his block/ban, was to remove two categories from an article, neither of which are in the article now. Apparently it wasn't such a bad edit after all, judging from how subsequent editors have treated the article. The ban seems to be very much a railroading based on disagreement with his opinions. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:KillerChihuahua

Is this a joke? IanTresman was one of the biggest time-sinks I ever encountered. Immune to clue; opposed to improving the encyclopedia; his only goals seemed to be pushing his own very minority (dare I say fringe, or even crackpot?) point of view and attempting to manipulate the system to get his way. It is no surprise he wishes to utilize a procedural quibble to manipulate his way back into editing; the surprise is the large number of admins and even a couple of arbitrators who are willing to waste yet more time on him. Remember, the first question in your mind should be, what is best for the encyclopedia? I assure you it is not to waste time on a lengthly procedural rules-lawyering; nor is it to unblock someone who was highly disruptive and added, so far as I know, nothing of value to the project. If he did correct a spelling error here or there, it was certainly not enough to tip the balance in any noticable way from dead loss to minor usefulness. Seriously, people, did you leave your common sense at home? One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• After reading Odd Nature's Addendum I must also urge ArbCom to take this case, in order to close this door with finality. Although it is still in some sense a waste of time, much more will be wasted if this is not dealt with. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

The Community Sanction Noticeboard was removed because it was being used to AFD editors. That is, a vocal few could have anyone they did not like removed and there is no way to know whether or not that decision reflects the views of the community as a whole. This is why we have juries in our judicial system rather than just having whoever shows up in the court vote whether the guy is guilty. Justice by whoever happens to show up - a tyranny of the hecklers - is no justice at all. It is our accepted practice that a ban either needs to come from a neutral authority (arbcom, Jimbo) or it needs to have the unanimous consent of those with the ability to undo the block. From the comments of the arbiters, you mostly seem to believe that this person should remain blocked. If that is your view, I would strongly encourage you to take the case since declining it would have the effect of permitting any admin to unblock the user. --B (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martinphi

I am not familiar with this case. But I have had some positive contact with Ian. As I understand it, he was banned for driving what the ArbCom has termed an "abusive sock" [37] of ScienceApologist off of wiki. Therefore, for what it's worth, here is ScienceApologist's full sock&block record on Wikipedia:

Here is a link to all his known socks:

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

And of course the ScienceApologist account itself:

[44]

AND THE IPS:

[45]

[46]

[47]

Of the IPs, only the last above has a block log:

Sock block log, can be seen only by admins now:

• 11:57, 19 February 2008 Fabrictramp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "216.125.49.252 (Talk)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours ? (Vandalism) (Unblock)
• 15:33, 14 March 2007 Edgar181 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "216.125.49.252 (Talk)" (anon. only) with an expiry time of 24 hours ? (vandalism) (Unblock)

Given that Ian was confronted with multiple disruptive socks of the same user, I'm wondering if Ian's actions, while no doubt against wiki policy????? could be seen in a new light. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern

We have admins willing to unblock, and others opposed to unblocking. How are we to resolve this dispute? In the past, we've been told to bring stuff like this to ArbCom rather than unblocking and potentially causing wheel wars. Now ArbCom appears to be declining to hear the dispute. Will we have to have an actual wheel war before the committee will hear this? Declining this case seems like a rather dangerous precedent to set. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FeloniousMonk

Iantresman was certainly one of, if not the most, problematic and disruptive pseudoscience editors Wikipedia has seen. He single-handed wasted a year of the community's time by trying to rewrite the WP:NPOV policy to remove the undue weight clause to favor pseudoscience and weaken the distinction between majority and minority views: [48] Much of which occurred while he was on probation for his part in the problems at pseudoscience articles (during he was blocked twice):

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans
• Block log: Iantresman

This is his second official appeal, the first was rejected in October 2007. Taken with his previous unblock request submitted to the ArbCom mailing list, and abusive sockpuppetry around this request by his supporters here [49], Iantresman's disruption of the project continues even though he is banned. I urge the arbcom to accept the case and put the matter to rest for good. Also, should Iantresman be unblocked I urge the committee to reinstate his probation which ran only 7 months of its 1 year term before the community ban took effect. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Art Carlson

I made several contributions to the community sanction discussion (e.g. [50] and [51]) to which I still stand. During that process I filed a complaint against Tom Harrison (which didn't attract much attention). I have never taken a stand on whether Ian Tresman should be banned or not, although I personally have worked with him and have no complaint against him. I do object to the fact that the reasoning and the evidence for the ban were not laid out in even a cursory form. I am not arguing he should be free to shoot up the streets because somebody forgot to read him his rights. I am arguing that a minimum of due process and checks on arbitrary use of power are necessary for a community to function, and that this was not present. I am arguing that no one in our community should have the right to ban any user without briefly but cogently laying out the basis for his decision. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Soupdragon42 is probably not an actual sockpuppet of Iantresman but I would be surprised if they did not know each other, at least professionally. Thatcher 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They're all involved at the thunderbolts forum where they take potshots at me for sport. User:Mgmirkin is also heavily involved there. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/0/0)

• Accept since we now have administrators willing to unblock. The procedural situation raises the question whether the case should be heard directly by ArbCom, or whether the issue should be remanded to ANI (as successor to the old CSN) for reopening of the sanctions discussion there. However, given the divided opinions already expressed, I conclude that the ANI discussion would be unlikely to produce consensus and therefore we should proceed with arbitration. The case will also provide another vehicle for discussion of as-yet unresolved issues concerning community ban procedures and reviews, which the committee noted but did not resolve in several recent cases including Sadi Carnot and Ferrylodge, and to assess the effect of any recent community review of policies in this area as urged in those cases. Finally, I note with regret that this user's unblock request submitted directly to the ArbCom mailing list went unresponded to for an unreasonable length of time. As a committee we should continue our review of internal procedures to avoid a recurrence of this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. I agree with Newyorkbrad that situation is ripe for review by the Committee given the disagreement between admins and the other arbitration cases related to this user. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. A persistent correspondent with the ArbCom, said editor has only procedural factors running in his favour, in my opinion. While NYB has a point about our procedures, we have never in the past taken procedural rather than substantive matters to have had this weight. I really don't know why (in the real world) the ArbCom would want to open itself to the argument "you ignored a mail of mine, so I'm worth a case". Charles Matthews (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The procedural points, while significant to me, are ancillary. The fact is that we have a community-banned user but administrators (plural) have indicated they are now willing to unblock him. Both our decision precedents and community-written policy are unclear whether the a community ban requires unanimous administrator agreement as opposed to a strong consensus. In the absence of a resolution it is not clear to me what the next step would be, although I certainly hope that all admins will proceed in a collaborative rather than unilateral manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The logic is that he is still blocked, but not community banned. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject again. Agree with Charles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I am not impressed by procedural arguments because we are not bureaucratic and procedure-bound; the guiding issue is this simple consideration: if IanTresman is unblocked, will his editing cause significant disruption to the cause of writing a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia? Having checked his previous history up to the time he was blocked, I agree that he was disruptive. In this appeal I see nothing to indicate that this attitude has changed; indeed it appears to have hardened. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. I do not believe we should accept the case based on the possibility that someone may unblock this user, and I do not believe that the prevailing situation warrants review. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

For clarifications and motions in prior cases, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions.