User talk:Iantresman

Archive 1

Hoping for a fresh start

It has been stated that you are no longer community-banned, just blocked. I am inclined to unblock you subject to discussion at the admin noticeboard and some conditions. Before I go and do that, can I suggest some editing restrictions which you might agree to as a condition of being unblocked?

1. Iantresman is subject to a 1RR restriction on pseudoscience-related issues, which is to be considered broadly. He may make no more than one revert on any such page in any 24-hour period.
2. Iantresman's probation instituted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation is reinstated until 2008-09-10, the remainder of the one-year period after deducting the time from that case until the indefinite block.
3. Iantresman is placed under the mentorship of Stifle (and two other users to be determined), who may, by unanimous agreement, terminate this arrangement and restore the indefinite block if it is determined that the arrangement is not working.

What do you think? Feel free to edit. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm quite fine with all of that. Can I suggest Coppertwig as a possible co-mentor, who has made some valuable contributions above, and appears to have [reviewed my case].
• Hopefully mentorship will allow me to ask your advice on certain issues, so I know how to proceed if similar issues arise in the future.
• So that there is no misunderstanding from other editors and Admins, perhaps a notes could be placed (a) on my user/talk page (b) in my block log (c) on the Community ban discussion.
• I also note that the Arbcom appeal appears to have closed without a "motion to close" (followed by 24 hours to allow remaining ArcComs to vote) (Does not apply to applications) --Iantresman (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) --Iantresman (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Iantresman (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fundamentally opposed to unblocking Iantresman based on the amount of disruption he caused the community in the past and am willing to reinstate the ban/block should he be unblocked on the basis that the if there was any interest in reinstating this perennially disruptive 'editor,' the arbcom would have taken up his appeal, which it didn't. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For the most part I try to avoid controversies at Wikipedia although I do dip my toe in now and then. Over 2 years ago I engaged in mediation with this user and another at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-19 Talk at Redshift because I had complaints against both of them. Through mediation, I received the recognition I was seeking that my complaints against both were justified. Arbitration cases and power struggles aren't my thing, so (to the best of my memory) I played no further role in the ban or any other silliness with either user. However, it seems obvious to me that this user continued the behavior I complained about until enough people in the community felt it was best to ban him. I don't know the difference between a ban and a permanent block and someone just not being allowed in the article space, and I don't care. But I do believe strongly that, while Wikipedia should make every effort to be completely inclusive, some people simply should not be encyclopedia-makers (I place both users I complained about in that category), and a few people should be actively prevented from encyclopedia-making (I place this user in that category). If he is permitted to return to the article space, I will no longer view the Wikipedia community as an encyclopedia-building community. In my mind, it will finally become that something-bizarre-that-resembles-an-encyclopedia that many others have already concluded it to be. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think I had seen it before, but I'm now studying it more thoughtfully. Would you have links to illustrate Ian engaging in the behaviour after the mediation? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at Wikipedia to hunt for evidence like that, for or against others, from articles where I haven't been directly involved. After our mediation was over, but still on the mediation page itself, we had this exchange which convinced me that my complaint #4 had not yet sunk in. However, that was almost two years ago. I wrote above that "it seems obvious to me" that the behavior continued because of the continuing and building community sanctions that were placed on this user. I don't think I participated in that process, but I did pop by now and then to read some of it out of morbid curiosity. Is it your view that after our mediation, the behavior I complained about stopped? Flying Jazz (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider it up to those who express support for blocking someone to come up with evidence of unacceptable behaviour, not the other way around. Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider it up to those who have the power to block or unblock to justify their actions to the community. Evidence never decides. Evidence informs. Ultimately, people with the power to do something use their informed opinion to decide what to do. A user with that power described this user as perennially disruptive. That matches my opinion, so I agreed and shared my experience here. I do not need to then present "newer evidence." Take my opinion for what it is: an opinion. A different user with the power to unblock described a desire to give this user a "fresh start." Ridiculous lawyering and arbitration admin bulletin board doodads and lists of evidence with a lot of diffs and counterarguments are utter nonsense when it boils down to one side saying "he's perennially disruptive" and the other side saying "give him a fresh start." Flying Jazz (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would be very much against Coppertwig mentoring any sort of aggressive or problematic editor, as he is offering to do with Iantresman. He has supported an aggressive editor who used stalking as a tool to dominate other editors that resulted in driving off willing editors from a FARC in the past. It also has result in my drastically reducing my own editing from being one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors to nearly nothing currently. I do not want to say more for fear of harassment as has occurred in the past from editors that Coppertwig condoned. I believe he does not have the judgment to control such editors who use these tactics. –Mattisse (Talk) 07:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider Coppertwig to be one of the fairest, most objective, and level headed editors on all of wikipedia ... and would ask other editors to accept the above comment with a grain of salt. It is easy to cast accusations out of frustration to the reaction to ones hostile personal behavior, but very difficult to provide the kind of polite and invaluable judgment that editors like Coppertwig provide to wikipedia on a daily basis. I would trust him/her to handle any sort of mediation in question.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Offering to give an editor with a past of extreme disruption and numerous blocks of varying lengths any sort of 5th or 6th chance shows an interesting judgment call, to say the least. Coppertwig might be a great editor but that does not translate into being able to mentor a stunningly problematic editor. And Coppertwig isn't even the one we are concerned about, it is Iantresman. Baegis (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As a point of clarification I have no opinion on Iantresman, am not familiar with the case, and have no desire to be. My sole reason for responding was to defend the integrity of Coppertwig, whose patience and judgement I have come to admire.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Iantresman has been given a reasonable first chance, let alone a 4th or 5th. Coppertwig (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but 4 blocks in a year's worth of editing? Yeah, I'm pretty sure he has had chances. But if you want to completely ignore that, then sure, he was never given a chance... Baegis (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

Unfortunately consensus at WP:AN#User:Iantresman is strongly against you being unblocked. I am afraid that I am no longer in a position to help you. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your efforts (and Coppertwig too). Consensus seems to have a unique interpretation on Wikipedia.
• Only 5 editor argued for my banning before my Community Ban was made.
• A consensus of 15 editors were in favour of my ArbCom going to appeal, against only 5 who were not.
• And the Community ban harassment evidence against me was subsequently found to be false! It's no wonder some editors do not want due process, or to risk giving me another chance.
• --Iantresman (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- Creator of Wiki articles on Birkeland currents, Critical ionization velocity, Double layers, Dusty plasmas, Heliospheric current sheet, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society, Per Carlqvist, Pinch (plasma physics), Plasma scaling, Plasmoid

- Creator of contributed images: Double layer formation, Can pincher, Plasma sheath, Water pinching, Electrostatic discharge, Plasma filaments, Pinch graph.png Bennett pinch chart, Bennett Relation diagram.png Generalized pinch, of Plasmas graph.png Plasma ranges, particle drifts diagram.png Charged particle drifts, layer characteristics.png Double layers, glow discharge schematic.png Gas discharge tube, Halton Arp, rope.png Magnetic rope, Cup and ring marks

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)