User talk:Iantresman

Indefinitely Banned For the benefit of anyone wanting to know my whereabouts, I have received an indefinite ban from the Wikipedia community, on the grounds of "persistent disruption". This followed a Request for Arbitration against another Administrator. -- Ian Tresman --84.9.191.165 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same Iantresman...

... who created the Heliospheric circuit gif? I would like to use that in an duplication of the Electric Universe model you have worked on. I find it relevant to my studies as I search for interdisciplinary relations with other plasma phenomenon. Please let me know if you would mind. TTLightningRod 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem. --Iantresman 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Posted to my talk page by mistake. Alphax ^τεχ 01:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

List of publications in physics

Hi Iantresman,

Thanks for your contribution to the List of publications in physics. Please note Science pearls project that this list is part of.

The list should be a list of specific publications and not a list of journals, however important they are. Can you note such publications in plasma physics?

We can create a sub list of publications in plasma physics and add your contribution as further reading. What do you think of such solution? I have no proper knowledge in physics (and plasma physics) so I’d like to know whether it is suitable.

Thanks, APH 08:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My fault, now updated. --Iantresman 09:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw that. Great. Are the entries in the list correct? Are some important topics missing? Should some entries be removed? Would you agree to adopt the physics list? APH 06:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Birkeland terrella

Hey, Ian,

Nice work tracking down the terrella-in-action picture for Birkeland current. I've seen photos of the thing shut down, but never operating. Very nice! zowie 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Check the Energy Arc image page. :)PiccoloNamek 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

To answer your question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Procedure_advice: You should copy the template, and paste it below, changing the "Template" of the name of the user, and filling in the appliable fields. You can notify the person either before or after, but note that you are not asking for their cooperation. They need to know so that they can respond to your accusations, if the arbitration committee accepts, it is regardless of whether they want to or not. After arbitration is accepted, a set of subpages will be created, one of which is the evidence page, where you can present your evidence for the arbitrators to analyze. There isn't a template for notification, all you have to do is say you are requesting arbitrationamd say that they need to make a statement, and give them the link. I can help you wih this if you want. Though I'm afraid that you might not understand the gravity of ArbCom. It is a last resort. Why don't you tell me what the conflict is about before you make an arbitration request? Dmcdevit·t 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Notification of POV-pusher & libeler conspiracy

This notification is being sent to FT2, Iantresman, Harald88, and Wetman, as these 4 people have responded in support of my proposition to include the wikipedia policy 'POV selective fact suppression'.

I made a note on the page wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view that both the users Saxifrage and Dominick stalked me to said page, and that Dominick only started stalking me because Todfox notified him that I called him on his POV-pushing behavior on my user page. On my user page (user:NPOVenforcer), I have listed many people that have either pushed a POV and/or have used libel instead of fair argument, so as to warn innocent wikipedians of who to look out for. Saxifrage and Dominick both saw the list of trouble users, which included themselves as well as Todfox (aka 'Kit') due to their past offenses. Saxifrage and Dominick are thus conspiring to trying to suppress the POV selective fact suppression policy so as to give themselves free reign to make as many selective fact suppressions as they want. Also, Todfox is conspiring with Dominick to libel my informative list as an 'enemy list' via their RFC on my user page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NPOVenforcer (libel violates the wikipedia civilty policy, by the way), so as to try to get rid of the informative list and give them free reign to violate as many wikipedia policies as they want. On said libelous RFC, Dominick actually committed the criminal offense of trying to frame me of threatening his person, so as to try to put me in prison under false pretenses. I hope you find such behavior apalling as I do. It is for that reason that I am creating an RFA against Dominick to permanently ban his IP for his criminal offense against me. I hope that you come to support it. Why should you help save me from Dominick's offenses? -Because I am fighting to support the NPOV nature of wikipedia articles, so what benefits me benefits you through my actions, because you also support the NPOV policy. Besides, Dominick may victimize one of you next. Have you heard the saying "We will all hang together or we will all hang separately"? NPOVenforcer 05:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I notice several have criticized you for not taking your dispute with Joshuaschroeder thru channels first. But I haven't noticed anyone explain those channels, by explicitly offering you a link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This statement should not be construed as support or opposition to your cosmology, as I am not a professional scientist. Art LaPella 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite saddened by this whole thing

Kudos for contacting Peratt, it's an interesting development. Nice to see others with an open-minded approach. Jon 06:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Elerner RfC

I have added a request for comment on Eric Lerner's editing, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. You may want to look at it if you have a spare moment, since your views are probably quite different from mine. –Joke137 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Learn something about redshift and come back

As it is, you are getting all your information from very biased sources and are doing searches in very round-about ways. You need to get a handle on the basics of redshift before you can make an argument to insert your POV into the article. As it is, you haven't demonstrated even a cursory understanding of the subject. Please read up on it and get back to me.

Thanks,

--ScienceApologist 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside statements

Yes, I do believe that they are allowed. Raul654 is the real expert on this matters, though. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Intermixed RFAR statements

I was about to remove them myself, but now that you've responded, I'm not sure what to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi Iantresman,

I noticed your request on the WP:RFM page. First, apologies that no one had gotten to it yet (we're rather short-handed). Second, mediators aren't decision makers, so I don't think that declaring consensus need or ought to be done by a mediator. It looks anyway as if a consensus has been agreed upon. I'm removing the request, let me know if you have any questions. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fusion RfC

Hello,

There's currently a controversy at Cold fusion that I would appreciate it if you could look at. The article is about to fail a Featrued Article Removal Candidate vote. There are at least 3 fairly different versions in play: one based on the original Featured Article dating back to 2004-08-20 and tossing out all edits between now and then [1] ("FA version"), one which was the current version up until that [2] ("current version"), and a proposed new draft written originally by Edmund Storms (a retired Los Alamos scientist) and edited by me [3] ("Storms version"). At the moment the article is being rather agressively edited by a few people who support the version from a year ago, and if this stands, a lot of good material will be lost. Frankly, I can't entirely support any of the versions; the article just needs more work and more different perspectives. Hence this invitation. I hope you can help.

I'm posting this to you because I've seen you on various physics-related pages, and/or because you've worked on the Cold fusion page before. Thank you for your time.

ObsidianOrder 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Self references

I think it's a pretty clear case of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. It's intention is clear; don't have such links in Wikipedia articles. enochlau (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Birkeland currents discovered

Two points:

1) This is the first time direct evidence for magnetic fields around a molecular cloud have been observed. The Zeeman splitting is very difficult to measure. 2) There is no indication that the field is generated by Birkeland currents.

--ScienceApologist 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is still the first time magnetic fields have been directly observed around (not in) a molecular cloud. You have a poor definition of Birkeland currents. Maxwell's equations predict a current density for every magnetic field with circulation. That isn't the definition of a Birkeland current which is a current circuit associated with a magnetosphere that interacts with a plasma such as in the aurora. A simple current density associated with the curl of the magnetic field doesn't necessarily indicate a Birkeland circuit since there are a lot of ways to get a current density on large scales. --ScienceApologist 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to me by my username on talkpages

Such courtesy would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --ScienceApologist 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for following my request. Such courtesy does not go unnoticed. I'd give you a barnstar, but I can't find one that's appropiate. --ScienceApologist 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

tired light

You asked me about what's happening on Tired light mediation; now it's starting to move, see Mediation Cabal: Tired Light Harald88 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PS your last message messed up Harald88 08:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

whtws a tired light? E-Series 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: Electric Universe Concept

I'm sorry for the late reply, you submitted this case. Is this case still in need of mediation? --Fasten 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Electric Universe Concept, NPOV clarification

I have replied to the mediation request. If you would like further assistance, please let me know, otherwise I will consider the case closed in aweek or so. Cheers,

Sam Spade 13:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11_Electric_Universe_Concept,_NPOV_clarification#Wraping_up, where your attentions have been requested. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, Voice of All, who froze the plasma cosmology page, say that we can edit it if we reach a consensus, which specifically does not have to include Joshua, if the rest of us agree. So I suggest that we agree on Tommysun's last version, with the exception of the definition of plasma. Can I try again here on that: "Plasma is a state of matter where electrons and ions can move freely, and carry currents."? What do the rest think?Elerner 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Redshift email

Hehe check your diffs more carefully: [4]. I wasn't the one who added the section; I merely slapped the {{verify}} tag on. enochlau (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed yes. Nevertheless, perhaps you'd keep an eye on the proceedings anyway. --Iantresman 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ion: Citing sources

It is great that you improved the article, but you reference numbers without citing a source that verifies them. If you have sources, please cite them, or otherwise try to find sources that qualify your information (provided that none refute it). The page Wikipedia:Citing sources might help.—Kbolino

3RR at Plasma cosmology

Please be aware of our three-revert rule, which you appear to have violated at Plasma cosmology. Further reverts during this time period (or any four reverts in a 24-hour period) will result in a block from editing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't technically violated 3RR, Ian definitely has. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No Undue Weight

• What we can't infer from this quote, is whether an item is of sufficient importance for including in another article

I could not interpret this sentence, but it maybe because english is not my mother toungue. I suspect it means that the quote is only about the absolute significance of a theory or view, not about its significance relative to an article. I agree with that. Note that the prominent adherent sentence, as I understand it, can only be used to exclude or include a theory or view from a given article. It is about the relative significance of a view or theory. It cannot be used to exclude a view or theory from Wikipedia because tiny minority views without prominent adherents may have their own separate article. Therefore, though it contains important ingredients that could be integrated in the No Undue weight section, the quote, which is about absolute significance, is not directly related to the no prominent sentence, which is about relative significance. I am not against that we include it in the No Undue Weight section, but I would like to see where it will fit and how it should relate to the remainder of the section. -Lumière 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that it is not because I ask how we can fit the quote in the current No Undue weight section that I am against your main points. -Lumière 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We should ask ScienceApologist some challenging examples of article that he/she edited and where consensus worked well for him/her. The goal is to figure out more concretely what a "succesful consensus" means for him/her, under what kind of mechanism it is achieved and on what kind of topics this mechanism, whatever it is, is currently being applied. I would not challenge him/her with examples where it does not work because this would not be as much informative. -Lumière 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The motivation for the above request is to understand why some editors depend so much on consensus in opposition to a clear policy. I looked a little bit on the history of ScienceApologist, but there was nothing obvious. I suspect that I would have found something if I had searched more. However, I found something for FelloniousMonk (FM). The key point is his comment "rv. See talk. Consensus is cite is not required and..." Note how "consensus" is being used to conclude that a source is not needed, which is against policy. If you look, you will see that FM is trying to include a paragraph that is building a case for the evolution theory without providing a citation for this viewpoint. The paragraph and the associated viewpoint is presented as if it was the truth, which is against NPOV unless this truth is attributed to a source (and a citation is provided.) Here is an exemple of a statement in this paragraph that, in accordance with FelloniousMonk's consensus, did not need a source:

"Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "triumph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry."

If the statement would have been something like

"Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity says that the mechanistic view in biochemistry has triumphed."

there would have been no need for a citation because it only reports Monod's view in his book and the book is easily found in the Jacques Monod article. However, the statement that is pushed by FM implies that the triumph of the mechanistic view is a fact. This triumph is not presented as Monod's view, but as an independent fact that is discussed by Monod. This is against NPOV unless this view (that the triumph is a fact) is attributed and a reputable source exists. The entire paragraph is like that. -Lumière 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In your discussion with Saxifrage, consider this:

"My suggestion is that your problem with the policy as written (as opposed to Iantresman's problem, which is not the same as yours and it is disingenuous of you to appropriate Iantresman's question for your own ends) stems from an inability to take the rules of thumb as examples of how to apply the policy and extrapolate from them to a specific situation. Your unending crusade to set down every conceivable condition in explicit words is misguided to say the least. Doing so would only feed the wikilawyers and provide no new guidance to those who have a firm grasp of the policy already." Saxifrage 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis is mine. We should ask Saxifrage who are these people who have a firm grasp of the policy! We should ask him how we can distinguish these people from those people that do not understand it. Also. we should ask him if there is an explanation to the fact that these people find that the policy is perfect the way it is, even though it is not clear. Finally, we should ask him if he likes the fact that an unclear policy prevents POV pushers to push their viewpoint. However, don't mention to him the exceptions: those POV pushers that mysteriously master this unclear policy have no problem. -Lumière 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken links

You have recently made some broken links at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. For reference, internal links use double brackets, separate the "text" from the link with a pipe (|), and do not include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ at the front. Conversely, external links use single brackets, separate the "text" from the link with a space, and are fully-qualified URLs. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:NPOV

I've restored Jimbo Wales' actual quotes, replacing the ambiguous paraphrase in the Undue weight section [5]... unless someone can verify his 2003 mailing list "comments" as they were written. Here is the correct, accurate, verifiable quotation:

From Jimbo Wales, writing on the WikiEN-l mailing list in September 2003: If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. [..] And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether." [6] Jimbo further clarified in response to the suggestion "I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, albeit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print", Jimbo Wales replied: I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely. And this helps to tie the policy here in with parallel policies in other areas, i.e. 'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule.[7]

--Iantresman 19:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think this is necessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What either one of us might think, what is more important is a verifiable primary source. --Iantresman 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages aren't subject to the verifiability policy. If that's your only reason for making the change it should be reverted. Though I would say retaining the link to the original email is warranted. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts presented on ANY page are suject to verifiability, unless you can verify otherwise. Additionally, Jimbo Wales' may set policy, so again, his version of policy is law, and that too is verifiable. --Iantresman 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A brief reading of the verifiability policy page would show that it applies only to articles.

Besides, Jimbo is not the supreme lawgiver. The only thing he has made "law" is that having a policy of writing from a neutral point of view is a must. Everything else he has said are contributions from a respected member of the community, as the policies are community-decided. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have added another direct quote from Jimbo's post, directly address Undue weight, and the amount of space majority and minority views may have. --Iantresman 19:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:NPOV

I can't do anything to exclude you, Ian, I can only make the request in the interests of harmony. I took a look at Slrubenstein's comment and what this dispute seems to be about is whether or not to paraphrase Jimbo's words about NPOV. I have to tell you that paraphrasing is completely acceptable on a policy page, because the words aren't being quoted or used because he said them. Rather, that is the wording of the NPOV policy, and Jimbo has also said something very close to it (really, almost identical). But this is wording that has existed on that page for a long time, and there is clearly no consensus to change it: in fact, you are the only one who seems to want to (and perhaps Lumiere, I don't know). Please re-consider your position in the interests of giving that page a break from Lumiere's disruption of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a holiday

Sorry Ian, I can't be arsed making myself needlessly unwell trying to reason with senseless knuckle-dragging science graduate rationalism fanboys, I'm diverting my efforts elsewhere for a while. That said, are you aware of the Brynjolfsson redshift paper? Some interesting fits, and talks about Rayleigh and Raman scattering. Jon 01:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Style tips

Thank you for the work at del, nabla symbol, and other places. And just a few small suggestions. One is that it is good to use an edit summary say most of the time, and second is that one should use fewer capitals in section headings, so ==External links== rather than ==External Links==. These are tiny things, but are the house style, so I thought I would let you know. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Archive Freedom"

Are we supposed to take this seriously as a source:--> http://archivefreedom.org/

Claims there is some kind of "blacklist" in physics preventing certain physicists from publishing work. This clearly shows a grave misunderstanding of the scientific method. Anyone is free to publish -- as long as it is science. Overturning a paradigm will earn you fame, and if true, a theory will stand up to critical peer review.

All the website shows is that certain pseudoscientists have a bizarre conspiracy theory of science, and instead of doing science, pseudoscientists scream like children about how they are being "censored"? — Dunc|☺ 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that User:Marskell had initiated an RfC on my behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. You may wish to comment. Aquirata 13:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, Thanks for your support! Your view pretty well sums up the way I look at discussing policy, too. Aquirata 01:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain...

... from editting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Your last edits to redshift look very much like you are gaming the system. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

wouldn't need to make a point if you edited article fairly --> That's some pretty shaky justification for your practices here. If you have a problem with my editting, there is a dispute resolution process you can appeal to. Please don't disrupt the encyclopedia itself. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Voltage at Tower Bridge

Sorry for the delay in replying; I was on vacation. Faraday tried an experiment at Waterloo Bridge (Tower Bridge did not exist is those days), but the current was too small to measure. (I guess the resistance over that distance was very high). I did the calculation about forty years ago in school and remember the answer as one volt. However I am now rusty on these things and have asked a friend to recheck my calculation. I will assume that the water is flowing at one metre per second and the river is 200 metres wide. In London the earth’s magnetic field is 55,000 nanotesla and the dip angle is 67 degrees (it is zero at the equator and 90 degrees at the magnetic poles). I will let you know the answer. You might also like to have a go. I then have to invoke one of Fleming's contortions to get the direction! JMcC 09:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tired light

Sorry , i shouldn't have used the word badly in my edit summary. It's just 'alternative to redshifts' is confusing as you mean current, accepted redshift theories. my apologies. -- maxrspct in the mud 17:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Free plasma resource

They'll send you a free copy if you request it. Pretty good resource: [8] --ScienceApologist 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect your oposition to my nomination

I also respect your explanation. Frankly, I never expected that you would support it.

As per my "perspective" I just have to say that I'm perfectly fine with NPOV as a concept, but I don't think that this is as accomodating a principle as you view it to be. In particualr, I think your intrepretation of NPOV is too insistent on the incorporation of minority opinions. I also find it problematic that your advocacy of ideas related to your father's catastrophism ideas clouds your judgement with respect to editing. You seem to think that your perspective uniquely represents neutral which means it is difficult to engage you in articles on subjects where you are trying to employ this "neutralizing" agenda. I often get the impression that you are here to reinvent certain well-defined scientific terms by overly referring to ideas on the fringe of science or pseudoscience to promote a perspective you see as "more balanced" but is, on the consideration of the majority, skewed towards undue accomodation. I was deeply, deeply troubled by your posting to Halton Arp's message board basically asking for your allies in these subjects to come into Wikipedia and affect consensus for the simple rationale that redshift should be defined as all the folks on that board see it rather than the way the majority of science textbooks treat it. Nevertheless, I have tried to assume good faith whenever possible, but I imagine we probably will just have to agree to disagree on many of these issues.

By the way, if you want to be an admin, I'll gladly support you. The only reason I want to be one is that some of the tools that you can use in combating vandalism (you know the sort: someone comes into a page and writes I WROTE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) save a considerable amount of time compared to the user tools we're given. --ScienceApologist 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian, believe me, I have heard and understood your insinuations that I'm either a McCarthyist or a writer for Pravda as a means of criticizing me for going on witchhunts and censorship rampages. (Incidentally, if you haven't read Pravda recently, I encourage you to do so, it's always good for a laugh.) I just respectfully disagree. I take a different opinion of NPOV than you, specifically I think that there is considerable risk in presenting minority ideas as more important than they are if we were to take your idealizations of NPOV to their natural conclusions. What would happen if we adopted this kind of Ian-flavored NPOV policy would effectively be promoting an opinion based on accomodation rather than neutrality. As I've said, I see this as perhaps an intractable dispute, but I'm willing to discuss it. If you're ever in Chicago, USA, we'll have a drink and hash it out.

I'd almost pay to see that bar brawl (kidding)... Or maybe referee it. Seriously though, I agree that NPOV is relatively sacrosanct. However, what happens if the item you're reporting on is someone's opinion or a belief (consider Cultural anthropology or the understanding of a person or group's beliefs; in these instances I'd say that understanding someone's opinion or belief is relevant and worthy of inclusion), and you're presenting the opinion in a neutral way (inclusion of counter opinions, etc.)? Specifically, how can we include one group's ideas and not another's? IE, if we write an article on the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult or beliefs of minor tribes of Africa, how can we exclude the beliefs of the group or culture (it has its own terminology/language, and specific mythology) known as Electric Universe proponents? This is an interesting question from a folklore / cultural anthropology standpoint. How can we determine that one group's ideas are more important for inclusion than another groups beliefs? If we include one but exclude the other, aren't we playing favorites and displaying our own bias for or against a particular position and thus violating NPOV by suppression of ideas that we personally find objectionable? Just wondering. HAve to play the folklorist's / cultural anthropologist's advocate. I think that definition of core beliefs for a group are a noteworthy thing for inclusion, so long as they're presented neutrally (cultural anthropology and folklore attempt outsider neutrality in presenting the beliefs as the believers believe them, NOT performing outide interpretation on those beliefs). My 2c Mgmirkin 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think you may be rewriting a bit of history yourself. After all, you did contact my employer inquiring about my positions at one time. I'm always curious as to what perspective people come from and how that influences their work both formally and informally. You have been alternatively very up-front about your advocacy of catastrophism and guarded about it. This coupled with your post to Arp's website has made me suspicious of some of your activities here at Wikipedia. In that post you articulated a position that seemed to allign well with what I was seeing in your editting practices. I get the impression that you are clamboring for certain subjects to have greater visibility in the sense that you think that these subjects are unfairly marginalized in the science press, the academic journals, in science text books, by the scientific community, etc. This makes sense to me coming from a catastrophist. It's a real social critique of Ivory-Towerism that I take inspiration from to be an educator. Of course, Wikipedia is not about educating, it's about "informing" so I avoid promotion in the article space. However, what seems to me to be an avoidance of promotion may appear to you to be the same old marginalization tactics. And the world keeps spinning.

Anyway, I find a lot of this to be incidental to the Administration request. I really don't anticipate that our dispute has anything to do with whether I have a set of tools or not. I would never, for example, block you for anything nor would I delete articles you created. We just have too much of a history and that kind of behavior would be inappropriately disruptive. Still, I recognize that you may want to object to my RfA which is your right. We have a history and trust is hard won while mistrust tends to stick around.

--ScienceApologist 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, Ian, I think our conflict comes down to the fundamental problem with Wikipedia: how do editors deal with the vague Wikipedia:Notability essay. You are an "inclusionist" and I am a "deletionist". Jason Scott explained the problem well in atalk. I think your background as a catastrophist (outside the mainstream viewpoint) makes you inclined to be an "inclusionist" while my background in academia (inside the mainstream) makes me inclined to be a "deletionist". --ScienceApologist 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion. EU anecdotal evidence...?

Since you seem interested in catastrophism and possibly the EU model (I've found some of their claims convincing, some I'm on the fence about). Specifically, this article by Nasa is interesting: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/2005_dust_devil.html

Specifically the statement by researchers (which I've included in the EU concept entry under Electric weather): The team believes they made the first Doppler LIDAR measurements of an invisible dust devil. "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime," said Dr. Brent Bos of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Appears to show that dust devils are not caused by dust floating the high winds as was supposed. Rather there is a collimated filamentary structure that exists (and is detectable via LIDAR for a significant interval) regardless of flying dust, or more aptly MISSING dust (machined from the surface in some but NOT ALL instances by the EM collimated filament). IE, dust is the effect of machining by the filament, not a cause of the filament itself. The filament stands alone and exists even without the dust it machines. Suggestive of the Electric Universe hypothesis, anyone? Hmm... ;o] Mgmirkin 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect that similar LIDAR surveys of tornadoes, landspouts and water spouts, before and after actual connection and machining will show similar if not identical features. IE, it's detectable even without the machining that somehow supposedly "causes" the filament... Replete with electrical characterization (EM interference/noise, etc.). My 2c. Mgmirkin 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, and on a completely unrelated note, on your main page you failed to note: Kristian Birkeland, Immanuel Velikovsky, Ralph Juergens and Halton Arp. ;o] Hehe. Can't forget them. Velikovsky is at least good for the laugh about the furor his ideas created in mainstream scientific circles (that and putting out there the idea of electrical machining and arc discharge between solar bodies, which has been carried on by subsequent theorist in the EU model; I know, I know, nobody ever wants to mention him because it's like sticking an "I'm a crackpot" sticker, or perhaps more appropriately a lightning rod on their heads. *wink*). Likewise Arp (they banned him from telescope time in the US for contradicting them all; talk about suppression of science. Isn't science supposed to be falsifiable? And if we find contradictory evidence, aren't we SUPPOSED to report it??)... Mgmirkin 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Analysing pseudoscience

Ian, you were quite kind with my hasty submission awhile ago on the talk page. I appreciate your allowing me to correct it in greater detail; some observers would have quickly tried to make me out a fool for my first quick attempt at explanation there. Hope my second try was more useful. ... Kenosis 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of the Wolf Effect

Up for deletion as it presents a decrease in line intensity far in excess of what is associated with a Doppler Shift of 83 km/sec. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

Background

• I am involved in editing a number of articles which might be cynically described as "fringe" science and controversial, but which is derived from information that is generally peer-reviewed. User:ScienceApologist is a self-proclaimed deletionist,[9], with strong opinions that are rarely substantiated with verifiable citations.
• I believe that ScienceApologist uses double standards when editing articles depending on whether they are "mainstream scientific" articles or "controversial scientific" articles, for example, using Web sites as sources to criticise "controversial scientific", and not even accepting peer reviewed sources that criticise "mainstream scientific" articles.

Specific issues

• In the article Timeline of cosmology ScienceApologist edited two entries,[10] which he describes as "inaccurate". So I queried the changes on the Talk page,[11]. I reqested a source for his resulting edits, and an explanation of why he considers the original entries to be inaccurate. He just claimed I am baiting him; I feel this is a reasonable request?
• In the article Wolf effect I spent some time adding new material, all of which was based on peer-reviewed material.[12]. ScienceApologist removed it all, and although I restored most of it, he won't discuss the changes first, and has reverted everything. For example:

• I spent quite some time producing an original image (from a peer reviewed source), which he first claims is in accurate, and now claims is in violation of WP:V. Additionally he has put the image up for deletion,[13]
• I spent some time sourcing a statement suggesting that the Wolf effect is "a new redshift mechanism"; I found THREE sources (not peer reviewed, but in academic books)[14] that say this SPECIFICALLY (I included quotes), but he insists on removing this, claiming it has been discussed before. It hasn't.

• So, how do I approach ScienceApologist, and (a) get him to discuss edits before making such sweeping changes (b) get him to justify (ie provide verification) his edits, especially as they often seem to OVERRIDE peer review material?
• Note that myself and ScienceApologist have a long history of edit conflicts. --Iantresman 21:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Iantresman, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with ScienceApologist. :-( I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello I'm Aeon I have taken you case if you could reply back to me on my talk page with a brief summary of what you feel the main problem is that I may best represent you. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see. I will talk with SA and see why he is doing this. After that I will see what should be recommened to be done (by the looks of this Mediation would be the best but I need to see what SA has to say first). I understand your concerns and I will be willing to represent you in this issue. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I havetalk with SA. He basicly accuses you fo the same thing. I am recomending Formal Mediation on this case. If you accept this recomendation I can either help you to fle it or file it on your behlaf. I have made this suggestion to SA and he will have to say yes to medation in order for it to proceed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried and Article RfC or Third Opinion? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... then there are unfortuantely not many more opinions left as you have tried all. I will bring this up to the AMA Coordinator and see if there are any other WP:DR Steps that have not been taken. I think we have excused all but User Conduct RfC (And that is not a step to be taken lightly). Also can you link me to the ArbCom case in question so I might take a look at it (Might be something that can be used in there) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you could you also link me the the Article RfC? Me and the AMA CoOrdinator will be reviewing to see what else can be tried. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello do have not heard from you in a while. I looks like all types of WP:DR Steps have been tried. Do you still need the services of the AMA. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The efforts of Ragesoss and McCluskey against Logicus apparently to exclude a minority viewpoint on the Scientific Revolution Talk pages may interest you Logicus 17:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I am cautioning you about misusing WP processes to gain advantage over your opponents in simple content disputes. Inflated claims and questionable evidence all amount to bad faith wikilawyering. The community has very little tolrance for vexatious litigation, especially coming from someone with a history of disruption. Your comments [15] [16] are not in the spirit of dispute resolution but clearly intended to discredit a fellow editor. FeloniousMonk 18:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

SA nom

I've moved your comment (and my response) re: my SA nom to the discussion section; I believe this is the correct thing to do. Sdedeo (tips) 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

So far I haven't seen any edit warring. At this point I only want to get involved if edit warring is causing disruption, in which case I would protect again. Mangojuice^talk 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Try the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I guess. (*sigh*.) Mangojuice^talk 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BLP (or any other WP policy) dictates that what is stated in sources must be presented as unambiguous fact. We had a similar argument on this over at Talk:Cryptography which you may find interesting. So, no, BLP doesn't exactly force the issue in your direction. Wikipedia:Consensus is another matter, though: I think you may have a good point that prior discussion is being ignored by this new editor. Mangojuice^talk 18:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith is meant to be applied to Wikipedians, not to everything else. It doesn't have any relevance to evaluating sources. Ok, that said, if there's a piece of information in conflict, the burden is on those wanting to include it to provide sources. If sources are provided, and they are very solid (for instance, mutliple, clearly reliable sources that all agree), and no sources disagree, I think we don't have any choice but to present that statement as fact. If there are sources, but they provide only a thin justification (say, one reliable source, or a couple semi-reliable ones) and there is no source opposing that viewpoint, it may be appropriate to present the fact as ambiguous, using weasel words. If there are sources supporting opposing viewpoints, WP:NPOV gives pretty clear guidance. But there's no hard and fast rules about it. Keep in mind in the case of Lerner being a "plasma cosmologist" or whatever, that just because one source describes him as one thing, and another source uses another term, doesn't mean they directly conflict. Mangojuice^talk 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neologism

You may want to use the phrase "Request for Comments" in your post here. I would have just fixed it, but some people are touchy about these things, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention instead. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ionized-hydrogen.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ionized-hydrogen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Conscious 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

As I understand it, evidence is inappropriate at this stage of an RFAr. Guettarda 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Williams

Did you see the Skeptical Inquirer's review of Williams' Encyclopedia? The last line of that review reads

"Encyclopedias need to contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." [17] --Dematt 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vacuum article

I'm having trouble understanding your recent edits to the Vacuum article. The luminiferous aether is already discussed in the Historical Interpretation section, and I think the article is already quite clear that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere, so what were you trying to add? Part of your edit has already been reverted by someone else. It would help if you clarified your intent.--Yannick 02:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Eric Lerner

After consideration, I reported you for a 3RR violation here. As I'm involved, I may not block you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[18] made on October 9 2006 to Eric Lerner

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Note: this does not constitute an opinion on the dispute... if I were interested, I would incline to your side, but on AGF rather than BLP grounds.

William M. Connolley 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iantresman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by William M. Connolley for the following reason (see our blocking policy): 3rr on Eric Lerner. Your IP address is 84.9.191.165. I believe that my edits were exempt. The other editor's changes were conjectural (they wrote "Lerner stated .."), implying either the author is the only source, or does not have a BA in physics; while this is plausible, no verification is provided. Previous editors had also suggested that this is in violation of WP:LIVING Rationale: WP:LIVING says: "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule".

Decline reason:

I appreciate that you were trying to enforce WP:LIVING and that your edits were in good faith. I also believe you were in the right. However, the 3-revert rule is there to stop edit warring. The level of edit warring on Eric Lerner has caused it to be protected multiple times, and you're one of the people who have been in the middle of that, for better or for worse. It's not correct to say that WP:LIVING provides an exception for the edits you were making: there are good reasons on both sides for the revision (though, I do agree much more with your side). WP:LIVING would give an exception to revert to remove clearly false information: a lot of this was about editorial slant. And I think that in borderline situations, you should avoid edit warring more than trying to insist that WP:LIVING gives you license to ignore other rules. This block is short, and while I might not have given it, I think it's important that ALL the editors of that page be reminded firmly not to war back and forth between versions, but to talk things out. Sorry. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Iantresman 06:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your consideration. If 3RR is excluded from WP:LIVING, then it is because it is not considered edit warring, even thought it appears to be. WP:LIVING says 3RR is exempt for "conjectural interpretation of a source", and not to just "remove clearly false information".
• And I think if you look at the article history, with this exception, I don't take part in excessive edit warring, though I do take part in much discussion.
• If you also look at the Talk page, you will also note that I have extensively discussed the matter, provided much verifiable evidence, and had no requested veriable evidence in return; I believe that this is not the action of someone engaged in edit warring. --Iantresman 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR has a section "reverting potentially libellous material" as an exemption, but that talks about removing derogatory information that is poorly sourced or unsourced. That isn't what was going on here. Instead you were objecting to the editorial slant of the presentation of positive information, such as Lerner's degree from Columbia. That's not potentially libelous material: it's (in my opinion, and I'm sure yours) a WP:NPOV violation and in poor taste. The 3RR applies very specifically to conflicts over neutrality: if it didn't, it would be useless. WP:LIVING did a bad job explaining that exemption, and I've changed the policy page to make the two agree. I think the "conjectural interpretation of a source" clause is still about negative material: it's just another way such material can be poorly sourced. Mangojuice^talk 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that someone "states" somthing is to suggest that (a) it is only their claim (b) We don't necessarily believe what they are stating. Since I am not aware of any other biography on Wikipedia using the same phrasing (except where there is citation), we are singling out Eric Lerner, and implying that he is only person on Wikipedia whose word we don't accept.

And since we had no citation from ANY source (reliable or not), giving us cause to suggest that Lerner's degree was not real, their version was unfounded, and less reliable than the version I made.

If a potential employer saw Lerner's Wiki page, and saw that his degree was merely "claimed" or "stated", it might put doubt on his employement. It's not quite the same thing, but here is a similar example

So with respect, I suggest that I was editing on the side of caution, and that the block was not warranted. --Iantresman 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangojuice, three editors, including yourself seem to suggest there was a potential libel issue using the wording that I corrected. I agreed,[19] and so I was OBLIGED to revert and was consequently exempt from 3RR by WP:LIVING:

• Editor Adam Cuerden felt that the use of "states" was "blatant libel"[20]
• You replied "I heartily agree"[21]
• Art Carlson replied: "I see it the same way"[22]

--Iantresman 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I actually only "heartily agreed" with the first sentence, in which Cuerden said "We CANNOT imply his degree is fake by claiming he only "states" he has it." It's is not libel, and it is not potentially libelous, nor is it particularly close. It is true that Lerner states those things: libel concerns falsehoods. The text the others wanted to use was somewhat biased. That's bad, but it's not the kind of thing you can ignore the 3RR for. While I might not have blocked you myself, the block is certainly warranted with respect to policy. Myself, I don't like to undo short-term blocks unless I disagree with them to the level that I feel that the block was not a reasonable decision. Mangojuice^talk 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to repsonse. I think that still leaves two points in my favour.

• We have two editors then, who believe that the material was potential libelous. That should be justification enough for my editing.

• I note from WP:LIVING that Jimmy Wales writes: ".. 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

There was no source provided to verify that "Lerner states ..", that either Lawrenceville, or the IEEE, was unreliable, or, that Lerner had stated the information to them. He MIGHT have done. One editors suggested it was "implausible" [23], and that "some people who have read his book doubt the author of that book could have passed elementary physics"[24]. Other editors agreed that this assertion should also have some form of evidence ([25]). Surely this is "pseudo information", and the kind of information that should justify removal aggressively.

Recall that the version without "stated" was sourced. Twice. --Iantresman 17:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hohum. [26]], [27]. JBKramer 16:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

Have fixed the POV-pushing to some extent. However, this article really needs more cites to help protect it from this in future. Can you help? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian, 50 peer-reviewed articles is not right. Lots of articles but only about 15 original research in peer-reviewed pubs. I'll check.Elerner 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop, you've requested that I provide evidence to substantiate my claim you push or promote pseudoscience inappropriately. I would like to explain my position. I actually don't see that I ever made this claim in the diff you've provided. In fact, in much of the diff you provided I am agreeing with your summary of the dispute (although, of course, I surely disagree with you about how it should be resolved). I do think you spend much of your time on Wikipedia promoting theories that I think are pseudoscientific or at least on the very margins of science. Obviously, I think that some of this is inappropriate in that it gives these theories undue emphasis. We also disagree about how the NPOV policy should be interpreted on some of the pages you edit: you seem to favor a more sympathetic POV and I favor a more scientific POV (neither of which appears to be endorsed by WP:NPOV). I don't, however, think you are a habitual violator of Wikipedia policy or that you do anything that is "inappropriate" in that sense. –Joke 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, when I first saw it, I thought you were right (and then I thought "well, I didn't mean to say that..."). It was only later that I realized that I in fact didn't say that. So: no worries. I don't think you do anything inappropriate, per se, and our differences reflect different readings of policy. (Although, frankly, I wish the disputes with User:ScienceApologist would get a little less fraught.) I have to admit that I don't remember having seen the first quote from WP:NPOV (however, you left off its continuation "bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views"). I'm not as convinced as you are that the spirit of NPOV suggests that articles about views held by a tiny minority should be written sympathetically (that seems like the domain of wikinfo), although I basically agree that they shouldn't be unduly hostile.

Part of my frustration is that there are no reliable mainstream sources about many fringe ideas, simply because there is very little to be gained by refuting them. So many editors coming from a mainstream point-of-view feel stymied when they come to fringe articles, because (i) they feel the idea is obviously wrong; (ii) the mainstream perspective is not adequately represented; (iii) there is little they can sensibly add without violating the WP:NOR and WP:V policies; and (iv) AfD rarely works for these articles. So there is a mainstream point of view, but it is unverifiable. This was a big problem on plasma cosmology and aneutronic fusion, and they are many more mainstream sources for these articles than many other fringe articles (for example, most of the sources for plasma cosmology, though, cover the ambiplasma model, which is essentially different from what Lerner talks about these days). –Joke 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pathological skepticism

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathological skepticism you voted Strong support for the article to be deleted. Then you seemed to defend the article. Perhaps you meant to vote Strong keep. You can use the <s> and </s>tags to strikethrough your vote and make it more clear whether you want to keep or delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Pathological skepticism

Hi. You've indicated your support for the rename on the AfD page. You might want to move your comment to Talk:Pathological skepticism/Vote to rename. Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

However frustrated you may feel about the outcome that is shaping in the so-called pseudoscience dispute, you do your cause no good by vandalising pages in what I take to be a protest. I'm letting it go for now, with just this warning, but some other admin might not have been so forebearing if they'd seen it first. I rolled back your edit to the decision talk page, and I strongly advise you to leave it alone now or there will be adverse consequences for you. Metamagician3000 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Ian is exonerated. See the discussion on my talk page and the talk page of the pseudoscience decision. I accept that he didn't do what he appears to have done from the history. It looks like it was probably a glitch in the system (and fortunately not someone hacking his account to frame him, which was the other possibility). See also here. Metamagician3000 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolf Effect

Ian, see Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect. I'd prefer it if you would take this to Talk and endeavour to get others involved in the debate. You know that edit-warring is only going to have one result. I don't think it's goinh to help anyone if you have to be blocked to forestall further problems while this is considered, so I do urge you to debate calmly. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here with the intention of warning you over your repeated reversions at Wolf Effect but see you have already been warned. Considering that this article falls under the scope of those listed in your RFAR sanctions, I suggest that you limit your participation to the article's talk page; your insistance on certain points in the article is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

William G. Tifft proposal

The discussion at Talk:William G. Tifft is getting heated. Would you consider voluntarily withdrawing from editing this article for a week, if User:ScienceApologist does the same? Then the rest of the participants would try to get a Talk consensus and revise the article, taking our pick from all the submitted (and sometimes reverted) material. I won't suggest this to User:ScienceApologist unless you like the idea. EdJohnston 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

Just wanted to say thank you for all the work you have put in concerning Plasma here on wiki. It is visionaries like yourself that help to define and further the study of our universe. -Ionized 01:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on group draft needed (William G. Tifft)

Hello Ian! Dr. Submm has prepared a draft of two new paragraphs for the Tifft article. [28]. These paragraphs are intended to follow what's already there in the article. The group of three editors (Dr Submm, Lou Sanford and myself) have not yet reached a consensus, but we intend to keep editing until we are all OK with It. My 'expansive' view of the article did not win support from my colleagues, so I think we will likely come out with a 3-paragraph version with carefully bargained-out references and claims. I will ask for the first sentence of the second paragraph to be changed so it does not so firmly state that Tifft is currently ignored. Before we finish, it would be helpful to know if you find major problems with what you see there. I'd appreciate if you would reply here on your own talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian, for what it's worth, this non-subject-matter-knowledgeable editor likes your recent edit to the Tifft article. You might want to take a look at the citations at the end of the article -- one of them shows a lot of visible "http" stuff, which probably can be hidden by a very simple edit. (I'm reluctant to do ANY edits myself where I'm ignorant about the subject matter.) Lou Sander 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Views

Hi Ian—thought you might be interested in the newly created WikiProject Alternative Views. Regards, Tim Smith 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability warning

A tag has been placed on Ralph Juergens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement.

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Findings, I have reached the following decision:

In the matter of User:Iantresman's complaint against User:ScienceApologist, after reviewing the relevant Arbitration cases, reviewing all involved editors' edits since closing, and much of the previous case, I find that SA's actions are not sufficiently problematic to justify formal sanction. Iantresman's complaints in my view are minor and many are misleading. Indeed, I'm concerned that Iantresman's complaints here are part of a long series of complaints stretching back over the year that seem perilously close to vexatious litigation. Since (1) this implies a certain aggressiveness, (2) Iantresman's remedy called for his being "banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing", and (3) several, including me, have found his editing to be disruptive (cf. [29], [30], [31], and [32]), I find that Iantresman has indeed disrupted through aggressive biased editing. After careful consideration and consultation with other admins, I impose the following penalty. Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is to be blocked for 24 hours for disruption and banned for 3 weeks for aggressive biased editing from Wolf effect, Plasma cosmology, and Electric universe (concept) and their talk pages. This decision will be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience Bucketsofg 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As you see, I will soon be blocking you for 24 hours. There is also a WP:BAN from Wolf effect, Plasma cosmology, and Electric universe (concept). Once your block is over, you are free to edit other articles and their talk pages as you please. I strongly suggest that you change the way you are behaving. If you continue to disrupt in the ways that you have, the blocks and bans will no doubt increase. Bucketsofg 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding the biased editing noted by other admins (the first link [29] does not appear to go anywhere relevant, unless it is to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ?):

1. On 15 Dec, FeloniousMonk warned me about "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect".[33] I asked for examples. Any examples.[34] I am still waiting. I would appreciate the same from yourself, in order to substantiate the claim.

2. On 5 Dec, JzG also warned me about "edit-warring".[35] Again, no examples provided. The problems mentioned were initiated by SA,[36] are unfounded, and misleading,[37] (see "Deprecation by ScienceApologist & Appropriate sources"). But they had nothing to do with edit warring, nor being disruptive. Again, I would appreciate examples where I disrupted, and edit-warred the article on Wolf effect.

3. On the 1st Jan, the comments by Zowie show nothing untoward... unless you are referring to the "partisan catfights", in which case, another example of inappropriate discussion or editing would be appreciated.[38] --Iantresman 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• The diffs in my report are cited to show that others found disruption, as I did. The fact that experienced editors and admins find your behaviour unacceptable should cause you to stop what you're doing and try something different. If things don't change, the blocks will be come longer and the bans will cover more of the project. Look through your own contributions and try to read them as if they were someone elses. If you do this with an open mind and an honest attitude, I'm sure you'll find many things to change. In the meantime, once your block ends later today, feel free to edit elsewhere in wikipedia. Bucketsofg 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, your diffs show that they claimed to find disruption. They did not show any examples of disruption.
• If you recall from the ArbCom case, both FeloniousMonk and ScienceApologist also accused me of "pushing pseudoscience". Neither one could back-up their claims of any editing impropriety.
• FeloniousMonk also warned me after complaining about ScienceApologist behaviour [39] (Sorry, I can get diffs during my ban), claiming lack of bad faith etc; the ArbCom case upheld my claims.
• Under the circumstances, I would appreciate if you or FeloniousMonk would provide the diffs that substantiate FeloniousMonk's claims. That shouldn't be too difficult to do if they are justified. --Iantresman 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to look through your own contributions and try to look at them from someone else's point of view. If you do this with an open mind and an honest attitude, I'm sure you'll find many things to change. If, after you do that, you can't find any problems, perhaps I can give you some general advice on how to get along better with others. (I'm off to work now, so I won't be able to get back to you until the end of the day in any case. Why not use this time productively with a little self-reflection?) Bucketsofg 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully ask again for examples of Diffs that substantiate FeloniousMonk's claims of "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect" --Iantresman 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read through your last month's and noticed any that could seem disruptive to others? Bucketsofg 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am well aware of my last month's messages. Can you provide diffs that substantiate FeloniousMonk's claims of "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect". That is not an unreasonable request. --Iantresman 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking whether you are aware of these messages, but whether you realize how they appear to others. This will help you avoid future sanctions. Perhaps if we do tis differently. Can you point out to me two or three edits that you feel have caused others to react? (As for FeloniusMonk, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss another admin's warnings with you, any more than it would be for them to discuss the ban that I've imposed now. If you had questions, you should have brought them to his attention.) Bucketsofg 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• How convenient. You can solicit the opinions of other admins, and there is no obligation for you, or the other admin, to substantiate the claims. I DID bring the issue to his attention TWICE.[40]
• But the ban was initiated by YOUR investigations. I would appreciated diffs that substantiate FeloniousMonk's claims of "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect".
• Perhaps FeloniousMonk was mistaken. For the third time? --Iantresman 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, it is not convenient at all. There are many other ways I'd rather have spent New Year's eve than reading through your ArbComm and edits. Many people, including but not limited to those I mentioned, have said that your editing are disruptive, and it certainly seems that way to me. If you make an honest attempt to see this from others' perspectives, it may be possible both to avoid future sanction and create better encyclopedia articles. So, again, can you point out to me an edit of yours that others have found disruptive? Bucketsofg 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bucketsofg, you banned me for a number of reasons. I've asked some question about those reasons, a simple clarification. That should be easy to substantiate.
• It's not for me to point out edits of mine that others have perceived as disruptive, I can't read their minds.
• Please, substantiate your reason that FeloniousMonk's claimed my "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect" (or any of the other clarifications I requested). --Iantresman 10:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Iantresman. Yes, it is for you to explain yourself. I have explained my block and ban of you in sufficient detail that everyone--including you, I suspect--will understand it. But this is obviously going nowhere. If you want to avoid problems in the future, I suggest you think hard about your style of encounter with others. These are my final words on the subject. Bucketsofg 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• How do I explain my "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect" if I can not find where I made "repeated reversions at Wolf Effect"? Since it was you that banned me because FeloniousMonk made the claim, it is up to you to provide evidence supporting the claim. This is fair, and should be easy to do. --Iantresman 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can I assume that you will not be (a) extending the courtesy of replying to my questions, (b) substantiating your reasons for banning me, beyond the claims you have already made? --Iantresman 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Evading your article ban by proxy

You were banned from the article and talk page for disruption. You say you do not condone anyone circumventing your ban, but it looks to me like you are clearly trying to influence or even direct the editing of the article during your ban, which in your case is a blockable offense. It's a judgement call, certainly, but the best way to avoid blocking is to keep your information to yourself until your ban expires. If you persist in trying to influence the article while you are banned from it, I or another admin may determine you are evading your ban and block you accordingly, per your probation. Cheers. Thatcher131 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ian, you've been pretty good about not violating the ArbCom sanctions. I'm not wholly comfortable with banning from the talk page as well, but there is a decent groundswell of support. I would hit Special:Random and do some Wikignoming, it will do your reputation good. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• No offense intended, but either I have violated my ArbCom sanctions, or I haven't. It has indeed been claimed I've been disrupting, but no-one has provided any evidence of my violating any ArbCom sanctions. And as far as I know, "Groundwell of support" was never reason to ban someone.
• So to suggest that I've been "pretty good about not violating the ArbCom sanctions" would be like me suggesting that you have been pretty good not breaking any policies.
• I know we don't see eye to eye over various issues, but also discussing compromise on the Wolf effect, is also not disrupting... it may not be constructive, but it's not disrupting.
• But thank you for your consideration. --Iantresman 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Per Carlqvist

A tag has been placed on Per Carlqvist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

fails WP:PROF test

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ScienceApologist 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that Image:Magnetic rope.png is a derivate work of a NASA image, but only has a NASA copyright tag. Because it is a derivative work, it needs a second copyright tag. I suggest you release your changes to the image into the public domain by adding {{PD-self}} to the image description page. —Remember the dot (t) 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

• Image:Plasma-ranges.gif
• Image:Cosmic-plasma circuits.gif
• Image:Heliospheric circuit.gif
• Image:Double-layer-formation.gif
• Image:Glow-discharge-schematic.gif
• Image:Double-layer-characteristics.gif
• Image:Charged-particle-drifts.gif
• Image:Pinch-generalized.gif
• Image:Bennett-pinch-chart.gif

Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Fact-tag bombing is tendetious editting.

--216.125.49.252 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV

I don't want to be dumping on you, and I know you're kind of in a bad spot after the whole Arbcom thing, but could you please not bring articles to DRV unless you want the status quo overturned? If you don't to change the status quo, you're just wasting everyone's time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not publish other's personal information

It's obvious you've got a personal ax to grind with ScienceApologist Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist_Off-wiki_personal_attacks, but publishing his name and where he works is a new low, even for you. Please stop now. 151.151.21.100 17:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Alfven-book-covers.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfven-book-covers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Your comments at WT:SCIENCE aren't germane to the discussion. You are griping that a particular article got deleted, it was listed as a "test case" but a lot of articles are listed as test cases there without really falling under WP:SCIENCE at all. If you think the decision was wrong, go to DRV. As for the "canvassing" issue, again, if you have a problem with the debate, take it to DRV; if it's a problem with someone's specific behavior, see WP:DR. In my opinion you're starting to cause disruption. Mangojuice^talk 12:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I understand it is that you don't like using scientific notability as the only standard. Well, (1) in Ralph Juergens' debate, it wasn't the only issue considered overall, although many people thought it was the most important part of the issue, (2) the proposal WP:SCIENCE is pretty clear that its scope is to pertain to science notable for being science, (3) "scientific notability" as WP:SCIENCE describes it includes the idea of notability outside of the scientific community. And (4) points 2 and 3 have been further clarified since your post. So, your complaint is just off target: the one example doesn't even have that problem, WP:SCIENCE as written doesn't have that problem. Anyway, the debate isn't even about how Wikipedia should work, it's about how Wikipedia does work and whether WP:SCIENCE reflects that. Mangojuice^talk 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Carlqvist-pinch-gravitational-chart.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carlqvist-pinch-gravitational-chart.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Magnetic-rope.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Magnetic-rope.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Seeing-red.jpg

Hello Iantresman, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Seeing-red.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Iantresman. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fare thee well

Dear Ian, on Talk:Plasma cosmology you said you were leaving Wikipedia. I won't try to talk you out of it since it is probably a rational decision. (On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me it you change your mind.) The time and effort an editor must invest are considerable, and the benefits for society are arguable and for himself non-existent. That is all the more reason that I don't want to let you go before thanking you for the efforts and contributions you have made to Wikipedia. I hope you can find a productive channel for your work that is less frustrating than this one. Best regards, --Art Carlson 08:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Community ban of User:ScienceApologist

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. J. D. Redding 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility guidelines

• I would be grateful if you would confirm that:

(a) Civility and personal attacks (ie. respect) are a key Wikipedia policy and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia

(b) There is no defense or justification for incivility

(c) Reporting an editor for incivility is part of the dispute resolution process

(d) That reporting an editor of actual incivility (a core policy) is never classed as vexatious litigation (a guideline). --Iantresman 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your questions, which I've moved here. On point (a) and (b), I refer you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, where you can see that indeed these are important policies and see some guidance as to what you should do in cases of infractions or perceived infractions. The reports that you envisage in your point (c) are nowhere mentioned in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which I encourage you to read carefully and take to heart. On (d), each report must be considered on its own merits, and in the case of meritless or almost meritless filings, a report might indeed be judged vexatious. Thanks again for your interest. If you have any further questions on this matter, please leave them here. (I have put this page on my watchlist). Bucketsofg 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• The page on No Personal Attacks says that "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process". In my case, the process went through to Arbitration where a caution was given.[41]
• If the incivility and personal attacks continue, the next step is Arbitration enforcement, and not to go back to the beginning of the process?
• And I reported the incivility (personal attacks) had recurred at least half a dozen time subsequently. What would you have suggested? Turn the other cheek? We only have so many cheeks. --Iantresman 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note, also, that WP:NPA suggests some initial options which you need to explore first. I think your suggestion of turning the other cheek is a good idea. How much? Try some more, and see how that works. Happy editing, Bucketsofg 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but the initial options were tried, which is why we ended up at Arbitration, and a caution was issued that specifically mentioned civility. It did not work. How many times would you let an editor be uncivil towards yourself before you take some form of action? I note that in your handling of Seabhcan, that he had one chance (?) before he was banned.[42]
• It is grossly unfair, when the rest of us have not been reported for incivility during the entire time we had been editing a Wikipedia, and other editors get away with incivility a couple times only. --Iantresman 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend that you try those initial options again if you continued you to have problems. Me? I have never taken any action against any incivilities made against me personally, nor would I. Sticks and stones and all that. Seabhcan was under an ArbComm imposed parole, with clearly defined guidelines and penalties, and WP:AE is the appropriate venue for such a complaint. This is different from SA, who is not under parole or probation. Bucketsofg 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:Probation is well described. SA was under "caution". Can you show me where on Wikipedia "Caution" is described? --Iantresman 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not "under caution", but "cautioned". As far as I know, it has no discussion of its own. I assume that this is because it is unlike Probation, which is a formal, procedural warning with defined sanctions for a set period. Someone can be "under probation" (as you are), but there is no analogous "under caution". I hope this helps. Bucketsofg 13:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it tells me that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, a "caution" is a meaningless term with no consequences attached. SA might have well as been asked to sit on the naughty step for 10 minutes. In other words incivility is not treated as a policy but a guideline. --Iantresman 14:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Your repeated aggressive and biased editing 2 weeks ago at Eric Lerner violated the terms of your probation. Any similar such editing of that or similar topics will result in a block per the terms of your probation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation. In addition, after seeing bucketsofg's comments warnings to you and seeing your extensive history of misusing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement with frivolous filings meant to harass and waylay your long-time nemesis, ScienceApologist, I'm repeating bucketsofg's warning to you about vexatious litigation and adding that another such frivolous filing will result in you being blocked for harassment, abuse of community tools and disruption. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Twisting the knife when someone is down is not a high-class move. It paints you in a much poorer light than it does him, so you may wish to withdraw your comments. Raymond Arritt 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Persuant to the discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and FM's warning above, and Raymond Arritt's, and the arbcom decision, I have blocked you for a week. Furthermore, on your return, I will continue to monitor your behavior and if it should continue to be problematic, more blocks will be forthcoming. Raul654 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• You have a novel (unique) interpretation of the word "Baiting". In no way is responding to an editor, and justifying and correcting their misconceptions of Wiki policy, "baiting".
• FeloniousMonk's accusations above, remain baseless, and my User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Bias repeated requests from him to substantiate his comments with diffs, have gone unanswered. It looks very bad (a) if Admin can't substantiate their claims (b) there is no requirement for them to do so.
• I commented on Bucketsofg's statement on the Administrator's Noticeboard, another Admin who like FeloniousMonk refused to, or is unable to substantiated a number of his claims (see Arbitration Enforcement above). It looks even worse when several Admin back-up each other, but none are prepared to substantiate their claims with diffs.
• And Raul654, I appreciate your enthusiasm in monitoring my behaviour. It's a shame that it doesn't extend to other editors who are repeatedly failing to meeting Wiki policy standards,[43] and you have to ban an editor who repeatedly blow the whistle.
• But I am not in the least bit surprised since you supported another editors personal attacks against me, [44], wrote that I did not deserve good faith,[45], and decided that you did not have to justify your actions.[46] --Iantresman 10:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• I refer you to the "Statement(s) of principle" on "Personal attacks": "Personal attacks are expressly prohibited [..] Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth."
• And finally, the Statement of Principle on "Harassment" notes that ".. administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them". Thank you for your support, and Bucketsofg's support, regarding the personal attacks against me. --Iantresman 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Catastrophism, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Immanuel Velikovsky, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Please do not make edits and reverts as you did to Anthony Peratt as your SIS has paid him to be a speaker and it represents a conflict of interest. --Velikovsky 19:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This edit violates the terms of your probation against "aggressive biased editing" per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This is your one and only warning on this. If I see this sort of misleading and unsupported edit being made by you again I will not hesitate to block you. The community is getting more than a little tired of dealing with your incessant antics of biased editing, self promotion and vexatious litigation. You've clearly demonstrated in the seven months since being placed on probation that you are simply unable to avoid biased editing at pseudoscience related articles, and there's a limit to how much disruption the community is expected to put up with from those already on probation. Revert that edit at Catastrophism and find a less controversial (for you at least) set of articles to edit. FeloniousMonk 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Peratt

I've started an an WP:AFD on the Perratt article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Peratt. Since you've contributed recently to the article, I thought you might want to participate. semper fictilis 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[47]

This statement is plainly dishonest. I ask that you retract it since most of the people who signed the statement are neither scientists nor engineers. If you don't, I'll report your dishonesty to the proper authorities. --Mainstream astronomy 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This list show 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be uncivil. --Iantresman 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction discussion

You may wish to take a look at the discussion concerning you at WP:CN. JoshuaZ 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfar

It may reassure you to know that should Arbcom accept your request for arbitration, it is common practice to unblock an editor (should he or she be blocked) for the purposes of editing the Rfar only. Further, should it be accepted, in all probability the Community sanction discussion will be halted pending outcome of Arbcom case - I myself will suggest and even argue for this, should no one else do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked this account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration procedure

Cross-posted from my talk to make sure you see this.

Iantresman, you should not be posting on-wiki at this time, but in view of the nature of your post I will respond in this instance. As you know, I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee and am not a participant in the decision-making process. Also, I believe you are remembering incorrectly, as I took no part at all in the community ban discussion concerning you at WP:CN and had nothing to do with that decision. I removed your request from WP:RfAr because the arbitrators, who govern the page and the process, have specifically instructed the clerks to remove any cases posted by banned users. However, you may challenge my action, or otherwise seek to pursue your case, by sending an e-mail to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or clerk for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RFAR

You munged the whole page. I fixed it for you. Thatcher131 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and with the limitation to arbitration pages, please make a list of whomever you feel should be notified and a clerk will perform the notifications. (Certainly the blocking admin, and anyone else you feel contributed significantly to the discussion or made points in your favor.) Thatcher131 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Iantresman 15:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete

I sure will feel silly if you are exonerated, but at this point that looks very unlikely. Art LaPella 07:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Alas I am not able to add comments to the evidence page, as the terms of my temporary unbanning restrict my edits to the recent ArbCom appeal page, and my user page.
• I would say that during the ArbCom appeal, three people confidently accused Soupdragon42 of being a sock puppet of mine, but fortunately I know the person, and we were able to supply personal information to show otherwise.
• I don't recall the name Leokor, though Applecola I have seen recently, and suspect that they are not a new user, only using a new username. Mgmirkin is clearly a different person, and you can compare his photo on his user page with mine on my home page.
• A search on Google for Leokor's real name (shown on his user page) shows a number of hits which seems to fit with his profile, some going back several years, and a search of Google scholar shows hits which match his Ph.D. claims.
• It would not surprise me to see other contributing to the article. Despite what the article says, it is a current field of research, as demonstrated by he latest IEEE Aug 2007 issue. --Iantresman 10:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have authorized Iantresman to post his reply to the suspected sockpuppet case, because it has been involved with his request for arbitration. This should not be considered a violation of the terms of his limited unblocking. Newyorkbrad 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Earth-upheaval-cover.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Earth-upheaval-cover.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Double sheath"

I have nominated "Double sheath" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ieee-tps.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ieee-tps.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ieee-npss.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ieee-npss.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite ban: unappealing replies

• On 16 July 2007, I was given an indefinite community ban. Some of the reasons given were unsupported by any evidence, and other reasons have subsequently been discovered to be false.
• It would take just a few minutes to check the evidence below, to confirm whether I really harassed two editors from Wikipedia, or was banned under false pretences.
• I've sent several email enquires to ArbCom and individual members of the ArbCom committee, but I am receiving no replies.
• I do not understand why there is not at least the courtesy of a reply, let alone a reason on whether this is sufficient for an appeal.

Evidence

• In my 16 July Community ban proposal it is alleged that:

• I "repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior"
• That I was "repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy"

• On 24 October 2007, an arbitration case discovered that ScienceApologist had himself been using the username Mainstream astronomy, together with the usernames Fradulent Ideas, Nondistinguished, and Velikovsky.
• Since ScienceApologist, nor Mainstream astronomy, where harassed from Wikipedia, the proposals were misleading, and other editors were misled too:

• "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,"[48]
• "Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be"[49]
• "It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment"[50]
• "Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated "[51]

• The last comment by User Bladestorm notes that "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."[52]

{Please do not make comments above] --Iantresman (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Right then. I've come across this more or less at random, but I am aware that anyone who has been banned by the community has a customary right of appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I am going to place the RFAR on your behalf. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• If you place the statement you would like put on WP:RFAR here I or another user will transfer it to the page. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also thought there was a right to appeal, and WP:Ban says that "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee"[53]. However, last time I asked if I could appeal, I was just told that ArbCom "does not wish to alter the ban at this time", and others have told me that it is at ArbCom's discretion.
• Since some discussion has already begun on the ArbCom discussion page, it might be worth asking there first. I do not know the process for appealing, whether others are allowed to appeal on my behalf, whether THIS is my appeal, or whether I will get the chance to present further evidence.
• I'll put together some more information anyway, on the off-chance that it will be taken into consideration. Many thanks for your help. --Iantresman (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the process is like this:

• I have made, and you should make, a statement explaining why the Arbitration Committee should consider the appeal. They may accept or decline the request.
• If they accept, then at that stage evidence will be requested to justify the appeal.
• They will then vote on remedies, which may include lifting, commuting, or limiting your ban and other sanctions.

So what has happened so far is that I have filed a request to have your appeal considered. In the common law justice system, it's like leave to seek a judicial review.

What you need to do is put a statement here (preferably in a different section) explaining, briefly, why you should be unbanned. Evidence comes later. Then that statement will be transferred to the Arbitration request and the committee will decide whether to take on the case or not. If they do, it's likely that you will be unblocked for the purpose of contributing to the case.

I hope that explains everything... Stifle (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iantresman

(For copying to "Appeal of commuity ban of Iantresman")

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".[54] A later arbitration case discovered that ScienceApologist himself been using the username Mainstream astronomy, together with the usernames Fradulent Ideas, Nondistinguished, and Velikovsky.[55]
• 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,"[56] (2) "Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be"[57] (3) "It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment"[58] (4) "Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated "[59]

• 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"[60], 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."[61]
• JoshuaZ stated I "has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing"[62], 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"[63]

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

• Copied to ArbComm page. [64]. GRBerry 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum by User:Iantresman

(For copying to "Appeal of commuity ban of Iantresman")

• ScienceApologist, below, has acused me of using sockspuppets during this appeal, and of personal attacks against him. Within the hour I was Checkusered,[65] and cleared by Thatcher131. Removing Sock templates [66][67] and an apology is the traditional respsonse, especially when our previous Arbcom found that ScienceApologist had been both uncivil [68] and failed to extend good faith,[69] 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, [70][71][72][73][74][75] (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)

Copied to ArbComm page. --Iantresman (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, Iantresman. I happened to see the case at arbreq. I hope it goes well for you. I have some advice for you, and I hope you won't find it condescending or unwelcome. I'm just trying to be helpful. I don't know anything about the events preceding the banning; I've only looked at the arbreq. I've written the advice just now with the intention of showing it to you, but it's in the form of general advice which I hope may be helpful to others too, so it contains some details that don't apply to you specifically. It's at User:Coppertwig/Unblocking. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)(striking out some words00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

I apologize. When I posted the above I had only read the material at the arbitration case and had not looked at the prior history. Apparently it was inappropriate of me to give you that advice in this situation, and I'm sorry for anything my message might have seemed to imply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum (2) by User:Iantresman

(For copying to "Appeal of commuity ban of Iantresman")

• 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.[76], 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

(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 Coppertwig

I posted a statement in this section of my talk page, which will likely eventually be archived here, about the indef block. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it is indeed one of many examples of alleged wrong-doing that are completely unfounded. --Iantresman (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of sockpuppetry?

The suspected sockpuppet template on the user page doesn't seem to have any links to any sockpuppet reports or evidence. I found a suspected sockpuppet report which does not find conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. (One of the other individuals talks about having a good laugh over it.) Therefore I propose to remove the template from the userpage. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed at "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (2nd nomination)" where no evidence was found. Thanks you for your consideration. --Iantresman (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I also propose to remove the banning template from the userpage. It's my understanding that Iantresman is (at this time) not banned, but merely indef blocked. See here. By the way, thank you for that link, Iantresman. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that I do indeed have an indefinite Community Ban, which is implemented by an indefinite block (as indicated by my block log), but that the only way to become un-banned is to appeal to the ArbCom committee which I am trying to do here. I don't know what the implications are, of being unblocked, but remaining banned? --Iantresman (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not my understanding. WP:Banning policy says "If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned." Two administrators have indicated willingness to unblock you. Furthermore, it has been questioned whether a five-hour discussion with no solid evidence presented represented due consideration by the community.

While the blockingbanning (02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)) policy says that it's possible to appeal to the arbitration committee, I don't see it saying anywhere that that's the only way to end the ban. Per WP:CONSENSUS, a decision by the community can change.

I wasn't talking about being banned but not blocked – I was talking about being blocked but not banned.

Difference between a ban and an block? A ban is more abstract: a decision by the community. A block is something on the computer. However, being blocked tends to usually (though not necessarily) imply some sort of ban-like state, similar to having been blocked temporarily for 3RR for example. Indef doesn't have to mean forever; and I don't think it's required to have a ban template on the userpage during such a block. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your interpretation! We'll see how things turn out. Thanks again --Iantresman (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re sockpuppetry: Note discussion at User talk:Jehochman#Iantresman. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. As far as I can tell, this sock template was added specifically to support allegations made in my ArbCom,[77] and was found to be false.[78] Any previous allegations of the use of socks have been dealt with. In a previous ArbCom case, I acknowledged using other user accounts,[79] (see Reply to Mackensen), but not abusively.
• On the other hand, as also pointed out in my ArbCom, ScienceApologist, (who made the suspected sock allegations, and placed the template), was himself found to have used socks,[80], and used them abusively,[81], and yet his user page carries no templates.
• And as I further noted in my ArbCom case, this abusive use of socks extended to two of these socks claiming they had been harassed from Wikipedia.[82], and subsequently misled editors into banning me. --Iantresman (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think Jehochman is referring to the first sockpuppet report and talking about Applecola. I hope you don't mind me asking: did you edit via the account Applecola, and if not, do you know anything about who it is? Also, there was some talk of a society you allegedly belong to. Of course, there's nothing wrong with belonging to a society, but the idea was that some members might seem to be acting like meatpuppets. Would you care to comment about that? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't recall whether I used the account Applecola; as I have already acknowledged I have used some alternative accounts, but it was some time ago. I note Applecola has made edits to articles that I have edited in the past, though none appear to be abusive. I also note that I was also accused of using the account Leokor, but was cleared.[83]
• I belong to a number of societies, and while I agree that there is nothing wrong with being a member of one, other editors are using such affiliations in contradiction of WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". This appeared to be the case in the Suspect Sock puppet allegation, where having failed the Sock allegation, the allegations turns to meatpuppetry, and inclusion of a lot of personal information, which is also inaccurate. I think user Feline1 has answered the claims satisfactory.
• The suggestion of meatpuppets is generally unfounded, and presumes a lack of good faith. No-one complains at user pages rife with tip-offs for editors to look at articles, nor organized meatpuppetry such as the now-closed ConspiracyNoticeboard. It was ScienceApologist (yet again!) who accused participants of being meatpuppets,[84] in an earlier Oct 2007 Arbcom (mirroring the current Arbcom [85]), and accused me of soliciting for meatpuppets outside Wikipedia,[86] for which I can confirm that I asked for some outside help, but which ScienceApologist neglects to mention, is that I also asked for advice on the mainstream forum, Bad Astronomy,[87] (in Dec 2005); hardly the actions of someone trying to fix the system. It was not until March 2006 that "meatpuppets" gained its current definition regarding soliciting.[88], where the use of the term is consider uncivil, and even now is described as derogatory.[89] --Iantresman (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for having asked, Iantresman, because it appears that there is no evidence for the Applecola sockpuppet allegation. I think you would remember if you had used the Applecola account because I think all of that account's edits were during your community ban.

Thanks for reminding me that policies would have been different back then. I started on Wikipedia in November 2006. I see that you've been around much longer than that.

Would you please just clarify what you mean by asking for outside help: do you mean outside Wikipedia, and was that before the current meatpuppet definition? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As ScienceApologist noted,[90] I asked on Halton Arp's forum for help regarding "redshifts" which I presume he feels is biased because some people on the forum, have an alternative view of redshifts. By itself, this could be construed as recruiting meatpuppets. But since I also asked for help on the Bad Astronomy forum,[91] a mainstream forum, my request for help was balanced (at no time did I encourage disruption or abusive contributions). I asked on both forums on 3 Dec 2005 (within about 20 minutes of each other), and this is three months before the current definition of "meatpuppets" was defined.[92] --Iantresman (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Again, the impression I'm left with is that you've done nothing wrong. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did makes posts after I was banned (on 16 July 2007), which is technically not allowed, for example, using my IP address 84.9.191.165, but nothing abusively. --Iantresman (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing abusively"? I repeat faintly. Iantresman, with respect, I think you need to make some adjustments to your mental image of what is and is not considered acceptable around Wikipedia. My understanding is that a ban means you're supposed to stop editing – not that you're supposed to stop "abusive" editing; you're already not supposed to be doing "abusive" editing whether you're banned or not. I don't like the word "abusive": too black-and-white, or black; I don't tend to use it. But sending messages to three different users (three Arbcom members, perhaps?) saying "Improper ArbCom actions" would tend to be considered disruptive, I think, even if you weren't banned at the time. It's best to avoid putting a POV message such as "Improper ArbCom actions" in an edit summary or section heading, even if you intend to express that opinion in your message. And discussing article content on an article talk page while banned is definitely not in the spirit of the ban. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, you have some fair points. Sometimes it's difficult to remain completely objective when false evidence (and no evidence) has been used to evict you from Wikipedia with no due process. --Iantresman (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can understand that you were probably angry.

MastCell confirms on my talk page (Section "Tsyko (talk · contribs)") that there was a checkuser run confirming Tsyko as a sockpuppet of Iantresman. All of the edits under the Tsyko account were during your ban, Iantresman. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Extra message just to reset the indentation Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, not sure if I mentioned it but I'm looking at the diffs posted at User talk:Coppertwig#Iantresman by Enric Naval, and I may post some stuff there to help me organize the information. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I couldn't find any "concrete evidence", as Eric calls it, so why did he link to allegations, rather than go straight for the concrete stuff? Most come from arbitration/Pseudoscience, where the findings of fact were that,[93] (a) I have an orientation... I'm stilling trying to find which Wiki policy this breaks (b) I have an editing style (no examples given), but everyone has a style (c) that I have been uncivil... one of which was accusing ScienceApologist of a lack of good faith; ArbCom found "ScienceApologist failure to extend good faith" specifically towards me. So it may look like a long list of bad things, but there is very little of substance. --Iantresman (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Being an alleged "pseudoscience POV pusher", there should be lots of examples where I have in inappropriately forced the pseudo-scientific view, at the expense of the mainstream view. --Iantresman (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me. ☺ By the way, I should have said first: it was good of you to mention the IP edits. It's that sort of openness which can hopefully eventually lead to putting all that in the past. Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite ban Appeal declined

• My request for arbitration which appealed your indefinite block was declined. Just letting you know. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts. The result is interesting. I note that:

• Less than half of the active ArbCom committee voted.
• No-one in the ArbCom committee commented on the suspect evidence presented against me in the Community ban
• Of the people who made statements, 15 were favourable, 2 were indifferent, and 5 were against.
• In other words, of those who made statements, three times as many were favourable (for an appeal)
• Five of the statements questioned the evidence presented in my Community ban

--Iantresman (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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)