Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 11 November 2012 (→Iantresman: enact ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

DIREKTOR

Ellhn2012

Iantresman

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Iantresman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

This is covered under Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

In this section Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration is wikilawyering to have a book about "the plasma universe" be added to an unrelated non-fringe dusty plasmas article. He argues he wishes to add it for it's 6 pages on dusty plasmas in the appendix . He has continued to argue, despite no consensus for it. I am worried that this pushing, so soon after his topic ban removal is indicative that he is going to continue to civilly POV push this fringe science subtlety; adding a burden on other editors to deal with him. He has been wikilawyering on the page.

Also note that one of his first reactions was to to go to WP:IRS, and arguing the exact opposite thing: "The book is clearly fringe. How could I show that?" Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Academic_textbook_assessment_as_a_reliable_source. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Iantresman is well aware of sanctions in this area, because he was under them. He recently had his topic ban from physics articles and fringe science removed by arbcom: .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I will note that Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing and detrimental to the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@My76strat. The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint. You can confirm this if you wish at WP:FTN. That is a non-controversial statement of fact. Ask a physicist what Plasma cosmology is, and he'll shrug his shoulders. No notification is required for FTN discussions, much like RSN discussions. The comment was to attract more interested editors to the actual discussion which was at Dusty Plasmas. When someone is civilly POV pushing books that suit their fringe viewpoint then what sort of compromise do you suggest? I did discuss the issue, but when someone starts wikilawyering about sources needing sources, what do you suggest? It's clear he is aiming to use this book rather than the countless volumes dedicated to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Start, you are selectively quoting FRINGE. THe rest of that sentence is "and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." We don't include fringe theory books in articles not about the fringe theory when there are perfectly adequate books not about the fringe theory. Iantresman is a supporter of plasma cosmology, and here he is adding books about it into other articles. Plasma cosmology has no direct connection to Dusty plasmas. The reasonable compromise position isn't to add the book about plasma cosmology, and I'm quite startled that you are arguing that; and you appear to go even further, saying that plasma cosmology should be mentioned when no source seriously connects them in the same way as say astrology and astronomy. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Canens, By pseudoscience, it's hard to find a source that says catagorically pseudoscience, that is mostly be because it's hard to find a source that addresses it at all because it is so very fringe. It's referred to as a "a persistent but extremely off-base crackpottery that plagues astronomy" in places . here a major proponent is compared to a creationist: . Errors with books etc. This is not a respected alternative formulation. I think the admins will need to use their discretion, or I can take it to arbcom also if you think that's what needs to be done? It meets the arbcom description: " Misplaced Pages contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Canens, I think extending that topic ban to Plasmas as well would be prudent as well. For example, dusty plasmas is under the plasma physics category (although dusty plasmas are mainly used in astrophys it seems). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@TDA The issue is that this is just going to repeat. This occurred almost immediately after his unban; and so a lot of editor time will be devoted to making sure it doesn't happen again and then dealing with it when it does. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Strat, Why would a notice be needed? The discretionary sanctions exist because of his very case. He has just come off a arbcom topic ban. This proposal is to enforce the previous ruling, it falls under the topic as TDA pointed out. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Iantresman

Statement by Iantresman

I am surprised that this RFAR has been placed, as the discussion was still in progress, with some constructive information emerging slowly, dispute resolution was not considered, and I expressed being open to using the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN).

I disagree with the characterisation which I feel is a misuse of the term Wikilawyer, as I am providing "reasoned arguments in a debate". I would summarise the issue as follows (some of this is repeated in the Dusty Plasma thread mentioned).

1. Some time ago, I added a section on "Dynamics" to the article on Dusty Plasmas. The information came from a scientific textbook I am familiar with, The Physics of the Plasma Universe, and that I know other mainstream plasma physicists use. You can compare the article content with the source, here. Since it IS the source, I am uncomfortable removing due credit.
2. I took note of why the reference was removed in 2007, and found that the editors appeared to be mistaken: (a) one was comparing the 1992 book with another theory which did not exist until at least 6 years later in 1998 (b) another editor thought the book was not relevant, which my image scan above shows to be incorrect.
3. As an extra measure, I reviewed WP:IRS, and reviewed the existing mainstream literature, looking for independent verifiable assessments (so that no-one needs rely on the fallible opinions of editors, myself included). I found that the book was republished by academic publisher Springer in 2012. I found two positive reviews of the book in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, one of which specifically mentions the "useful appendix on dusty and grain plasma" I found that the book was being used as a reliable source in a couple of other textbooks, All seem consistent with the book meeting WP:RS, and I found no negative use of the book as a reference.
4. IRWolfie expressed his concerns about the book, suggesting that it was not a reliable source, and fringe. Later himself and another editor advanced the opinion that the book was advocating a fringe view called "Plasma Cosmology"
5. I enquired at WT:IRS about assessing reliable sources. and one editor responded that "fringe" isn't a synonym for "unreliable". I checked the WP:FRINGE section on Reliable sources which seems to suggest that my reference met the standard. I also went back to mainstream peer-reviewed journals, and found that my reference was used as a reliable source in 10 different journals (see thread for links to each), and by an industry organisation with a long list of reputable members, whose publication on Space Plasmas is written by the same author.
6. I also found that my reference itself states that "cosmological issues are not discussed here" (preface, page v), ie. it is not a book advocating "Plasma Cosmology". None of the sources I found, suggested it was either.
7. Since all the reliable sources that I checked seemed to contradict the concerns of the other editors, it seems reasonable that that they were aware of something I had not read, and there should be some independent verifiable reliable sources (as suggested by WP:IRS and WP:FRINGE) which share their concerns, and can be reviewed by other editors. None have been forthcoming.
8. I am not pushing this book, as (a) it is the source used (b) I have welcomed other editors use another relevant source. (I have not found one).

I never expected that, what should have been a simple restoration of the actual source, to become so protracted, and hope that "reasoned arguments in a debate" is not mistaken for being difficult. But Misplaced Pages is not built on facts which editors just vote on, but independent verifiable reliable sources, which everyone can check, without relying on the opinion of fallible editors (myself included). --Iantresman (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found the hidden text at "more details about the fringe editing". Comment: (1) I actually explained why there might indeed be a connection between the book and the subjects concerned. (2) We are not dealing with the fringe subject Plasma Cosmlogy, so we don't need any sources about it (3) We are dealing with a specific book, of which there are many sources that I have already provided for review, (so no-one has to look hard), that contradict the concerns. (4) If a book published by an academic publisher this year, 10 peer-reviewed journals, 3 academic textbooks, 2 peer-reviewed book reviews, and an industry organisation, that meet WP:IRS, is not enough sources, how many need to be provided? I can probably come up with another 10. (5) I think the reason that it is hard finding sources that suggest the book is unreliable, or fringe, is because the book is "educational reading for any astrophysicist" and "The plasma principles, equations and cosmic applications are well described" --Iantresman (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @My76Strat I welcome any criticisms concerning my interactions with the other editors. --Iantresman (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Enric Naval Lied?!!! Surely you mean that you have a difference of opinion to (a) the book stating that "cosmological issues are not discussed here" (preface, page v)", and (b) the book reviews, (c) what you imagine the contents of the book to be about as you seem to be inferring it from the index. --Iantresman (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Enric Naval (1) Did you really suggest of the book, that I have "authored one of the appendixes". This is ludicrous. (2) The book has no chapters on plasma cosmology. The book has no sections on plasma cosmology. The book states that "cosmological issues are not discussed here". You can easily resolve this matter by providing a source that supports your concerns. --Iantresman (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @The Devil's Advocate I'm not sure where I "plainly state this source pertains to plasma cosmology" as I have consistently stated the opposite, per my point #6 above. I gave my reason for wanting the source included, in my point #1 above, it was the source I used, and I have no reason to doubt its veracity. I have not pushed the source, per my point #8 above. I have not edited the article since 2006. I note that IRWolfie has now provided alternative sources, which seem fine. --Iantresman (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @All. IRWolfie has now provided a couple of alternative sources to the article, which look satisfactory, and I have no problem with them replacing the source I originally used for the section. --Iantresman (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @The Devil's Advocate: (1) There is no doubt that the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe, Anthony Peratt, is an advocate then, and probably now, of "Plasma Cosmology", see for example, which is the application of what might be called the "Plasma Universe" to cosmology. Hannes Alfven was also an advocate, (he received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1970 for his work on plasmas). Many of Alfvén's theories on plasma physics are not only found in his work cosmology, but are also cited to this day. That would suggest that he is still a reliable source, even though he often deals with obscure theories.

(2) I have never insisted on using the source. I gave my reasons for wanting to use it per my point #1 having taken due care to assess it as a reliable source, and welcoming other sources, per my point #8. --Iantresman (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @T. Canens The article "Plasma Cosmology" was even tagged directly with the Category:Pseudoscience tag twice, by the same editor. I think you have to ask yourself why the tag is no longer present, and suspect it was because it was baseless and incorrectly added. The other tag "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation", was also probably removed for the same reason, and one we can easily check. Per WP:V and WP:RS, I assume that a citation to an article infers that someone has bothered to read through it and scientificly evaluate it. Here are three items by Alfvén:

• "Antimatter and the Development of the Metagalaxy" (100 citations)
• "Antimatter, Quasi-stellar Objects, and the Evolution of Galaxies" (23 citations)
• "Cosmic Plasmas (Ch.6 is on Cosmology)" (119 citations)

Plasma Cosmology may be wrong, and largely ignored, but it does not appear to be "without critical scientific evaluation". This is not an endorsement, or support for the subject. --Iantresman (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• @IRWolfie You don't ban people for engaging in discussion (and not having edited an article since 2006), nor because your view differs from all the published sources, and nor because you do not wish to consider the dispute resolution process. The Result of my Appeal to BASC, and, Arbitration motion, describe the issues and how to deal with any problems. --Iantresman (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Iantresman

Comment by My76Strat

It is disquieting to see this request. Discussion is the means for collaborative editing and it is intuitively counterproductive to call for measures to stifle an opposing view without reviewing its merit. The discussion is too current to allege Iantresman is pushing against a consensus. Having observed several discussions within this topic area, I find IRWolfie asserts him or herself ubiquitously as a controlling authority on matters of content. Statements like: "The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint and it will not be getting space in this non-fringe article per WP:ONEWAY" is a manner of stipulating the outcome to accord with an ordained (non-consensus) premise. You IRWolfie, state that it is "a fringe viewpoint" and treat reasonable dissent ineffably. I respect that you are learned in the sciences, but you are far too stubborn for my comprise. It's a content dispute, discuss it and reach a consensus, if you can't, seek adequate wp:dr. Don't seek wp:ae unless you can show bad faith, which should be some form of wp:battleground conduct in defiance of a consensus resolution. Iantresman, by all means, please do not edit war to effect change. The 1RR is technically per 24 hour period, but I think it would be best to reach a consensus before you consider repeating the 1RR in any subsequent periods. Gain a consensus or let it go. IMO, My76Strat (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: A discussion was started at WP:FTN and I do not see where Iantresman was notified that his conduct was being discussed. I posted a comment there and consider the link relevant. My76Strat (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings IRWolfie. While you are technically correct that "no notification is required for FTN discussions", it is clearly recommended in the red letter admonition which states: "If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so." Additionally, the third bullet atop the FTN page states: "Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here." Therein the compromise appears to lie. The statement; "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea" suggests the "mainstream article" does not preclude an appropriately proportional extenuation of the less broadly supported view. On the other hand, your assertion that "The Plasma universe is a fringe viewpoint and it will not be getting space in this non-fringe article" attempts to supersede that guideline by compelling absolute omission. To me it seems clear that the compromise lies in a proportionate inclusion greater than null, unless it is shown completely unreliable, with no secondary validation, tantamount to a hoax. On the surface, this does not appear to be the case. My76Strat (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear that it is not my intention to prescribe any conclusion or to selectively diminish a guideline. I did advocate proportional inclusion if and only if the fringe theory was reliably sourced to include secondary validation. Unless this topic has been thoroughly explored in an archived discussion, I've not seen the current discussion reach the clarity of consensus. At least one participant seemed to align with Iantresman's assertion, so his argument does not appear extraneous. And there are several thoughtful editors, like yourself, who have not posted regards, and I suspect will. The bottom line is this, I want Iantresman to succeed at his stated endeavor to reintegrate into this topic area as a productive contributor. I'd like you to help ensure nothing less; as a colleague! Perhaps this is asking too much, but I think you can be a bit more nurturing, and a bit less dismissive. I challenge Iantresman as well to show likewise considerations when thoughtful editors express dissent with his or her views. Certainly it must be possible for your collective kind to find agreeable areas for compromise, or collegial methods of expressing disagreement. And I do feel seeking AE is premature at this time. I wish you all the best. My76Strat (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the focus of this request is on measures to enforce the amended Arbcom sanction. Suggestions to impose a community topic ban should be drafted as a separate proposal and !voted on by the community at wp:an. It would be a stretch for a single non-involved admin to stipulate a topic ban under the guise of AE. If this topic is covered under discretionary sanctions, the measure could be imposed, but I recall a requisite 30 day notice that would precede implementation. What am I failing to consider in stating my opinion? My76Strat (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll retract my assertion of a 30 day notice, I believe that relates to adding a new topic to the existing list. Pertaining to this topic; "articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." (emphasis mine) No matter how it is sliced, Iantresman did not violate his recent amended sanction and if you want to levy discretionary sanctions against him it is incumbent that he first be warned. WP:AC/DS further states "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorizing the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". It's time to close this discussion and move on. My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings EdJohnston. I would feel remiss if I didn't respectfully disagree with your regards to me. Fear not however, for I am considerably out of touch, with the beautiful people; whose wisdom dominates this site. I am deeply aggrieved! My76Strat (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

I am sorry, but the source in question and its author have very close ties to the fringe topic Plasma cosmology. The context index suggests strongly that several chapters are directly related to the fringe topic. And I see the source being used in discussions about the fringe topic in many skeptic forums and fringe websites. The name "Plasma universe" seems to be only an alternative name of the fringe topic, maybe used to avoid negative connotations. "Electric universe" is an even fringer version of the topic, and its proponents also use the author's theories. The author also collaborated in The Big Bang Never Happened, another fringe book rejected by physical cosmologists. I think this is clearly and unambiguously a fringe source from a fringe author.

And the author has been heavily discussed in the talk page of the fringe topic because of his close relationship to the topic, and if you look at the results you will see that many times the author was first mentioned by Iantresman himself. Like here, here and here] in defense of the fringe topic. lantresman himself added papers by this author to support what "advocates of plasma cosmology" think . Iantresman has strongly defended the classification of the author as a "plasma cosmologist". In the last diff he even bolds the words "Plasma universe", which are also in the title of the book we are discussing here. Thus, lantresman is prefectly aware that "Plasma universe" in a title indicates that the source is about plasma cosmology. There are many more examples and indications that Instresman knows that the source is fringe. Many of the concepts he defends as part of plasma cosmology appear as chapters in the source he was trying to introduce, like Bennet pinch and Birkeland currents. Iantresman himself cites in two different occasions two different chapters of the book in support of the plasma cosmology ideas of the author. Despite this, he used the book reviews and book summary to claim that the book had no "Plasma cosmology" ideas.

Summary: it is indisputably a fringe source, and Iantresman knew it. Iantresman lied about the content of the book. And he wikilawyered at length to support this lie. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to also add that the author of the book has thanked Ian tresman in his other publications, so I think there is also probably a "knows him in real life" connection here too. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman. You knew perfectly that the book had chapters on plasma cosmology because you had cited them yourself in wikipedia in support of plasma cosmology. Your statement "If you recall, I noted that the the book includes nothing on cosmology." and "(...) the quote I provided shows that the book has nothing to do with cosmology." are direct lies. Your statement "None of the sources I have already provided suggest that the book includes contentious material." is wikilawyering because you had previously cited the contentious material in wikipedia. Idem for "Likewise, you have suggested that the book is "advocating plasma cosmology", and I have provided a source from the book, that you can check yourself, indicating that it does not (my point #5 above)." since the book does advocate the theories of plasma cosmology. Idem for " For example, you have mentioned "plasma cosmology" now for the third time, and as I have previously shown with a quote, (my point #5, above), the quote seems to contradict this characterisation". And doubly for "00My source seems to contradict your suggestion that the book is an "advocating plasma cosmology". I don't think it is unreasonable then, to have some independent reliable published sources, in order to review your conclusion, per WP:IRS. Have you looked through a copy of Physics of the Plasma Universe?" since Iantresman has actually read a copy and he has authored one of the appendixes, and he has seen the plasma cosmology content himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@T. Canens. Hum, we are asking that lifting of the topic ban by arbcom is overturned and that the community topic ban is restored. The community topic ban was about "general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas", not just pseudoscience. Should this be made as a amendment to arbcom? I think that the disruptive behaviour should be enough to restore the community ban under normal provisions, but well..... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Ian plainly states this source pertains to plasma cosmology and WP:ARB/PS was brought to ArbCom by Ian specifically in relation to the subject of plasma cosmology so obviously it falls under the topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. This is certainly a fringe view now, but it does not appear to have always been fringe. With that under consideration, using a source from when it was still a noteworthy minority view to support material unrelated to the actual view in question would not appear to be a problem in itself. However, unless I am mistaken, the section that it was apparently being used to support is now sourced to more recent works. If the material is reliably referenced, then it appears the only basis for pushing to restore the source is because Ian wants it to be in the article, which would be a problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies then, Ian. It seems that we are left with some element of uncertainty then. From a little reading, it seems the author of the 1992 work is an advocate for plasma cosmology. Do you dispute that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems Ian is now dropping his insistence on including the source given IR's new sourcing, I believe there is no further basis for pursuing action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Iantresman

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• I'm not sure if this one fits WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions. It's fringe, but is it pseudoscience? T. Canens (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • AE can't overturn arbcom. You'll need either a fresh community discussion or go ask arbcom directly. I'll need to read up a bit more on this to see if it fits ARBPS. If it does, we can proceed to the merits. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • TDA has a good point. At the time of the decision, plasma cosmology was in Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation which was a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Given the phrasing of WP:ARBPS#Tommysun banned ("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."), I think it clear that the arbitration committee that decided the Pseudoscience case in December 2006 intended that plasma cosmology be considered as related to pseudoscience as that term is used in that decision, and I can see no evidence that later arbcoms that placed the topic area under discretionary sanctions intended anything different.

      I think the complaint has merit. Whether or not Iantresman is ready to contribute in other physics-related areas, I don't think they should be editing anything related to plasma cosmology in particular, or astrophysics in general, and I think a topic ban is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

      • With respect to your original point, pseudoscience and fringe theories are so closely linked that in general, we can probably just treat scenarios as falling under "broadly construed" if we are unsure. I have no objection to your topic ban proposal. NW (Talk) 00:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • In answer to My76Strat: User:Iantresman was a named party of the WP:ARBPS case. A party should not require a special notice that the discretionary sanctions of that case can apply to them. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing this now. It is well settled precedent that named parties to an arbitration case are considered to be on notice of the discretionary sanctions authorized within that case; this is especially so in the case of Iantresman, who until recently was under a topic ban in this area. Moreover, Iantresman was in fact notified of the motion authorizing discretionary sanctions by a clerk. Under these circumstances, I see no reasonable probability that arbcom will require yet another warning as a result of the clarification request, and therefore no reason to delay closure of this thread. I also think IRWolfie-'s suggestion that we the topic ban cover plasma physics as well is sound. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, Iantresman (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to plasma physics and astrophysics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)