I am now considering myself involved, as I opened the RFC against Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

I am concerned by this user's judgement. I also have no confidence in Tango continuing to be an administrator here - he clearly does not understand the basic principles of WP:BLOCK that action is meant to be preventative and not punitive. Precedent for this sort of review exists at the Physchim62 case. Orderinchaos 03:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tango's revised statement - The initial action I took to unblock with time served (i.e. block stays in block log for the record but the duration was dropped) was in line with the comments by a number of participants in the discussion (Jehochman, JzG and others). As it became apparent that the block was faulty, the priority was to rectify the fault. As the block served no preventative purpose and it appeared that a consensus on AN/I had concluded the same - although several participants believed a block had been necessary - I opted to unblock in the way I did. Note that the wording carefully avoided ruling the block invalid - the idea was it would stay on the block log as a record entry of incivility, but that that was probably sufficient to deal with whatever problem people felt existed, and avoided the intense levels of drama which seem to have picked up on AN/I in the last two months or so in regards to any matter, whether correct or incorrect.

I then reblocked as a measure of good faith to those such as Until1==2 and others who had felt an unblock with time served was overly lenient - in doing so, I effectively went from the near middle of the consensus to one far end of it with the reblock. I felt able to do so as I was a neutral admin, had arrived a couple of hours after the dispute began, and was if anything slightly predisposed to the other side until reading the details, after past runins with some of the blockee's co-contributors in certain subject areas.

I still maintain that the original decision I took was the most sound action to take following the AN/I discussion, and the facts which have emerged since about the admin's past record and involvement in my view as well as their failure to effectively respond to criticism of their actions substantiate it, but like I said at the time, my own actions are open to review and if ArbCom choose to rule on my unblock and reblock and merits thereof, I will happily defer to their judgment.

With regard to SlimVirgin quoting me as the last blocking admin, she contacted both myself and Tango. My comment here in response to SlimVirgin and to Alex Bakharev made my position clear. Orderinchaos 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this proceeding is long but I encourage readers to view Risker's analysis, which I endorse - I had cursorily looked at the record myself but hadn't the time to sit down and analyse it. Orderinchaos 08:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

As a completely unrelated aside, I believe arbitrators, even if they decline this case, should comment on whether or not this "indefinite civility restriction" Tango imposed on Mongo a couple of hours after the block has any weight at all. I don't think it should, but I will defer to their judgement on this. Orderinchaos 11:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

As noted in the arbitrator comments section below, I recused myself as an arbitrator in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, and inasmuch as this dispute concerns a controversial block arising from arbitration enforcement in that case, I conclude that I should not participate as an arbitrator in reviewing it. I do, however, wish to contribute a few observations in my personal capacity.

I will begin by saying that nothing that in these comments, nor I hope anything that other editors commenting might say, should deter administrators participating in the important work of enforcing arbitration decisions. The project needs more administrators, including our most experienced and most level-headed ones, participating in and sharing this work. In recent times, we have had stretches of months at a time when substantially all of the extremely challenging and draining work at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement has fallen on the shoulders of a single administrator. To the extent that other administrators have started to provide greater assistance and continue to do so, their participation should be appreciated.

Turning to the substance of the matter, the situation concerning September 11 conspiracy theories and related articles has been an extremely troubling one for almost the entire time that Wikipedia has existed. It is a herculean task to keep discussion of various "conspiracy theories" regarding the events of September 11, 2001 within the appropriate limits prescribed by Wikipedia:Undue weight and other applicable policies. This is work that needs constant doing, though, not only to enforce our content and neutrality policies, but even more importantly because much of the disputed article content raises extraordinarily serious WP:BLP concerns. For example, one version of the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center posits that the lessors of the World Trade Center site, who are identified living individuals, deliberately caused or connived at the "controlled demolition" of their own buildings and are thereby directly and intentionally responsible for all the cataclysmic effects of the collapse of the World Trade Towers including the murder of thousands of people. These are extremely grave and defamatory allegations, devoid of reliable mainstream support, and if their existence must be mentioned on Wikipedia at all, it is imperative that they be accompanied by the appropriate language of skepticism and qualification in each and every instance.

MONGO (talk · contribs) is one of the editors who—in addition to unrelated, and universally praised, contributions on topics relating to national parks—has been in the forefront of editing the September 11-related articles with a view toward excluding or limiting discussion of "conspiracy theory" allegations. MONGO does not mince words; he often does not express himself as I might do or might in an ideal world want others to do; and there have been plenty of time when I wished that he had expressed an idea, ofttimes a very sound idea though sometimes a clunker (the Occam's razor incident comes to mind), in very different words. He has also tended to overreact to provocation, ranging from relatively slight expressions of disagreement with his views on the one hand, to instances of persistent trolling and harassment both on and especially off this site. There are plenty of times I have not agreed with him about one thing or another. But in spite of it all, he has an important role to play on Wikipedia, and if he follows through on his statement that he intends to leave Wikipedia as a result of the current block, the encyclopedia will be the less for it.

I have carefully reviewed the colloquy that led up to the initial one-week block (now reduced to 31 hours) imposed on MONGO by Tango (talk · contribs) in enforcement of the remedies enacted in the September 11 ArbCom decision. My evaluation is that MONGO, and not for the first time, used words that would have been better left unsaid, but that the comment he made to an administrator on his own talkpage did not necessitate any block of an experienced contributor, much less a weeklong one. I also conclude that given the time that elapsed between when MONGO made his final comment and when he was blocked for it, consultation among multiple administrators would have been in order before imposing this block. I note for what it is worth that ANI discussion of the matter is still possible.

I yield to no one in my desire to see enhanced civility in Wikipedians' interactions with one another—the promise of that sort of environment was one of the things that brought and keeps me here—but this type of controversial block of a good-faith contributor with tens of thousands of edits is simply not reasonably likely to improve the editing environment for any of us. If I had blocked every editor who has been uncivilly critical of one of my edits or administrator actions, often in language far more egregious than "get lost," my blocking log would be thrice as long as it is, yet Wikipedia would not be a better or fairer or even a more civil place.

In short, my opinion is that any block of MONGO in this matter was unnecessary, and the one-week block originally imposed by Tango represented a significant overreaction and misjudgment. However, there is no allegation that this block was part of a pattern of administrator misconduct or misjudgments by Tango, or was anything other than an isolated incident. In fact, it has been stated without contradiction that this was the first "civility" block that Tango has ever imposed, which would tend to confirm that this is an isolated incident. Tango appears to have had the good-faith view that this was the appropriate action to take based upon the situation as he saw it. I hope that he will gather from the resulting discussion and controversy that there is a widespread view, dare I say a consensus though not a unanimous one, that he was wrong, and it would be helpful if he could acknowledge this. However, the Arbitration Committee generally does not desysop an administrator for a single instance of poor judgment—even extremely poor judgment. If, as is likely, the committee declines to take up this case, it should be on that basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I've been offline most of the day today for real-world reasons; I will be updating my comments, most likely in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts at this point based on today's submissions:

• I recommend that the concerns about Tango's blocking history as well as about his response to the present dispute be pursued at an administrator-conduct RfC. (Addendum to addendum: I see now that an RfC is pending.)
• I recommend that Tango consider seriously the input provided at such an RfC to avoid any potential need for further proceedings or any further disputes.
• I recommend that the unblock of MONGO stand as supported by a reasonable weight of consensus. Consensus in this context does not mean unanimity.
• I recommend that any continuing dispute about the validity of the civility sanction imposed upon MONGO be addressed at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, and that if consensus is not reached, a request for clarification be filed with the Arbitration Committee (if MONGO has resumed editing or if the sanction appears to be deterring him from doing so).
• I recommend that the non-recused arbitrators review the situation on the September 11-related articles after a reasonable time has passed and assess whether additional or revised remedies are warranted.
• I strongly urge that editors who are doing important and valuable work on the September 11-related articles, including those who have posted here, should continue to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:HiDrNick

I put forward to the committee that even a single instance of poor judgment is actionable when the user fails to recognize or acknowledge the error made. Indeed, mistakes should be tolarated, even encouraged, so long as people learn from them, but there is no indication that any learning took place here. ➪HiDrNick! 04:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Irpen

Mongo issues are secondary here. The issue at hand is whether Tango's actions and comments were helpful in assuaging the situation or escalating it. It is obvious that the latter is the case.

Tango's act totally lacked the proper humility, what a wonderful and forgotten word. Instead Tango was full of himself, demonstrated the bossy attitude and arrogant tone. The tone of his "warning" was nothing but provocative, the block placed 9 hours after the alleged offense (and what offense?) shows he was looking for an excuse and blocked despite the issue has become historic, and his further comments at ANI and at the talk page of the aggrieved user showed nothing but revolting arrogance. He acted as if he was using a glorious opportunity to show who is in charge.

Tango/Mongo's butting heads in the past may give a partial explanation on why Tango was so eager here. But even in general, admins who act this way out of enjoyment should be desysopped.

Problem is, though, this is not an exceptional case. So, should Tango be punished for something that some others propagate as well? I elaborated on that earlier and I still think that the grievous behavior should be addressed even if it is not done in all cases. The result of Tango's actions is an invaluable editor leaving the WP, a great loss to the project. It could have been avoided should Tango have addressed the issue differently. He did not.

Admins with such attitudes need to be desysopped for the good of this project.

Statement by uninvolved Abd

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 reinforced the principle that an administrator must not use the tools in a personal dispute where the administrator is involved. Tango was uninvolved in the original incident; however, as has been often mentioned, when an admin warns a user, it is not uncommon for the user to respond with incivility, in the Physchim62 case, the user called an argument of Physchim62 a "steaming pile of crap," which was recognized as uncivil. Physchim62 blocked in response. The community clearly considered this a serious error in itself; it was considered compounded by the total failure of Physchim62 to recognize the error. That has been repeated here. It is this failure that leads to continued concern about Tango's adminship, not the single error of the block itself. I do not recall any involvement between myself and Tango; this opinion is purely given on the basis stated here and is no judgment at all on the quality of his other work. --Abd (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

The block by User:Tango has been controversial from the moment that it was posted on WP:AN/I, yet Tango saw no reason to reconsider any aspect of the block. Tango blocked because of what he perceived as an incivil statement directed at himself – not another editor, not another administrator, and Tango apparently did not discuss the situation with any other administrators as a sanity check in the intervening several hours between MONGO’s edit summary and the imposition of the block; therefore, a longstanding member of our community was subjected to considerable humiliation at the hands of an administrator who took a moderately insulting comment as grave incivility that endangered the project.

To add insult to injury, two hours after announcing the block at AN/I, and knowing that the block itself was controversial, Tango then imposed an indefinite civility restriction on MONGO.[14] Not a month. Not even a year—the longest penalty ever handed out by Arbcom itself—an indefinite civility restriction. For as long as MONGO chooses to edit at Wikipedia, he will be doing so knowing that anyone can say whatever they want to him, anywhere including his talk page, and he will be unable to respond. He will be subject to interpretations of the term “civility” as defined by 1500 different administrators, including those of administrators with whom he has had previous conflicts, with every single edit he makes to this project. Forever.

The September 11 decision specifically identifies that appeals of enforcement actions may be made to the administrator involved, discussed at the appropriate administrator’s noticeboard, or brought before the committee. It also specifies that “The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.” (Link to quote)

I urge the Committee to review the additional sanctions applied by Tango at a time when he knew that even the block itself was controversial, and had already been reduced in duration. This decision to impose additional sanctions in excess of the historical application of civility remedies and outside of community norms, when the appropriateness of the initial sanction had already been questioned and modified, demonstrates a disregard for the opinion of the community and an obstinate attitude unbecoming an administrator.

Review of Tango's previous blocks: Addendum from Risker

I have reviewed Tango's block log, and note that he has made 77 blocks since being granted the tools on November 19, 2006. Of these, 60 are of vandalising IPs or solely vandalising (new) accounts; one is of an obvious SPA which was subsequently blocked by two other admins in separate edit wars; and 16 involved "regular users", i.e., editors with a prior history of contributions to Wikipedia. The blocks involving regular users appear to be consistently problematic; 14 of 16 raise questions as to the appropriate use of tools and consideration of alternatives to blocking. I have summarized my review here. In response to a request from CBM, I have provided a detailed analysis here of the last block Tango imposed prior to the block under discussion at this RFAR. Several of these blocks are already discussed elsewhere on this page: the block of User:Fys, the blocks and admin actions related to Goa Inquisition, the block of User:AlexCovarrubias. Additional blocks that raise concern are:

• 26 Jul 2007 - Four regular editors blocked for edit warring on Atanas Badev. No apparent consideration of protecting the page and forcing the dispute to the talk pages. Blocks ranged from 3 hours to 1 week.
• 22 Aug 2007 - Blocked two regular editors for 3RR/edit-warring over an image in Mulatto, although other editors had been involved in inserting/removing the image as well. After the two editors were blocked, another editor returned to remove the image. No apparent consideration of protecting the page and forcing all of the involved editors to the talk page.
• 27 Aug 2007 - Blocked two regular editors for edit warring on Stargate Atlantis. Neither editor had edited the page on that date. There was discussion between the editors taking place on the talk page, attempting to resolve their content dispute. Tango also was a regular editor of this article, although his last edit was a few months before; he edited several related articles in the interim.
• 21 Mar 2008 - Block of new (less than 1 month) User:Tubesship and an IP for 3RR violation on List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Four editors over 24 hours had been inserting and removing the same information from the article, two IPs removing sourced info and Tubesship and another regular editor returning it to the article; no apparent consideration that the IPs were vandalising the article, or of protecting the page and forcing discussion on the talk page. Neither of the blocked editors received 3RR warnings, and there had been no report to the 3RR noticeboard. This block is described in greater detail here

Incivility restriction: As to MONGO's indefinite incivility restriction, it appears that the remedies enacted at the close of the September 11 case do permit any administrator to issue just about any sanction they feel like imposing, regardless of whether it is within community norms or even Arbitration Committee norms. Arbcom has narrowed the usually understood definition of admin involvement: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." That permits admins to apply sanctions to editors with whom they have had prior disputes. Tango was a quite vociferous opponent of MONGO's candidacy at his RfA in January 2008. Tango has added this incivility restriction to the list of blocks and bans under the September 11 case, and has not posted it to any other noticeboard; the only places it has been discussed are (briefly) on MONGO's talk page and on this page here. After the extensive discussion of the initial block in multiple places, it is reasonable to assume that there is community exhaustion to review this additional sanction separately. Thus, it falls to this committee to review the sanction. Should the committee elect not to review this specific sanction, there are grounds for a request for clarification and modification of the September 11 decision, as it has already demonstrated itself to be susceptible to perhaps unanticipated negative effects.

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is just to add that I've unblocked MONGO after discussing it with Orderinchaos, the most recent blocking admin, who had no objection. The first blocking admin, Tango, is currently offline. I'd have preferred to wait until he was back online, but MONGO had served over 16 hours, and I felt it was important to unblock him reasonably soon, given the concern that has been expressed about it, and given MONGO's response. I've left a note here on AN/I, and here for Tango. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Haemo

I'm just going to point out to the ArbCom that this is exactly what happens when an ArbCom case makes no attempt to actually resolve the editorial issues underlying the original issues. As Newyorkbrad points out above, keeping defamatory conspiracy theorist material out of 9/11 articles is a "herculean" task — and one which very few editors have the time or inclination to take on — for their trouble, they can expect to be labeled government shills, liars, censors, and aides to mass murder, all apparently without ArbCom's support or defense.

Your decision in the 9/11 case was underwhelming in the extreme — only two, maybe three, members showed any interest in understanding the case or making an effort to address the issues. What resulted was a tepid, warmed over decision that did nothing to (1) clarify policy in this respect (2) warn or even censure editors in this area or (3) address any of the concerns made by either side. As a result, nothing has changed. As MONGO said in his parting statement, these articles are besieged by editors who do nothing else on Wikipedia save push conspiracy theories. They have a nearly unlimited amount of time to do so, and there are an unlimited number of them. Now, thanks to ArbCom's lukewarm decision, we have a ridiculous state of affairs where one of the few editors who was willing to spend the time defending Wikipedia's integrity as a serious encyclopedia was blocked under your decision for saying "get lost" on his own talk page. I'm on the verge of giving up, because it's not going to get better, and one day I'm going to have a bad day and say something like "get lost" and end up blocked for a week. Meanwhile, the problem continues completely unabated. You were supposed to do something to help these articles — and you did the very least you possibly could. This is the result — MONGO blocked, ArbCom restrictions used to advance personal disputes, and absolutely no improvement in what really matters.

I'd say more, but I have no faith that the ArbCom even reads these things, since they don't appear to have read any on the original case. --Haemo (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation, when you have an admin being hung out to dry for a controversial (you can't even say "wrong" when you look at the AN/I discussion) block, is it any wonder we have problems recruiting new admins? Black Kite 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added point by Black Kite

I see in the arbitator's remarks; "Administrators should not block for perceived incivility against themselves" and "There is a core principle that Wikipedians, especially administrators, should not respond to personal attacks in a retaliatory fashion.". Whilst I agree that it is usually unwise to do this, there is no such a core principle stated in WP:BLOCK. The policy states "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" but then goes on to point out that "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct ... is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere", which could clearly be taken to be the case here. The only point at which the actual involvement of an admin is mentioned is "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute" - an obvious statement, but this wasn't a content dispute.

If there is indeed such a "core policy", should it not actually be stated somewhere? Meanwhile, I do not see that there should be a controversy over blocking an editor for incivility towards me, if I believe that I would have blocked them for the same behaviour towards another editor (i.e. abusive language, threats etc.). The problem here, of course, is that the behaviour was not of a majorly incivil type. Black Kite 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eusebeus

As a basic principle, we simply cannot hamstring our hard-working admins by clamoring for their heads every time they make a bad decision. There are community-driven remedial measures which can correct for these transgressive moments of poor judgment. To his credit, Tango did the right thing by soliciting input on his decision in the spirit of consensus policing for controversial moves. However, I find his unapologetic and truculent response above troubling, especially given the near-universal censure for issuing a week-long block for what is, at best, a minor case of user-page incivility. His characterisation against the unblocking admin is disturbing, given the tenor of the AN/I thread. Thus, specifically in light of that response I wonder if arbcom may not be better advised to consider this case, since an admin who cannot admit error, especially one as serious as this, poses a potential threat. Hubris over humility is a serious issue. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) John Smith's

An arbitration case is not appropriate at this stage as administrators do make mistakes - I think there needs to be some pattern of behaviour, even if a mistake is a bad one, to warrant this.

That said I do not think the unblocking admins acted inappropriately. Whether or not there was consensus for removing it, the block was a bad call and needed to be rectified pretty promptly. A number of people don't like MONGO, so it's pretty unlikely there will ever be consensus in regards to blocks on his account. John Smith's (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) User:Corvus cornix

Tango's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 clearly show that Tango has not been neutral where MONGO is concerned, and Tango's block was clearly inappropriate. Continued wikilawyering on WP:ANI by Tango that he had done nothing wrong clearly showed that he doesn't think he did anything wrong. Tango needs to be made to fully understand that his intervention in MONGO's Talk page, and his block and continued arguments in support of it, were wrong, and he must clearly state that he will not do such a thing again. Corvus cornix_talk 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aude

I second everything that Haemo says above. Working on 9/11 pages is a huge time burden, it's a frustrating task that on a bad day might end up with me saying something over the line. "get lost" is not so far across the line to merit a week-long block. Also, I am very unimpressed by the effort showed by arbcom in the 9/11 case. It was a complete waste of my time. I don't know if I can justify any more time spent on 9/11 pages or even anywhere on Wikipedia now. We might need something like expert's withdrawal on the pages, and just see what happens. I'll just grab some popcorn and watch, I guess? Really, what is Wikipedia about? --Aude (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by patsw

I support the Haemo statement. I think there's a ivory tower attitude on display here that denigrates the editors of the 9/11 pages. In reading the diffs between Mongo and Tango, it's my opinion that the so-called "warning" was targeted and manufactured to give Tango a tripwire to plausibly block Mongo as payback for their past clashes.

The arbitration committee in not providing clear limits to the repeated attempts to insert conspiracy theories into the 9/11 articles opens the floodgates to more edit warring and not less. Advocates of the conspiracy theories are using Wikipedia a means to advocate their point of view, or rather, their version of truth -- which is coincidentally contingent on the perfect and perpetual conspiratorial silence on the part of all involved in planning, execution, and cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. It is a real, not theoretical, attack on the credibility of the Wikipedia.

For editor Mongo to get a block for a get lost is punishment for a failure to give homage to one with the power to block. That's very low threshold. Be bold was not meant to apply to blocks.

For this committee not to sanction admin Tango in some way, it is sending a message to all admins that this committee will not sanction them for a capricious and self-serving use of block power. It is a terrible precedent. patsw (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update by Nwwaew

An RFC has been initiated by myself regarding the Tango situation. I ask that instead of rejecting the case, the Arbitration Committee should wait to vote on accepting, per what comes out of the RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved John Carter

As per some of the statements above, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that an administrator with a long-term, pre-existing, personal grudge against another editor exploited a very slim justification for action, to, effectively, block someone he personally does not like. That can and probably will give some individuals the impression that Tango were exploiting the situation to further his own personal opinions, which would be unacceptable in the extreme. The fact that the blocked editor, who has been a valuable long-time contributor, has since retired as a result of this, at least potential, harassment is also something that should be taken into account, particularly as that editor has also indicated that the block was made on the basis of personal reasons. Whether it is sufficient to desysop Tango is a separate matter, but the action itself, the unusual preexisting circumstances, and the very regretable outcome have made this a very troubling matter, and I personally doubt an RfC will be sufficient to effectively heal the rift in the community and the mistrust of admins in general which are likely to arise from this situation. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having made a statement on the RfC, I now am no longer certain I am "uninvolved", and am striking that word. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

I generally give users much greater latitude for comments on their own talk page than elsewhere, and I expect editors who are warned or blocked to be grouchy about it. An admin who blocks because someone told him to "get lost", or who extends a block simply because he is questioned about it, probably does not have the proper temperament to be an admin. Can this be resolved by RFC rather than Arbitration? Perhaps. I suggest the Arbitrators not accept the case unless they are willing to desysop. If all that is likely to happen is an admonishment, let the community do it. Thatcher 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CharlotteWebb

The amount of focus on the words "get lost", both here and on AN/I (ctrl-F is your friend), is perplexing. "Get lost" is a red herring compared to the remainder of Mongo's edit summary comment. I see two issues here:

• Wild assumptions of bad faith by Mongo, e.g. flatly dismissing behavioral concerns on the basis that if the concerned user "support[s] conspiracy theorist[s] misusing this website" he should be desysopped and thusly unfit to issue "discretionary sanctions".
• Retaliatory blocking by Tango in response to the above comment. He should have known better than to block in response to attacks directed at him. Judgment may have been clouded by personal feelings and outlandish accusations and logical fallacies notorious inherent to any discussion concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, but this is something we all have to deal with.

I really don't care whether this case is opened, but I can only hope for a day when reasonable people can disagree on issues as polarizing as this and still consider each other to be reasonable people. I don't want to see anybody calling anybody a conspiracy theorist or a government shill or a supporter/sympathizer/apologist/believer/denier of either flavor. These are all fighting words and I would support "discretionary sanctions" for anyone throwing them around on a personal level. — CharlotteWebb 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kwsn

I can sum this up rather nicely: admin blocks well established user. Other users and admins protest, while some agree to some point. Disagreeing admins decide to avoid all other attempts at dispute resolution and go straight for arbcom. Please, try RFC first. Un-needed drama basically. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from AGK

My thoughts here will be mostly on whether this case should be accepted or rejected, including the merits of both outcomes, and the evidence supporting each course of action. It is clear that Tango's judgement in his block against MONGO (talk · contribs) was somewhat short of that expected; to be frank, I simply think Tango needs to do a little thinking before he acts: a little consideration goes a long way. Although I tend to lean very much on the AGF side of blocks, I do believe that the response from MONGO ("get lost") was not blockable, but rather a user who is simply irked. Tango should have ignored that, not instated a week-long block.

Statements elsewhere in this thread indicate that Tango has accepted that he exercised poor judgement when making the MONGO block; I have had a decent look, and can't see that, but I do hope Tango has acknowledged to that end. Regardless, an arbitration case cannot be based solely on one block alone, although wider administrator conduct is grounds for Committee consideration.

What concerns me, unfortunately, is Tango's inability to step into the shoes of those with whom he disagrees, and see things from the other side. He has, in short, stood his ground very stubbornly for this entire event; that must struck me on the relevant thread (now closed; permalink) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is a general sense, I feel, of conduct unbecoming of an administrator on Tango's part.

There's lots more I could, and wish to, say, but I feel it's best if I cut my thoughts short right now. To summarise the above, I feel there is evidence of conduct unbecoming of an administrator. However, I do not believe a full-on RfAr is warranted at this point in time. We're not far from it, and I fully expect Tango to heed to warnings from the community, and do some serious self-re-education. One isolated incident, and Tango's conduct and reactions there, is what this mainly boils down to, and that's not quite enough for a RfAr. Anthøny 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Travb

I think MONGO himself said it best:

"ridiculous...Wow...one block that was ill conceived is now considered to be a desysoppable offense..." [15]

Except this block was not ill conceived, maybe overly harsh but not ill conceived. Mongo has a long history of being rude to other editors. As an example, here are Mongo's comments as of late:

• "conspiracy theory POV pushers" "Basboll...he needs to be topic banned as a single purpose account" [16]
• Mongo removes Thomas's civil comments with the statment: "revert SPA trolling" [17]
• "continued POV pushing by Basboll will be dealt with" [18]
• "so far, none of your suggestions are worth taking seriously." [19]
• "His recent bullshit at the 9/11 CT arbcom case is a load of crap as well." [20]
• "trolling is right No kidding about this being trolling...he's about as off kilter as anyone I have ever met on this website." 29 March 2008 [21]
• "revert dramaqueens" [22]
• "stop being a dramaqueen and stirring up crap." 13 March 2008 [23]

Again Mongo: "...many editors need to really do some self examinations and reevaluate what their purposes here are and how they may be contributing to the problems." [24] GTBacchus said it best in JzG's second RfC.

I think this boot shows that sometimes editors, no matter how many partisan friends they have on wikipedia, are sometimes treated like everyone else.

MONGO will be back within a week. He said he was leaving when he lost his adminship too. Trav (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved and unimpressed dihydrogen monoxide

"I see no reason to assume anything has changed just because time has passed. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)"—So Tango said at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2, in response to someone pointing out that the evidence Tango attempted to use against MONGO was "more than a year old" (I quote Avruch at 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)). Since Tango seems to be against overlooking events that took place over a year ago, (I am opposed to him on this stance) I don't see a reason for Tango to object to ArbCom looking into his actions in relation to MONGO, in the context of this (as raised by Giano and Bish), this (as raised by FloNight), and this (as raised by Risker). I see here three poor uses of the admin tools, including two blocks, and I don't see Tango apologising, or acknowledging a mistake, in any of them (though I am willing to strike this if shown such a thing). I do not feel comfortable with Tango being able to block users until he addresses these issues, and if he is unable to, then I believe the ArbCom should de-sysop him to prevent further damange to the encyclopedia from taking place. (I am yet to see someone show how blocking MONGO prevented damage from an encyclopedia he has done so much positive work on.)

For the record, I think Tango was "involved" when he made the block. That's if we're going with a literal definition of the word (which would make it pretty darn hard to block without involving yourself at all...lock by proxy?). That said, I think that some sort of block in that case could have been justifiable—were I an admin, I wouldn't have blocked, but I can understand (while disagreeing with) the logic if someone else would block for 24 hours there. 24 hours is a hell of a lot less than one week, though, and I don't think we should (or rather, the ArbCom should), in any way, shape, or form, give the impression that Tango's one week block was justified. It was massively over the top, and he did let (what seems to be, from my perspective as someone who's read most of the discussion over this) emotion and spite cloud his judgement. This isn't the first time. It needs serious ArbCom review. Several members of the community have deferred to the leadership we elected the ArbCom for, and I ask they show it by accepting this case. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Walton One

"It would suggest that they didn't think my reputation and my integrity were important."—I don't know...maybe that's the point. I for one am not impressed, at all, with what happened, and I imagine others are. We have different ways of showing it, obviously. I would point out, for what it's worth, that Bishonen (account) isn't a sysop, while Bishzilla (account) is. "Maybe I'm being needlessly pompous"—I respect you heaps, you know that, but I would agree with that statement. I agree with Durova's comments too, but making a fuss over BishUsername isn't the major issue here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Paul August, and The Uninvited Co. (below in Arbitrators' opinion on hearing the matter) have summarised my view too. I am of the opinion that the case should proceed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by largely uninvolved Andjam

In an attempt to defuse tensions, I suggested that he withdraw the restriction on MONGO, and I gave my reasons on request. He still wants the case to go ahead, and still wants to bring up the issue of admin warring. Give him what he asks for. Andjam (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Walton

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, it was highly inappropriate of Bishonen to request arbitration using the User:Bishzilla account, and to make the request in dino-babytalk broken English. User:Bishonen and User:Bishzilla are well-known to be two accounts operated by the same user, and she has demonstrated with the User:Bishonen account that she is perfectly capable of communicating in appropriate, serious language, without this "Little arbs reject..." or "'Zilla liberated from Bishonen, stole her tools !" nonsense. Her choice not to do so gives the impression, whether justified or not, that she is not taking this seriously. A call for desysopping is a very serious matter, and I would be both hurt and appalled if anyone ever used a joke account, communicating in intentional broken English, to request that I be desysopped. It would suggest that they didn't think my reputation and my integrity were important.

I am surprised that Tango hasn't mentioned this, but even if he doesn't personally mind, it is still offensive and ridiculous, and I take it as an insult to all of us who volunteer our time to edit Wikipedia. ArbCom proceedings and desysopping are very serious things, and they need to be treated with the dignity they merit. Otherwise the institution loses any value.

I have no opinion on what the outcome of this case should be as regards Tango, but I suggest that Bishonen/Bishzilla should be admonished for her opening statement. The pretending-to-be-a-dinosaur thing is funny, and clever, in its proper context. In this context, it is not funny. It's rather like turning up to court for a serious criminal trial (whether you like it or not, the Arbcom is equivalent to a court of law) wearing a clown suit. It is tasteless.

Maybe I'm being needlessly pompous, but this is how I honestly feel. Walton^One 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I also wish to express my agreement with Durova's comments above. Considering that the background to this case lies in the disputes over 9/11, one of the worst atrocities to occur in modern times, we need to treat it with the seriousness and gravity it merits. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a very influential website, which many people use as a major source of quick information; and so our coverage of 9/11, and, by extension, the conduct of the editors who work on those articles, is an important issue. We need to take this seriously, and I think a reprimand to Bishonen is in order. Walton^One 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Cirt

Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s conduct has been highly inappropriate on the Bishzilla (talk · contribs) joke account since she transferred her admin privileges there. Last month she used Bishzilla, along with its deliberately broken English, to unblock a difficult user in the same thread where jpgordon (talk · contribs) had cautioned that individual that Wikipedia is not a role playing game. Her behavior sets the wrong example and sends the wrong message. We wouldn't tolerate this RFAR opener from a troll. Shouldn't the standard be higher for a senior administrator?

In addition to the disrespect she is showing towards the arbitration committe and for the administrator she seeks to desysop, the underlying 9/11 dispute renders this completely inappropriate. In the words of Durova:

Your behavior these last few days has been like showing up to a funeral in a clown suit, littering the graves with balloon animals, and pretending you're in a position to take offense when a family member gasps.Diff

Several editors have urged her to reconsider, and her response has been to challenge them to RFC her and to compound the insult to the party she has wronged the most. I urge the Committee to censure Bishonen and restrict her to one account. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horologium

Although this is tangential to the specific issue at hand here, until the Arbitration committee addresses the central issue that they refused to address in the original arbitration case, the elephant in the room will continue to be an issue. Either "alternative views" (ie conspiracy theories) will be allowed to dominate Wikipedia, or they will be relegated to the side. This is a rather existential issue here; either Wikipedia is going to allow such nonsense to overrun the encyclopedia or we will take a stand and marginalize the marginal views. The creationist crowd was forced off Wikipedia and they went and started Conservapedia; let the truthers start their own wiki if they want to push their PoV, but not here. Allowing the truthers equal footing will relegate Wikipedia to a reliability level of the most paranoid blogs and feverish discussion fora. Horologium (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the village idiot

I'm largely with Jossi and some others who have pointed out both the timing of the block (9 hours after the "get lost") and its duration as being highly questionable. But the single worst thing is MONGO's retirement; and for the sake of the community's sanity and esp that of all involved parties I hope and trust that there is no causal relation to the effect that MONGO would return if Tango loses his bit. So what's the desired outcome? Tango is already cautioned to exercise greater care with the tools, and unless I've missed some decisive shift in how the ArbCom handles things, this is the most probable outcome of an arbitration case.

I don't think the ArbCom has the luxury of wasting time on this. Dorftrottel (warn) 13:56, April 17, 2008

Oh, yes, and if the ArbCom decides to take on this case, for heaven's sake please lay down the law to us as far as conspiracy theories et.al are concerned. I know it's out of the official scope of the AC, but screw that. Someone has to do it and who else if not you guys? By avoiding to ignore the rules as far as necessary, in an attempt not to risk anything, you will automatically gamble away a lot more valuable chips. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:08, April 17, 2008

Statement by Thomas Basboll

I think CharlotteWebb is right to say that "get lost" is a red herring. And right about many other things. I'm not quite sure, however, why she believes that Tango's block was retaliatory. She would support, as I do, applying ArbCom's discretionary sanctions against anyone who throws accusations of crankery and shilliness around. And that's exactly what Tango did (i.e. apply such sanctions). Mongo accused me of being a conspiracy theory POV-pusher and Tango warned him to stop. He then accused Tango of sympathizing with conspiracy theorists and, back on the article's talk page, suggested that we delete the whole article because it reads like it was written by a conspiracy theorist [25]. So Tango applied the next step in the discretionary sanctions. As he said to MONGO, he was doing it "by the book". I don't see the problem.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/2/2/1)

• Reject. Tango chose to apply discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Committee's decision in the September 11 matter. If certain editors feel that the sanctions were overly harsh, there are methods of appeal specified in that decision; but we are not going to desysop an administrator merely for carrying out our instructions. Kirill 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse per my earlier recusal in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. As I stated when that case was filed, my home and office are located approximately 4 miles from the World Trade Center site, and I have extremely strong views regarding the "conspiracy theories" surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, such that I previously concluded that I should not participate as an arbitrator in evaluating editing on this topic. I now conclude with reluctance (and without necessarily creating an everlasting precedent) that after having recused myself in the underlying case, I also should not participate in reviewing a controversial block originating in arbitration enforcement of the decision in that case. I will present my personal opinions on the matter elsewhere on this RfAr page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. There are a number of troubling points here:

  • that Tango issued, or at least appeared to issue, the block in response to MONGO's backchat to him, when he ought to have sought the input of an uninvolved administrator,
  • the length of the block, and
  • the hostility to the criticism of the block at ANI,

  all of which add up to make this a bad block. However, the Committee's approach has consistently been that occasional mistakes are tolerated so long as people learn from them and don't turn mistakes into patterns of habit, and in the absence of any indications that this is part of a pattern of bad decisions with the tools, there's no need for arbitration at this time.

  I should note that labelling editors with conflicting viewpoints as trolls or conspiracy theorists is the kind of seige mentality that makes achieving NPOV in certain areas so difficult, and in this respect Tango was correct to warn MONGO. The problems came after that. --bainer (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm striking my reject for the moment. The further material referenced by Giano and by Corvus cornix raises further concerns, and the block extension referenced by FloNight (purportedly for block evasion, on an IP posting an unblock notice on Tango's talk rather than his own talk) is particularly worrying. At the moment I agree with Doc glasgow; I would recommend that an RfC is the way to go from here. --bainer (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. It was a bad block. If it were part of a pattern of bad behavior, this might be worth considering, but it's not actionable as is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept now. There's some stuff we need to look at. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocking MONGO for a week for a remark of questionable incivility is manifestly excessive; to do so many hours after the remark, having had some history with MONGO, and subsequently to defend the block in a somewhat bad tempered way must raise questions about judgment. However, it is a single incident and absent any history of misuse of the tools I hope that Tango will consider what has happened here as a lesson. Also, the 'civility restriction' Tango purported to place on MONGO does not appear to be related to September 11 articles and in my opinion is not something an individual administrator can do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Rethinking whether to accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to recuse on this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. Nothing unusual here. The "get lost/block/unblock" sequence happens most of the time. The ArbCom can only intervene if the trend does not stop somewhere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Bad block. If this constitutes a pattern I will support opening a case; we don't need admins with consistently poor judgment. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick look through Tango's log and I find another lengthy block on an established user that seems extreme. Here Tango extended a 3RR violation from one month to two months because the editor left a politely worded unblock request on Tango's talk page with an ip address. Based on these two blocks, I have concerns about Tango's judgment when sanctioning users. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not think an emergency desysop is warranted in this case (so I understand the reason that other arbs are rejecting the case), I have serious doubts that an administrator conduct RFC is going to be an effective way to communicate with Tango about concerns related to the use of his admin tools. Per our prior stated practice of accepting cases that are "Unusually divisive disputes among administrators.", I think accepting this case is best in this situation. Also, I do not think that administrator conduct RFCs (which require certification from users about a single current dispute) are structured in a way to get to the root of the problem which seems to be a "pattern" of poor judgment when sanctioning users. Therefore, it falls on the Committee to address the matter. Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. Administrators should not block for perceived incivility against themselves. It is even more troubling that the administrator in question does not seem to recognize or acknowledge this. This does not seem to be an isolated incident. Paul August ☎ 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Kirill. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I think Kirill's view is basically correct. If we expect admins to enforce ArbCom remedies, we can and should explain to them if they go too far, rather than sanction them for "excessive roughness"; especially since blocks can be lifted. We still want admins to do the right thing, as they see it. The weight of argument that this is a special case leads me now to treat it as one. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per PA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. There is a core principle that Wikipedians, especially administrators, should not respond to personal attacks in a retaliatory fashion. That and other concerns expressed here warrant acceptance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist/JzG

Initiated by John254 at 04:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by John254 at 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-instated by Nick at 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ABlake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Deprecation_by_ScienceApologist
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_has_edit_warred
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist_failure_to_extend_good_faith
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2, including Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Personal_attacks_on_living_persons, which expressly treats prior WP:BLP violations by JzG.
• An extensive discussion of this matter on talk:Eric Lerner
• A report on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which has received no response.

Statement by John254

Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

NOTE John254's response's to statements of other removed by arb clerk Rlevse after he refused to cut his statement length, in fact he expanded it. See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My responses are at User:John254/Lerner Arbcom. John254 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

This hasn't been through any article-specific dispute resolution (ie. articles request for comment, mediation, etc.). Urge rejection on these grounds. Also suggest the arbitrators consult this and this. Daniel (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spartaz: I would suggest this would require filing a separate case totally without the side-issue of JzG et al., which John would try to bring back into it (look at the way he tried to manipulate this case to pursue his vendetta against Dmcdevit, before being politely told to piss off by all involved). Even better, an email to arbcom-l may also work in this regard. For all those who weren't aware, John254 has filed Dmcdevit (rejected), JzG (rejected), IRC (accepted, turned into a cesspool), Episodes and characters 2 (created much angst due to the injunction and final decision), and then this; in addition to the Giano II arbitration enforcement request and the TTN arbitration enforcement request. If you or anyone else knows of any others, feel free to note them somewhere for future reference. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John254: "Now, obviously, if the Committee rejects my request ... this would imply that I have quite severely misjudged the situation, and strongly suggests that I shouldn't file any more requests" — unfortunately, "strong suggestions" don't seem to work with John. Daniel (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

John has a habit of bringing cases here with no attempts at dispute resolution, no prior steps to work things out. ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first. John may be heading here because ArbCom has the ability to do what he wants, (get JzG de-adminned).. but that shouldn't be an excuse to avoid moving up the chain normally. SirFozzie (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Now.. Why am I dredging up a 2 month old (pretty much to the date) comment from another, failed RfA? Because it's the exact same situation. John254 said he'd learn from the last rejection and not bring any more of these cases to ArbCom. I urge a swift rejection and guidance to WP:DR, and a suggestion to John that he not file any further ArbCom cases unless it's been through all the steps of DR. SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I was only peripherally involved in this affair and am not participating in the ongoing dispute. John254's characterization of my involvement is essentially accurate. I was concerned about the LaRouche issue and engaged with ScienceApologist on that point. We ultimately agreed to remove the reference to a LaRouche group and all of the material on Lerner's political activities (a solution which seemed to be acceptable to the editors involved and was also fine with the subject of the article, per my correspondence with him). I did suggest that SA consider taking leave of the article because of possible COI issues, however he rejected that suggestion which was certainly his prerogative. I said I would leave it at that and so I have. There was no ongoing problem from my end and I stopped editing on the talk page once the issue was resolved (I never edited the article itself).

I had no part in the larger debate over IEEE journals and the like. Despite John254's claims, that did strike me as largely a content dispute. I think bringing this to arbitration is premature, however an RfC for the article would be quite appropriate. Like SirFozzie I recommend that the committee reject this swiftly and that John254 open a RfC on the Lerner article. The issues he raises might well be valid and getting some opinions from third-parties is probably the best way to address them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Stephan Schulz

I've checked out one aspect of the issue, namely the use of an essay by Edward L. Wright in the article. Contrary to what John254 states, the source is not used to criticize Lerner, but rather to criticize his Book, "The Big Bang Never Happened". Edward L. Wright is a professor of Astronomy at UCLA [54], a renown cosmologist and widely cited authority in the field[55][56]. He has written an extensive critique on Lerner's book[57]. This is a poster case for the "published expert" exception in WP:SPS. Popular fringe science publications are usually ignored in peer-reviewed publications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinphi

I'm surprised this is going to ArbCom. I'm involved but not deeply involved in this article, and my only concern has been to try and get policy to be applied- and to try and support those who have tried for consensus. I don't know the issues nor the science of the article. But I do know that ScienceApologist has no respect for consensus on this article, and edit wars his changes against the general consensus of other editors. And JzG recently helped ScienceApologist to re-insert by edit war his version of the article, citing POV I don't see. Further, he inserted a blog source of criticism against BLP policy (policy which he knows backward and forward) [58]. He said of that edit "I reverted because the edits [...] removed a verifiable criticism from a qualified source." The only source and info I see removed was the blog. That blog source had been discussed on the talk page, and general consensus was to leave it out. JzG knew of that discussion, see his first post on this thread. ScienceApologist also supported the blog source, and he also knows policy well. I believe this kind of thing is very common on that article. However, in my brief time there I have not seen actual editorial POV pushing on the part of those who supposedly have a COI or are POV pushers. So basically, there is a real problem here. Whether or not it is right for ArbCom, I don't know.

Also, per Stephan Schulz above, I and others may have it wrong- I'm not a BLP guy. This seems clear: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." But a counter-argument hinges on the word "about." Is it about Lerner, or about his book, and how much can you separate the two? However, I didn't see this argument made at the article. To me, it looks like a good source if attributed.

However, this seems clearer: "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." [59]

On way or the other, the editorial practices of ScienceApologist and Guy /JzG were wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading JzG's response below, I wonder why he didn't offer that positive solution on article talk page, at least not recently? ("move the article to the book title.") He does do some good things, like removing the book jacket quote, as I agreed on the talk page. And for example blocking this guy.

I recently got a fringe article deleted, but I did it in a novel way- I was nice to the authors (tho some of the delete votes weren't). Miracle of miracles, they didn't get angry at me- they thanked me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Relata refero

In my opinion, some articles in these areas have been seeing the possible circumvention of BLP by the citation of self-published sources and then a claim that the source is addressing the individual's work, not the individual's personality, even when it strongly appears to be the reverse. (As an illustration, "Reading the book, one gets the impression that X is an obvious kook" quoted from the blog of a well-known scientist.) I admit a finding of fact on the acceptability of this behaviour would be convenient. I have no idea on the rights and wrongs of this precise instance, as I haven't looked at it. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Guy below, I should clarify that I have observed several cases in which material has been added from self-published sources even when there are abundant sources that meet WP:BLP; and that the problem is not inclusion of material that convincingly rebuts fringe viewpoints, and comprehensively demonstrates that they are out of mainstream thinking (which I strongly support, as a regular at WP:FTN), but the inclusion of material (and sometimes the selection of quotes from otherwise dispassionate if heavily negative reviews) to attack the credibility, intelligence and reputation of living persons. (I personally don't believe that some of those living persons deserve a shred of credibility, but that is not how BLP is currently written.) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The idea that this is a BLP issue is a misperception due to the conflation of two subjects in one article: a marginally notable author, and a much more notable, but unequivocally fringe, book. The suggestion that I would engage in egregious violations of WP:BLP is offensive. A good proportion of my time on Wikipedia is spent handling OTRS tickets and enforcing WP:BLP. I have been doing this since before BLP was even policy, starting with articles such as Simon Wessely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Min Zhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and this has caused me significant problems with detractors harassing me in real life.

My recent edits include removing a supportive quote attributed to James Van Allen because it turns out to be sourced from the book jacket - and book jacket quotes are, as everybody knows, routinely subject to quote mining. I have asked if anyone has the original review by Van Allen in its entirety, so that context can be established.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience discussed Lerner's fringe views and his attempts to promote them on Wikipedia. Part of the debate there concerned the difficulty of sourcing credible rebuttals of incredible claims, since scientific journals typically do not discuss things which lack scientific rigour. There is a pressing need in all articles on, and pertaining to, fringe science subjects, to ensure that Wikipedia does not inflate the significance of views which are rejected or ignored by the relevant professional community. There are many articles on which virtually the only sources are uncritical, promotional or of questionable authority. In this case, Lerner's book (not Lerner) has been the subject of a detailed critique by a respected academic in the field. It is necessarily self-published because the relevant academic community does not choose to engage or discuss a pop-science book which repudiates the theory, developed over some decades, which underpins modern cosmology. The disputed sources are in respect of the book not the person, and that is quite clear in the text and on the talk page.

If we accept John254's interpretation here, then we will have a problem, because living authors of pseudoscientific or fringe works would be able, simply by virtue of being alive, to claim special dispensation not to have their work rebutted in Wikipedia other than by the kind of sources that typically do not dignify such material with any kind of comment. We would be compelled to accept self-published sources for fringe views, but forbidden from citing authentic but self-published commentary by known and verified authorities in the relevant field rebutting the fringe views. I do not think this is in keeping with WP:NPOV.

I would be perfectly happy to move the article to the book title, to avoid BLP issues, because Lerner has achieved little notice other than for the book. I would not be happy, for obvious reasons, to see Lerner's views given the appearance of being anything other than what they are: a fringe view which lacks any significant support among the relevant professional community.

As to the specifics here, John254's statement above argues the case for his preferred outcome in the content dispute (where, incidentally, his last comment to Talk was nearly two weeks ago), but does not actually show any evidence of prior attempts to resolve this dispute, or indeed of problematic conduct beyond making or supporting edits that John254 dislikes. ArbCom is not for gaining an advantage in a content dispute. This is another grossly premature arbitration request by John254 with absolutely no prior attempt at resolution whatsoever. Can we have him declared a vexatious litigant and restricted from doing this, please? None of the above purported "attempts at resolution" have any relevance to this dispute, which is over the sourcing of material in one article whose subject was covered by a prior arbitration, but there has been no attempt - especially by John254 - to resolve the present, quite minor content dispute. It's quite clear from this edit summary and his extended response that John has little understanding of the basis for disputing his interpretation, and no apparent interest in finding out. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Spartaz

Yet again JOhn254 is disrupting the project and wasting everyones time another ill conceived and unripe request for arbitration. My super spidy sense tells me that this will linger for around a week, get rejected and thousands of words that could have more usefully have been spent on improving the encyclopedia will be wasted and flushed into the page history. I urge the committee to accept this request for one purpose, and one purpose only. I ask the committee to ban John254 from bringing any further requests to this page unless he is directly involved in it. Should he be involved, he should be banned from bringing any further requests without first privately obtaining leave to do so from a sitting arbitrator. I realise that this is an unusual request but I would hope that the committee would also see the benefit of preventing any further disruption and distraction of committed and busy editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

Like Guy, I deal with OTRS complaints, although I don't have the same level of service as Guy does under my belt, but I can say with a good deal of certainty that John254's understanding of BLP is wildly off target here. The self published critique of the book is not unsuitable for a BLP, essentially all critiques written by a reviewer are equally reliable (though not equally appropriate for inclusion, depending on their content), it matters not one jot whether they are published in the press or on their own website, an opinion on a book is an opinion on a book wherever it appears, and that's all we're dealing with here, a book review, basically. We're not dealing with a website that makes unsubstantiated claims of, say, adultery, homosexuality or a fascination with The Spice Girls, where there may well be (and often is) a difference in reliability between a self-published source and a reliable source such as a news organisation. A person, such as Professor Ned Wright, who has a doctorate from Harvard in Astronomy, and who has lectured at MIT and UCLA seems to be a reliable source when it comes to writing a decent critique of Eric Lerner's book. In my mind, I'm quite happy that the critique is not personal, does not make claims against the person which are unsubstantiated (indeed, not at all, as far as I could see) and are not unduly negative, and all of that being the case, the source is of high quality and suitable for inclusion, in line with the WP:BLP policy.

The section of the BLP which refers to Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). should not be used as an excuse to censor material that is relevant to the article but is not about the actual subject of the article. Music reviews, book reviews and so on could easily be excluded if John254's interpretation is to be believed, and as such material doesn't always include information on the subject, but on their work, I see no benefits for a blanket ban on critiques and reviews from BLPs.

If this was the first Arbitration case that John254 had brought, I would be prepared to assume good faith, but to my mind, it's starting to look like John254 has strongly held views which are beginning to impact on the project, and any time that he has a serious disagreement with a number of editors, he seems to believe they are in the wrong and need to be dealt with by the Arbitration Committee. There's scant regard for dispute resolution and there's a huge reluctance on the part of John254 to accept that he might well be wrong on occasion and that his strongly held views can be unhelpful to the project at times. This being the case, I believe that there's a need for some mentoring for John254, to try and better educate him on how to deal with disputes and to better deal with situations where he might be wrong. There's nothing wrong the edits of Guy and ScienceApologist here, they fall very much within the spirit and pretty much the letter of the BLP policy - they are not doing anything to damage the project or to damage the biography in question, indeed in my opinion, the material they are supportive of provides a useful balance to the article, which is beneficial to the article and to the project.

I therefore would recommend that the committee rejects this case, and perhaps considers some sort of restriction on John254 starting Arbitration cases without contacting the committee first, I really wouldn't like to see the committee and the community back here again anytime soon. Nick (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted John254's removal of this request per the note at the top of the page which requests removal of cases is the sole responsibility of Arbitrators and of clerks. I hope this doesn't cause any problems for anybody. Nick (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CharlotteWebb

I'm not overly bothered about the casing proceeding, I wouldn't mind John254 being asked to refrain from bringing further cases here in future without the prior approval of an Arbitrator, but I certainly don't like the idea of users requesting Arbitration and removing their own request and other users opinions at the same time, especially in a case such as this where there are significant concerns raised about the behaviour of the instigator of the request, or when a small number of the active arbitrators have had a chance to look over the case and decide on how to proceed. Nick (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

Urge rejection but if the ArbCom decide to take this matter up, suggest that the main focus of the case be why John254 feels that repeatedly wasting ArbCom's time with spurious cases is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

I don't think User:John254 has added anything of value to this situation except disruption and tendentiousness. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

Recommend acceptance of this case to declare User:John254 a vexatious litigant. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CharlotteWebb

I have no opinion on the merits of this case, but I do believe that if the "filing party" (John254) wishes to summarily withdraw it, he should be allowed to do so. If anybody else (e.g. User:Nick) wants a case to be opened they can file a new request and list themselves as the "filing party". — CharlotteWebb 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

It seems that despite the initiator's desired withdrawal of this request, and despite the bleak forecast for acceptance by arbcom, being kept open mostly to waste people's time and see how mouths can be coaxed into uttering the word "vexatious" (oh hell, I just did...)

Might this not be vexatious in itself, or at least WP:POINTy? If you want arbcom to examine John's overall behavior, a more dignified and fruitful approach would be to file a separate request rather than keeping this one open (to mock and/or de-rail it). — CharlotteWebb 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

I had to refactor John254's stmt as he kept adding to it vice reducing it (over triple the allowed length). See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• John254 (talk · contribs) removed this request from the page (which may or may not be taken as a request to withdraw the request), which was then shortly restored by Nick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — Coren ^(talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffs ftw: [60], [61] Why would it be interpreted as anything other than a "request to withdraw the request"? — CharlotteWebb 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/1)

• Reject, premature and mostly a content dispute. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided here, while taking the points about "no prior" and "vexatious". These do not absolutely rule out the ArbCom taking a case for BLP reasons, when the reason is serious enough. It's an sensitive matter, and our biographies are not to be used to forward anyone's agenda. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per FloNight. Although some of the parties have been involved in other cases, I see insufficient prior efforts to resolve this dispute. That this is not merely a technical objection is reflected in the fact that based on the statements above, progress toward resolution of the dispute is being made in the ordinary course of discussion. Charles Matthews' point is, of course, accurate but the circumstances here are not such as to create the level of BLP-related concern he refers to. (Incidentally, I saw it written somewhere that the filing party had withdrawn this request. Is that accurate?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of community ban of Iantresman

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notified Iantresman here [62]
• I will soon leave talk page messages for other users who participated in the CSN discussion. They can then drop by here and add themselves if they wish.
• Messages left in the following diffs: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] Stifle (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by User:Stifle

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

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

Statement by User: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".[72] A later arbitration case discovered that ScienceApologist himself been using the username Mainstream astronomy, together with the usernames Fradulent Ideas, Nondistinguished, and Velikovsky.[73]
• 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,"[74] (2) "Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be"[75] (3) "It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment"[76] (4) "Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated "[77]

• 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"[78], 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."[79]
• JoshuaZ stated I "has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing"[80], 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"[81]

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

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

• ScienceApologist, below, has acused me of using sockspuppets during this appeal, and of personal attacks against him. Within the hour I was Checkusered,[82] and cleared by Thatcher131. Removing Sock templates [83][84] and an apology is the traditional respsonse, especially when our previous Arbcom found that ScienceApologist had been both uncivil [85] and failed to extend good faith,[86] 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, [87][88][89][90][91][92] (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)[reply]

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

• Charles Matthews' comments in another Arbcom case here I agree with. (1) Charles writes "I was unable to engage Vanished user in any private discussion of the block"; I too have not been able to engage the Community banning proposers and admins in any dialog. (2) Charles writes of an admin that "seems to attack the whole idea that admin actions are subject to review."; I agree, Admins should be subject to review (3) Charles writes: "I note that even the ArbCom itself cannot hand down an indef block, so I'm certainly troubled by two admins and one other doing it so quickly"; Agreed, I was banned indefinitely by a handful of editors in 5 hours without being allowed a dialog or review *of their statements.
• ScienceApologist's statement that I used a sock to attack him (mentioned above), was found to be false by Thatcher131 four days ago.[93], 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

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

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

Statement by Kwsn-pub

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

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

Thoughts by AGK

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

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

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

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

Thoughts by GRBerry

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

Thoughts by ScienceApologist

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

Ignore the above. I just discovered that Ian has returned as a sockpuppet and posted some mean and nasty things about me: [94]. He should remain community banned until he can stop making this so personal. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ill-referenced opinion by Feline1

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

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

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

Thoughts from Soupdragon42

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

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

Addendum: If CheckUser verifies that [95] is Iantresman then I recommend the ban be speedily endorsed. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

Statement by Raul654

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

Statement by uninvolved Mukadderat

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

Statement by Univolved Rocksanddirt

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

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

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

Statement by MGmirkin

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

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

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

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

Statement by Odd nature

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

Addendum

It's come to my attention that User:Mgmirkin has failed to disclose the full extent of his personal involvement with Iantresman; both are involved in an off site campaign to enable Iantresman and sideline ScienceApologist. Here Mgmirkin said that he's only casually met Iantresman. Yet in actuallity Mgmirkin moderates a forum on a site that is run by Iantresman thunderbolts.info which has a messageboard with a number of threads dedicated to bashing ScienceApologist [96] There Mgmirkin has accused ScienceApologist of POV pushing on Wikipedia just 5 days before making his statement here. [97]

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

Statement by Coppertwig

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

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

Statement by Dtobias

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

Statement by User:KillerChihuahua

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

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

Comment by User:B

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

Comment by Martinphi

I am not familiar with this case. But I have had some positive contact with Ian. As I understand it, he was banned for driving what the ArbCom has termed an "abusive sock" [98] of ScienceApologist off of wiki. Therefore, for what it's worth, here is ScienceApologist's full sock&block record on Wikipedia:

Here is a link to all his known socks:

[99]

[100]

[101]

[102]

[103]

[104]

And of course the ScienceApologist account itself:

[105]

AND THE IPS:

[106]

[107]

[108]

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

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

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

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

Comment by Heimstern

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

Comment by FeloniousMonk

Iantresman was certainly one of, if not the most, problematic and disruptive pseudoscience editors Wikipedia has seen. He single-handed wasted a year of the community's time by trying to rewrite the WP:NPOV policy to remove the undue weight clause to favor pseudoscience and weaken the distinction between majority and minority views: [109] Much of which occurred while he was on probation for his part in the problems at pseudoscience articles (during he was blocked twice):

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

This is his second official appeal, the first was rejected in October 2007. Taken with his previous unblock request submitted to the ArbCom mailing list, and abusive sockpuppetry around this request by his supporters here [110], Iantresman's disruption of the project continues even though he is banned. I urge the arbcom to accept the case and put the matter to rest for good. Also, should Iantresman be unblocked I urge the committee to reinstate his probation which ran only 7 months of its 1 year term before the community ban took effect. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

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

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

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

Clarifications and other requests

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