Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Comments by uninvolved editors before the case was opened

Statement by JoshuaZ

Given how disruptive and problematic Sadi's edits have been I strongly suggest that the editor only be allowed to make edits relevant to the arbitration during this arbitration. The ANI discussion makes clear how subtle and insidious this editor's edits have been. JoshuaZ 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC) It appears that such restrictions are now in place, making my statement redundant. JoshuaZ 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

I urge the Committee to accept this request. Although Wikipedians debate the precise meaning of a wheel war, this situation is certainly near to being one. Subtle long-term disruption poses a very serious danger to the integrity of Wikipedia, and since the community has proven unable to resolve this particular case it ought to be high priority to establish clear precedents on the arbitration level. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad makes an excellent point about ambiguity in policy language and practice regarding community banning. Regardless of whether one calls this situation a wheel war, an alternating series of four actions (two indefs, two unblocks) on an inactive account points to a serious problem suitable for Committee attention. Some of the issues regarding this may require an accompanying community decision at the policy level. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Physchim62, I read FloNight's comments as procedural rather than prejudicial: any situation that rides the cusp of a wheel war as closely as this one deserves the Committee's attention. As a subordinate note to that, there are precedents for immediate sitebanning in response to well-founded investigation of long term disruption (one example). I did not participate in this ban discussion and have no opinion about whether this particular instance is such a case, but in extreme cases dispute resolution is pointless. Durova^Charge! 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strikethrough per Jehochman and Newyorkbrad. Maybe the community can resolve this. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Second strikethrough, based upon comments such as this. It's clear we have a powder keg situation. Better to arbitrate now and set some clear precedents. Durova^Charge! 15:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Not strictly involved, but I did participate a fair amount in the ANI thread that is also linked right at the top of this request. I've also looked at the articles (well, the AfDs) and the edits and the external websites, and would be happy to add evidence to the case. Carcharoth 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Physchim62, I do think that deeper investigation is warranted here. The clean block record and number of contributions mean nothing if there is a previously undetected pattern of consistent and subtle efforts to integrate a set of fringe theories into Wikipedia in a misleading way. This reflects poorly on the editors who failed to spot this in the past (though some did raise concerns). Looking back through the contribs, I've discovered that I had met this editor before, and interacted with them in a reasonable manner - I had no cause for concern at that time (see Talk:People known as the father or mother of something and the associated deletion review). Now, looking back through the contributions, I do find cause for concern. I've looked at the first edits of Wavesmikey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 to add to AfDs mentioned previously. Moving forwards to the present account, I found User:Sadi Carnot/Users, which should also, in my opinion, be cause for concern. I agree with Physchim62 that an indefinite block may have not been the best thing to do immediately, but the minimum would have been a topic ban and opening an RfC or an ArbCom case on the editing behaviour. Apologies for putting links here instead of waiting for any possible case to open, but I wanted to get these notes down now. Carcharoth 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I share the concerns that WP:AN and WP:ANI are not suitable for in-depth investigations like this, as they need lengthy discussion (that can overwhelm AN and ANI) rather than snap judgments. Where should such cases be discussed though? And where should the fall-out from this case be discussed - in particular investigating that claims that Sadi Carnot built "a large, elaborate [..] subtle walled garden of pseudoscience", and repairing the damage if this is the case (as it seems to be)? A subpage of the fringe or COI noticeboards, or a subpage of the long-term abuse noticeboard? Carcharoth 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for belabouring the point, but Itub has just pointed to two articles that Sadi Carnot (SC) helped to write. History of quantum mechanics looks fine, but in History of the molecule the good material added may have obscured the references to "human molecules" inserted by SC. Other editors should have picked up on these absurdities, but didn't for over a year. The first appearance is as an external link here on 20 September 2006. The link is as follows: "www.humanthermodynamics.com/Glossary/H.html#anchor_530 "The Human Molecule" - Institute of Human Thermodynamics". Later the same day, the concepts of "Earth molecule" and "Sun molecule" were added to the external links. This remained in the article for over a year, until it was removed here. I'm not focusing on SC's theories here, but rather the way in which his editing style may have contributed to the failure of Wikipedia's systems of scrutiny. I can understand why some people think the ban may have been excessive, but they need to recognise the nature of the material Sadi Carnot was adding. Follow the link. Read the website. Carcharoth 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Folic_Acid (also uninvolved)

I strongly endorse Durova's statement. To me, this seems a clear case of wheel-warring, and ought not to have happened. I believe that Jehochman is very familiar with Sadi Carnot and his editing tendencies, and had carefully weighed the situation before issuing his ban. He also received a very strong endorsement from the participants of AN/I, backing him up on his ban. Yet, Psychim62 seemed to take it upon himself to reverse that ban. As Durova has said, I think that this case presents a unique opportunity for the ArbCom to create a precedent for dealing with long-term, subtle vandalism, and for dealing with wheel-warring. Respectfully,  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:TimVickers

I participated in the ANI discussion and supported the ban because I was involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. I would recommend ArbCom consider this case to produce guidance on how to deal with long-term, subtle vandalism and users who push fringe theories. Tim Vickers 04:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JWSchmidt

I became aware of the disruptive editing by "Sadi Carnot"/User:Wavesmikey in the middle of the "wheel war" over blocking User:Sadi Carnot. The "wheel war" can be explained as a case of Blind Men and an Elephant. The Wikipedia edits of "Sadi Carnot" display a Jekyll and Hyde pattern. "Sadi Carnot" apparently has training in thermodynamics and has appeared to some Wikipedians as a constructive editor of Wikipedia pages related to thermodynamics. However, "Sadi Carnot" has also edited (and created) many psychology-related pages that represent a relentless and clever campaign to insert original research and pseudoscience into Wikipedia. The community is going to have to be on guard for new attempts by Sadi Carnot/Wavesmikey to disrupt Wikipedia. Much work remains to root out all the disruptive edits. One group of administrators knew and responded to the "Dr. Jekyll" aspect of "Sadi Carnot" while a second group knew and responded to the "Mr. Hyde" aspect of "Sadi Carnot". Rather than focus on the fact that there was a meaningless "wheel war", I think the Wikipedia community needs to think carefully about how to attract, nurture and empower editors who have expert knowledge. This is the only way to protect Wikipedia from disruptive editors such as "Sadi Carnot" who daily pervert Wikipedia for their own purposes. --JWSchmidt 06:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

With regard to the user conduct issues involving Sadi Carnot, it is clear that if he returns there would need to be, at a bare minimum, substantial restrictions on his editing, and a good argument has been made for a ban. The only question is whether the case should be accepted even though the user is not currently editing. Given that this user has edited under other names before, it may be reasonable to take up the matter now, rather than defer the discussion until he tries to return or until a sockpuppet/alternate account is detected.

With regard to administrator conduct, some of the conflicting admin actions and resulting tension in this and some similar situations may have arisen from a continuing unclarity in an aspect of block/ban policy, including how it has been interpreted in case selection decisions by this committee. Sometimes we say that a community ban exists when no administrator would unblock a user; other times we say there is a community ban when there is consensus for a ban and very few administrators would unblock. When a banned user appeals to ArbCom, it sometimes is correctly observed that there is no real dispute to arbitrate if no admin has been willing to unblock the user. That being the case, an administrator who opposes a community ban, even while recognizing that there is consensus for a long-term block and that consensus should generally be respected, may feel constrained to unblock in order to prevent the block from ripening into a ban or in order to safeguard the user's ability to challenge the ban by appeal to the arbitrators. Indeed, such an admin may reason that unblocking is the only way to achieve these results. Neither that admin nor one who reimposes a block supported by overwhelming consensus is wilfully "wheel-warring"; nonetheless, an undesirable situation is created. Perhaps clarification by the committee would be helpful on this issue. Newyorkbrad 10:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Itub

I was also involved in some of the AfD and AN/I discussions. I agree with much of what Durova and JWSchmidt say. I think that the block itself may be a moot point, since Sadi Carnot has not shown any inclination to return. However, I think it is worth discussing what should be done when an editor has a "Dr. Jekyl" and a "Mr. Hyde" aspect; and specifically whether it is appropriate to block/ban him indefinitely without an explicit warning due to his "Mr. Hyde" activities. --Itub 11:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To all who still refuse to believe that Sadi Carnot made good contributions: there are four regular participants of WikiProject Chemistry (two of them admins and all of us with some expertise in the topic, if I may say so) who have said that he did make good and substantial contributions in this area. I posted two specific examples of articles largely written by Sadi Carnot during the AN/I discussion, but no one seemed to notice, or at least to object: [1]. I'm sure I can find many more examples, but I'll save that for the evidence phase if this case reaches arbitration. --Itub 08:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Iridescent

I haven't the knowledge of psychology to determine whether Sadi Carnot's psychology-related contributions are valid (and have to defer to what seems to be an overwhelming consensus that they aren't). However, I do feel I ought to mention, as some others do above, that SC has a lot of definite valid edits. As a new editor, when I was getting bogged down on my first largish-scale project, the thankless (and ultimately abandoned) task of merging & cleaning up the spammy OR-riddled mess of Rating sites, Rate-me site and Hot or Not, it was SC who patiently explained what I was doing right and wrong, offered suggestions and comments and helped to rewrite the article into what was briefly an informative & sourced article, until the spammers & POV-pushers dragged it back down. If it's only the psychology-related material that's causing a problem I'd far rather see a topic ban then a complete ban, providing he hasn't left altogether. — iridescent 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Statements by Physchim62 (Keith Henson)

Physchim62 writes:

"It is my honest and deeply held opinion that Sadi Carnot is being persecuted not for what he did but for what he believes."

Physchim62 is *indirectly* correct here in that Sadi's beliefs probably led to what he did (assuming he is not one of the most elaborate trolls on record). Few people doubt that radical Islamics believe the evil West must be destroyed. It's their *actions* that lead to persecution. The same can be said in this case. He stuffed Wikipedia with misleading information. That alone would not have generated such a backlash. Where people got really ticked off is that he had done it for two years before it came to light.

"I certainly don't subscribe to his beliefs, but he has an inalienable right to hold them. You will never be able to count on me to form part of a Thought Police."

Nobody has called for an attack on Sadi/Libb's web site of unmitigated pseudo science. You can hold any crackpot belief you want. But trying to make them part of Wikipedia *should* get you booted out.

snip

Physchim62 also wrote:

"The Community is not a dozen users on ANI, at least two of whom were acting in astounding (and in my eyes culpable) bad faith, something which the blocking admins should have detected and taken into account."

The dozen users on ANI were the section of the community who researched the situation. There is no doubt the overwhelming majority of them supported a ban. I suspect they would have supported far worse if something more drastic had been available. What Sadi did strikes right into the heart of the project.

Understanding human psychology as I do, I hold no ill will toward you, but I wish you would comment on these two versions of an article Sadi edited.

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=47854434

with

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=125688241

As I mentioned, the EP concept of capture-bonding isn't abnormal psychology, indeed, nothing could be a more normal response in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptiveness) to being captured than to socially reorient to your captors. But just considering the style, which of these two articles would be more useful (and readable) to someone trying to find out about the topic?

As I said Oct 22, I will accept your judgment.

Keith Henson 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

For the record, I studied The Crucible with Good Night, and Good Luck this year as a paired text, and scored well in my comparative essay. Now I need to replicate it in my final exams - yay for me. Now, onto relevant stuff...

I am glad that no user has acted more than once - it's a whole new kettle of fish then. However, like Newyorkbrad, I share concerns about the definition of a ban. A ban is any block (on an established or disruptive editor; not vandalism) that will not be overturned by any administrator. A ban is also a consensus of Wikipedians wanting a user to be banned, hence 'community ban'. Is one administrator able to overrule a consensus using the first definition? Is a consensus able to overrule a small subset of administrators? Do these definitions have equal weight? If they do, how many administrators are needed to make their presence more notable than the consensus (and hence unban)?

I'm as confused as you. The Arbitration Committee is not a deconfusion machine, but it does provide sound advice. It also provides resolutions to issues, and the community needs both here. Daniel 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Observations by uninvolved FT2

Detailed observations, fact-find, and diffs:

Detail and diffs.

The issue seems to revolve around an editor who may (?or may not) make valuable contributions, but engages in highly undesirable conduct centering around widescale and long term COI-SPAM-WEIGHT-OR on his book and fringe views. The motive for block/ban seems to be use of puppetry and "very serious" sneaky spamming. There seems consensus that COI spamming was going on a long time on many articles, and repeated breach of WP:WEIGHT had been occurring on fringe ideas. An alternative view is that even if he isn't doing it deliberately, then his edits are still too big a liability. On the other hand, there's a counter-concern that he may be a productive editor with a number of good edits (though others dispute this[2][3][4]), and that the evidence of sockpuppetry and "disruption only" account use backing this view is minimal to zero. The matter was brought to ANI by Coren, a quite capable editor, specifically because although he felt there was a serious problem, he wanted to check with others rather than assume. This is to be highly commended. He also makes other good points, including that an editor who has a history of seeing that his editing style is causing problems, but simply moves elsewhere and repeats, may well be acting in good faith, but this is still disruptive. Editors are expected to get a clue if told "X isn't okay". Failure to do so, whether innocent or deliberate, is still - ultimately - damaging (WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point' has included this for a while now). The first admin to block states, "I am going to indef the account because it's clear to me that it's been used primarily for long term, subtle vandalism and COI editing, causing serious, widespread damage". The block was reverted with the unblocker acknowledging this was "unusual", to allow the user to comment and without condoning the actions. After reinstatement (no wheel war) and rereversal, arbitration was proposed. My questions: Is there good evidence backing the various concerns raised by people? -- evidence presented does not back up all the claims Are his good contribs really good? (Be aware that many sneaky vandals do also make good contribs) -- Asserted both ways Were sufficient clear/formal warnings, discussion, and other DR steps followed to no avail? -- appears not I suspect that 80% of the problem is that the ANI discussion rapidly escalated and polarized to the stronger measures (blocks/unblocks/bans/arb) before considering in a balanced manner the evidence and other options. I am willing to be corrected if I am unaware of any warnings given but..... evidence and diffs: The first block of this incident cites an article (Human chemistry, now afd'ed) that was created by the editor. AFD Views varied from "excellent example of gaming the system/fraudulent promotion of dreck/misleading cites" [5], "out-and-out fraud/how can we trust him after this/support a ban" [6], but most simply noted it was self-promotion and OR, and needed removing, and ultimately the creator asked for it to be SPEEDYed [7]. (Its unclear whether to AGF on this request or see it as part of a game. Probably AGF.) The block explanation points to this afd and describes it as a "hoax" being "unmasked", and describes the editor as using the account "primarily for long term, subtle vandalism". Looking at the many AFD comments though, I don't completely agree with this rather strongly worded description/characterization. On checking, there are no visible talk page warnings, and there was no real ANI discussion whether mentoring and such (or a topic/self-promo ban, or formal final warnings) might be more the way to go if he was making bad edits. The indef block is (correctly) presented in terms of gaining a change in behavior, but following the presentation of a list of spam links elsewhere and alleged sock use, it is then presented again, in terms encouraging a ban discussion. The difficulty is, it later emerges those links may not have been the editor's work [8][9], and the other account had not edited since December 2005 [10][11] - a period of almost 2 years (except 3 user page edits in March). The new account and old account did not co-edit (old abandoned Dec 15 2005, new created Dec 27 2005). No diffs showing actual "vandalism" or non-trivial puppetry are given, and if his old account was ever sanctioned that's not listed either. But by the time someone had thought to check the basics of the case, there was already dispute over the indef block, and momentum for a block and possible community ban, and that momentum was based in large part on these beliefs. I have also reviewed the user's talk page back to March. There are no formal warnings, nor indeed any admin warnings on it beyond free image issues and routine AFD notices and one or two requests for references [12]. The user is generally civil, and does not seem to have attracted many negative posts by others. Two minor bites [13][14] in 6 months are visible, neither major, and even then reconciliation on one of them was jointly offered and accepted quite quickly by the user and the other party. Going back to February, on one occasion an experienced editor posted a statement of concern over WP:OR and failure to understand what Wikipedia is about. The user has had a previous article Human thermodynamics afd'ed in 2005 under his old account, similar to the Human chemistry afd. Comments at AFD are not formal warnings, but concerns on OR and the like were expressed (albeit 2 years ago now). There was no visible warning; if anything major has happened from then to now, it doesn't show very visibly on his talk page. Blocks, as well as unblocks, can be enacted by any sole administrator. But admins are expected to balance the evidence as well as how consensus on the Right Thing might stand. In that context, I think what can be said is, some people were hasty to jump to the end-point, others felt this jumping to a conclusion was wrong and/or poorly evidenced, and reverted. That seems to be how it ends up at Arbcom. Thoughts: There was clearly a genuine case for concern. It's still possible or even probable that the editor is/was engaged in deliberate improper COI-OR-SPAM-WEIGHT (or wilful refusal to get the point, same thing). But despite concerns, the fact remains there are all but zero warnings or expressions of concern in the last many months, on his talk page, and no formal notices visible. At ANI, the evidence was very limited. The diffs showed the admission of COI and use of own site as source. Actual evidence of the "meat" of the case was not presented, actual diffs were not provided showing prior warnings or backing the more serious claims, and WP:AGF was not given over his username change ('Wavesmikey' till Dec 15 2005, 'SC' from December 27 2005). These would have helped either inform consensus or highlight mistakes. They were mostly absent. It clearly also wouldn't have hurt to let discussion progress a while longer, or examine the evidence a bit more carefully and check for consensus, before taking major action (block or unblock) as the initiator had requested and repeatedly made clear. In this case remedy (by a few editors) predated fact-finding and evidence, leading to dispute over that remedy (by a different few editors). If there is ongoing problem conduct and despite clear warning the editor had not desisted, indef blocks are a legitimate way to inhibit damage to the wiki until agreement to change is obtained. But in this case, the escalation and unblock/reblock, was unnecessary and reflects poorly. There were better ways to handle it at that time. There was not the kind of divisiveness in this case that we saw in really serious divides; this was a simple case (even with the block/unblock) that admins well might have resolved with discussion and evidence, on ANI. A few administrators were somewhat hasty one way, then a few reversed it as poor judgement, and momentum quickly built up. Perhaps a ban would have emerged anyway. But probably not. In general it's desirable that editors and admins figure out such matters, as Coren had sought, and only pass to arbcom where it really is major, or cannot be resolved otherwise. At least some of the main involved editors, including the initiator and the initial blocker and proposer of a ban, reach agreement that the content issue is largely addressed, and that the next step is either 1/ mentorship and change on the SPAM-COI-OR issues, or (if not) then 2/ a ban due to the problems caused, which is a reasonable resolution. Arbitration is seen as less likely to be needed. [15][16] Even if the editor does not change or is terminally problematic, this solution would seen to be workable and well within admin handling. A further comment just before arbitration is proposed notes that to date there has still been no formal warning, explaination, or request to stop.

In summary, I'm inclined towards not needing arb attention yet. Based on evidence presented and a careful check of readily identifiable background pages, it seems that although there is a clear fringe-pushing problem, most of the serious issues are over-stated or can now be readily discussed calmly or appropriate handling agreed. The actual problem is COI, and prolific pushing of own links, and own fringe views/OR, which he knows is not permitted but is doing anyway. He also may or may not make valid contriubutions. Problems that led to this arb case included:

Warnings and DR processes were non-existant or inadequate, multiple requests for careful consideration by Coren were not fully considered, evidence of DIFFs and other fact finding which might have informed admin consensus was incomplete, allegations were made that don't seem well supported when checked, AGF was not fully considered by all, in areas such as account change (which clearly was not a problem given 2 minutes checking), the matter seems exaggerated from COI/pushing to "major sneaky vandal", the focus moved to actions (and disputes over actions) way ahead of clear fact finding, and then when the user was blocked/unblocked and this was repeated, the case was escalated here at a point where agreement actually seemed accessible. The user has still apparently not been warned in any of this ("they should have got a clue" doesn't quite substitute for warnings and DR). Way too hasty.

There was also no admin mis-conduct. Nobody wheeled; the active parties all expressedly agreed not to wheel. Now the facts are better identified, and with better evidence, it probably could be resolved by usual admin discussion, and at least one good try at it, would probably be preferable to see if admins can now resolve this themselves. Perhaps given that some of the more serious concerns (puppetry + subtle vandalism) are questionable but others (coi + trust) are valid, a final and formal warning notice on specific kinds of edits or a topic ban would be a better way to keep the good (if any, and if willing) and avoid the bad. The reason this case is divisive is not because of the editor nor the complexity; it's because there is a division whether or not some token DR or warning is appropriate before a ban attempt is made, and questions over some of the allegations with which this editor is being labelled.

In my view, an arbcom hearing isn't needed; there are at least four very well tried classic fixes for this situation that I'm sure admins could agree upon: 1/ We warn him formally about COI-SPAM-MISCITE-OR and if he breaches he is blocked on an escalating basis; 2/ he is indef blocked because of repeated COI-SPAM-MISCITE-OR, and unblocked if he agrees not to repeat; 3/ Mentorship and a ban if he cannot or will not succeed; or 4/ the community agrees a topic ban on certain matters and notifies him he will be significantly blocked on breach.

The real issue here seems to be not Sadi Carnot, who doesn't seem to need arb attention, or the block/ban processes, or even admin conduct (all admins restrained once it became obvious there was a real disagreement). The only reason this escalated in any case was sub-optimal rushed handling of a (when all said and done) fairly routine COI link pusher and fringe theorist, not blockban process failure or wheeling or great complexity... and that's primarily to discuss and learn from. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

My read of the AN/I discussion is similar to that of the prior poster - there was no consensus to support an indefinite block at any point in the discussion, and the final consensus was for mentoring should the user return. I also note that this is very much the sort of stupidity that I expected when we closed CSN - AN/I is a worse forum for these discussions than CSN was, because AN/I is expressly dedicated to snap judgment issues, not deliberative discussion. I strongly urge the Arbcomm to either reject the case, or take it only to firmly slap down the admin who gave the way too hasty block and the admin who reinstated it. (Wheel warring never begins before an administrative action is repeated; the current nutshell of Wikipedia:Wheel war is "All administrative actions are subject to a one-revert rule.") Flonight is completely wrong, the problem is not administrators unblocking. GRBerry 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (last sentence struck after her clarification GRBerry 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Statement by hkhenson (Keith Henson)

Having tangled with Sadi Carnot (who was backed up by Physchim62) over capture-bonding I am an involved party. Still, I think what provoked this request is a unique situation and people should not draw too much significance from it. Because Sadi quit editing before being blocked it perhaps wasn't even necessary. None the less I believe the ban with or without warning by Jehochman was fully justified based on a rare (if not unique) pattern of widespread damage to Wikipedia that had been turned up by a serious group investigation effort.

As others have pointed out, Sadi was very good at gaming Wikipedia and Wikipedians. I have looked at a number of his edits and the pattern was to make the material longer, less clear and stuffed with BS. *Referenced* BS of course. Human nature is such that some people get really upset when they find they have been gamed. Others defend and make excuses for the gamer. There is one awesome example where former leaders of a defunct group have never accepted (in spite of overwhelming evidence) that a highly trusted employee was in the pay of an organization I am not currently permitted to mention.

I don't think the ban/unban ping pong is as important as detecting and stopping the damage such gamers can do to the project. Unfortunately, I don't yet have any good suggestions. Possibly recognized experts could be recruited to judge content wars, but it would take an *army* of them. Keith Henson 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Newyorkbrad (and update)

A comment has been added above that the original blocking administrator and the admin who first unblocked have agreed that Sadi Carnot will remain unblocked, but that if he returns (which he very well may not), he will be closely mentored and will be blocked if he creates further problems. I have not seen any disagreement expressed with this solution. There also is useful discussion going on at the policy pages concerning clarification of the banning policy which could ameliorate future disputes of this nature.

Under the circumstances, and consistent with the comments by Jehochman as the filing party, I am not sure that there is a case here any longer. Newyorkbrad 14:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Update

It appears to my regret that there's no long-term agreement after all and I have to recede from this. My apologies to the parties and to Kirill and James for suggesting this dispute might have been resolved, but it seemed to be so at the time. Newyorkbrad 15:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

As the one who brought this case, welcome. I'd like to use this case as an opportunity to clarify the way that administrators should work together to resolve blocks, unblocks and bans. I hope that we can work in the spirit of cooperation to find common ground and resolve the controversies that have affected not only this case, but other similar cases. Rather than arguing about blame, we should find the root of the problem and figure out how to fix it. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by DS removed from within my statement

This comment was placed within my statement where it did not belong:

CORRECTION: Physchim62 then announced, on IRC, that he was planning to resign his adminship over this issue; DragonflySixtyseven discussed the issue with him privately, and - feeling that the issue was most likely moot since Carnot had apparently left the project - decided, independently, without being asked in any sort of 'conspiratorial' fashion, to unblock Carnot provisionally, with the goal of persuading Physchim to not resign his adminship. DS 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move it to your own section of the page, DS, or enter this statement as evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)