Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer

Who are the involved parties?
MPublius, Famspear, Arthur Rubin, Mateo SA, N0 D1C4

What's going on?
Article is biased against Tom Cryer, a citizen, and in favor of the government. Article contains “Rulings by the courts” section of original research synthesized by Wikipedia editor Famspear citing court cases not included in government's case against Cryer; and Cryer's arguments in support of motion to dismiss case have been deleted. Article should be an unbiased biography of Cryer and his tax dispute with the government, rather than an extended discussion of tax law containing legal mini-briefs by editors.

Paragraph with Cryer biographical information excessively states 3 times that Cryer is the source and makes it sound as if editors do believe the information is false:
 * “According to a resume published by Cryer on his web site, he graduated with honors from Louisiana State University (LSU) Law School in 1973, and was inducted into the LSU Law School Hall of Fame in 1987. Cryer's resume further states that he is a member of the Order of the Coif (a law school honor society), that he served as a Special Advisor and Draftsman at the Louisiana Constitutional Convention in 1973 and that he has argued cases before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Finally, according to Cryer's resume, he opened a solo law practice in 1975 and gained experience in many different civil and criminal matters.”

What would you like to change about that?
Remove "rulings by the courts" section. Remove 2 of 3 mentions that biographical information was provided by subject. Once is sufficient.

Mediator notes

 * Part of dispute is this diff

Administrative notes
For convinience:
 * Tom Cryer - Article
 * Talk:Tom Cryer - Talk page

Discussion
Are all involved parties happy to have me as mediator? A list of my previous cases can be found here. I'd also like to have the discussion here if no one objects as it makes it easier for those looking at the archives later to see how the case proceeded. I know Mpublius wished to have the discussion on the article talk page but, as I just said, having it here helps with the archives-- Phoenix 15 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My first suggestion would be to simply remove "According to a resume published by Cryer on his web site" and replace it with "Cryer" so that the paragraph here would read:


 * “According to a resume published by Cryer on his web site, Cryer graduated with honors from Louisiana State University (LSU) Law School in 1973, and was inducted into the LSU Law School Hall of Fame in 1987. Cryer is also resume a member of the Order of the Coif (a law school honor society), that he served as a Special Advisor and Draftsman at the Louisiana Constitutional Convention in 1973 and that he has argued cases before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Finally, according to Cryer's resume, he opened a solo law practice in 1975 and gained experience in many different civil and criminal matters.”

I'd like to know your opinions-- Phoenix 15 19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear editors: Perhaps I missed something, but I wasn't aware that there was an ongoing disagreement specifically about the propriety of the number of times the article mentions that Cryer's information was from his web site, so I'm not sure why this should be in mediation. Nevertheless, it appears that Mpublius did raise this issue on 24 September 2007, here: . Based on a quick review, I don't see where any other editors really specifically responded to this question -- either negatively or positively.


 * The paragraph above as proposed by editor Phoenix 15 appears fine to me. There might be a concern about using a reliable source (citing to Cryer himself), but I don't think that's currently a part of a specific, ongoing dispute on the talk page for the article.


 * Since I'm not sure of the details of the mediation process, and before addressing any other issue raised by Mpublius in this mediation, I'll hang back so that other editors have time to discuss the proposed paragraph, or wait for cues from the mediator, editor Phoenix 15.


 * I would strongly encourage all persons, including the mediator, to review the entire talk page for the Tom Cryer article in detail -- as well as the interplay between Mpublius and other editors since early or mid August 2007 in that and other articles and talk pages -- to understand the genesis of this. Yours, Famspear 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I should be in here as I have nothing to do with the Tom Cryer article, I just happen to read Famspear's talk and was interested in the Mediation. Of course, I have to add my 2 cents.  I believe a self reference is allowed on an article about the person.  As for the paragraph, the resume statement is redundant and unnecessary IMO.  I would word the first part "According to Cryer, he graduated ...", which attributes the statements. I would remove the statement "Cryer's resume further states that" and "Finally, according to Cryer's resume,".  There should be a reference at the end of this paragraph that links to Cryer's resume.  Sorry for the interuption - back to work. :-)  Morphh   (talk) 21:13, 03 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have little disagreement with Phoenix's proposed statement, except that I thought I found the LSU Law School Hall of Fame web page, and Cryer wasn't there. But I can't find it again, so I may have been mistaken.  In any case, I do doubt the accuracy of that statement, although I don't really have any basis for that doubt, while we don't have anyone who isn't quoting Cryer asserting that he was so inducted.  I don't see it necessary to have "Cryer states" and "according to Cryer" repeated, as long as the phrasing is clear that all we are saying is that he reports those facts.
 * After an edit conflict, I think I agree with Morphh, more than with Phoenix 15. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for "rulings by the courts", perhaps it's excessive, but the fact that each argument Cryer has on his web site have been declared "frivolous" by an appropriate court seems worthy of note. We don't need to (and shouldn't) comment on tax protesterarguments which Cryer didn't present, either on his web site or in the court proceedings, but providing a map from Cryer's arguments to cases in which a court found them frivolous seems quite appropriate.  As an alternative, we might just disregard his assertion that he has arguments.  It clearly is WP:UNDUE weight to include his arguments without including refutations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)


 * Famspear, I thought it best to address that first because Mpublius said here that he would like to remove multiple mentions that biographical information was provided by subject. He believes that mentioning this more than once gives slight bias.


 * As for your query about the mediation process, The Mediation cabal provides informal mediation, that is, volunteer editors helping to resolve disputes with no "Formal process" that must be followed. I'm here to help you and the involved parties reach a compromise but I can't order you to follow some course of action


 * I'm currently reviewing the talk page but would like all of you to make a short statement on the dispute from your point of view mentioning what you want as it will help the resolution of this dispute immensely-- Phoenix 15 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Famspear
The argument that the article is "biased against Tom Cryer, a citizen, and in favor of the government" is part of a pattern of attempts in this and other articles to use certain Wikipedia articles as a forum (1) for the argument that the United States is a "police state," to use the words of Mpublius, and (2) for the argument that, in particular, the Federal income tax is somehow invalid as applied to individuals. The edits and commentary supported by Mpublius have often included additions of material from Cryer's own web site and the deletion of material from court records. Efforts by other editors to cite court materials are often met by the creation of one new limiting "rule" after another, and with the invocation of buzz words or concepts like "neutral POV" and "original research" -- without specifically stating exactly how the material is supposedly non-neutral or is original research.

Similarly, the early attempts by Mpublius in this article (which have continued) involved efforts to remove any mention of the legal term "tax protester" in connection with the article, even though there is absolutely no valid argument whatsoever that Cryer is not a tax protester, and even though a reliable third party source has specifically labeled Cryer as one. Again, the attempts to remove the term "tax protester" from this article and other places in Wikipedia ostensibly because (to use the words of Mpublius) the term is "libel" are pretexts for removal of a term that Mpublius recognizes has negative connotations for someone like Cryer -- whom Mpublius supports. Mpublius even made the Freudian slip of referring to one legal commentator who had referred to Cryer as a tax protester as being Cryer's "enemy."

The contention that the article "should be an unbiased biography of Cryer and his tax dispute with the government, rather than an extended discussion of tax law containing legal mini-briefs by editors" and the argument that the article should for some inexplicable reason exclude mention of court decisions that were not mentioned in Cryer's criminal trial, are pretexts for the removal of citation to samples of relevant case law which puts Cryer's arguments in perspective -- in context. It would be the equivalent of describing the events of World War II in an effort to providing meaningful information for readers -- while imposing an arbitrary rule prohibiting the description of events in places like Germany in the 20 or 30 years or so leading up to World War II.

The reference to a citation of four or five cases, with a statement of the holding in each case -- that the courts ruled the very arguments made by Cryer to be legally "frivolous" -- is repeatedly mischaracterized by Mpublius as an "extended discussion" (which, presumably in the view of Mpublius, would be "bad") or as a series of "mini-briefs" (a series of four or five case briefs, even "mini-briefs," would take up much more Wikipedia article space), or as somehow being "original research" or "synthesis," in an attempt to remove any evidence that Cryer's tax law arguments are not only not original with Cryer, but have indeed been ruled in innumerable cases over many, many years (look at the decision dates on the cases) to be "frivolous" -- again, a legal term used by judges in court documents and found in the Internal Revenue Code itself, a term which has a negative connotation for Cryer that Mpublius would dearly like to obliterate from the Cryer article.

Regarding NPOV, the article does not say that Cryer is correct. The article also does not say that Cryer is incorrect. What appears to be objectionable in the view of Mpublius are the impressions that one may obtain after reading the article as a whole (and they are correct impressions) (1) that Cryer's acquittal as a tax protester was an unusual occurrence, (2) that Cryer's own arguments about the validity of the tax law were not original with him, and (3) that those arguments were not only rejected in his own case, but have been rejected in every other single court case, without a single exception.

The fact that one obtains those impressions does not mean that the article lacks neutral point of view. NPOV does not mean deleting prior case law in a strained attempt to provide equal weight to Cryer's arguments. NPOV means presenting all arguments with a weight in proportion to their acceptance by experts in the field -- without Wikipedia taking a stand as to who is correct.

An acquittal in a criminal case is not a ruling by the court or by the jury that the law under which the defendant was charged is invalid or non-existent. Cryer himself, and others, have falsely tried to present his acquittal on the internet as a case where the court ruled, or the jury ruled, that the Federal income tax law is invalid, or non-existent, or that it does not apply to individuals -- just as people did after a tax protester named Joe Banister was acquitted. The attempt to include only material from Cryer (and when that did not work, the attempt to limit the article to material from Cryer's own case) and exclude material on all the cases that came before it, if successful, would tend to have the same effect: to mischaracterize the nature and the context of Cryer's case.

The Wikipedia rules of Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research work quite well where properly applied. Here, Wikipedia should not be putting itself in the business of deleting relevant, properly sourced material that puts a legally frivolous fringe group debate over the application of well-settled tax law into context -- in what would be a misguided attempt to recharacterize the nature of the debate. Yours, Famspear 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, was that a short statement? Sorry about that. Famspear 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to notability issue, I would essentially second the latest comments by editors Into The Fray and Arthur Rubin regarding Cryer's arguments to the jury. Despite the efforts by tax protesters on various internet web sites to mislead people, there is a big difference between (A) a defendant trying to persuade the jury about what the law is (which neither Cryer nor any other party would be allowed to do -- in either a civil or criminal case) instead of filing the applicable motions, briefs, etc., with the judge, and (B) a defendant testifying before the jury as to what he or she believed the law to be, in an effort to show lack of awareness of what the law was, and therefore a lack of "willfulness" (which is of course the standard Cheek defense, and is perfectly permissible).


 * Without going into too much detail (as several editors on this page are already aware of the legal niceties of the Cheek defense), Federal tax crimes are "special intent" crimes, which in this context means that ignorance of the law actually is a valid defense (thus, an exception to the general rule in the USA). Obviously, there is nothing necessarily "notable" about a Federal criminal tax defendant asserting a Cheek defense to try to avoid a conviction (whether it's tax protester case or not). Sometimes the defense works, sometimes it does not. Whether it works or not, the jury's verdict is just that -- a verdict of guilty or not guilty, and not a "ruling" about the law.


 * As documented in the article with citations to the court documents, Cryer submitted a very long brief to the judge on Cryer's tax protester arguments, in an attempt to get the case thrown out before it could be submitted to the jury. The judge ruled against Cryer (the ruling with the docket entry number is cited in the article), and the case proceeded to the jury. Fortunately for Cryer, the jury found Cryer not guilty. That's a win for Cryer -- but the win is not based on any imaginary "ruling" that Cryer's tax protester arguments could somehow be valid. The article should and does cite the court document(s) showing that Cryer's tax protester arguments were rejected by the court. If Cryer is notable, it must be because of something else. On balance, my overall sense is that Cryer is marginally notable, but only because he's a tax protester who happened to be acquitted (an extremely rare occurrence but not unheard of), but it's a "weak" notability -- and I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if the Wikipedia consensus turns out to be otherwise.


 * I have no material objections to the latest proposals regarding the language on Cryer's resume. Yours, Famspear 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I'll comment on the comments by editor N0 D1C4 regarding use of special powers by administrators (i.e., by SYSOPs). As editor Phoenix 15 has pointed out, merely reverting and editing in articles are not exercises of some mystical, special Wikipedia powers somehow reserved to administrators. Indeed, editor N0 D1C4 (a fairly new contributor) can do all those things. Even anonymous users identified only by an IP address can edit articles and revert edits made by anyone. Maybe I missed something, but to the best of my knowledge no special "SYSOP" powers have even been used in the Tom Cryer article in connection with this controversy, much less misused in any way. Perhaps editor N0 D1C4 was just confused. (By the way, I am not an administrator.) Famspear 22:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, editor N0 D1C4's complaint, essentially that a SYSOP was somehow not allowing "bold" changes to be made to the article, seems a bit odd, considering this comment by N0 D1C4 regarding some bold editing made by me in the same article:. Yours, Famspear 22:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, now it's on to the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article. Yours, Famspear 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin
I may go into more detail later, but this is a summary of my take on the issues in the RfC and the issues brought up for mediation.


 * 1) The article is more-or-less unbiased. Cryer clearly is a tax protester, although I don't know if that needs to be in the lead.  That he makes tax protester arguments on his web site and in briefs in his court case seems adequate.
 * 2) If anything, the present state of the article is a little biased toward tax protester arguments against the truth. For any tax protester arguments included in the article, that Cryer made in court documents or on his web site, we must include some indication that the courts consider them frivolous.
 * 3) As for WP:BIO notability, he is one of only 3 tax protesters acquitted of tax evasion without any dispute as to the material facts of the case (e.g., the taxpayer claims he filed a real (not zeroed nor with an improper jurat, etc.) tax return, and the IRS can't find it, and the taxpayer provides a copy of the return in court.) Cheek (later convicted), Kuglin, and now Cryer.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In regard Into The Fray's comment below, he wasn't allowed to present tax protester per se to the jury, but he was allowed to present evidence that he believed the tax protester arguments, and so didn't believe he was subject to tax. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by N0 D1C4
The slanted POV, excessive restating of the obvious, and the resulting POV rant session currently titled "Rulings by the courts" are all a direct result of a few users rewriting almost the entire article, without asking for input from the other editors. For example Phoenix_15 noted above this extensive change. I, with the help of others, tried to find a compromise; preferably one that was brief, straight forward, stated the major points, and had links the reader could follow for further reading. However, here we are.

Here are my points:

First, I would like Famspear or any editor to ask, notify, or use the templates at least, BEFORE making making major changes.
 * This will allow time for others to collect their thoughts and make suggestions, hopefully leading to an unbiased accounting of the facts.
 * Also, NPOV is not about telling "both sides", NPOV is about taking no sides. "Just the facts ma'am."

Second, I would like anyone how has heavily edited this article, you know who you are, to take break from this article so others can contribute.

Third, SYSOPs need to stop their relentless reverting of anything that is either too bold, which should be encouraged not spurned, or is supported by other innocent people that actually win cases against the IRS. SYSOPs only need to revert clear violations of rules, not use their powers to support any party. It is only fair, that instead SYSOPs should moderate the discussion, not misrepresent the subject of the article. Suggest changes rather than just reverting someone's work.

Lastly, this article should be kept because this case is mentioned all over the web, and for as long as the IRS is still around people will need articles like this one to truly understand the truth and beauty of the Constitution. That one juror, if she/he is aware of it, is more power than all the supreme justices, all of congress, every governor, every judge, the president of the United States, and 2000 Earthly kings combined. It is ironic that a bunch of cut-throat free market capitalist, created a system where one person has such awesome power and no mater what the verdict, that person is accountably only to their own conscience. N0 D1C4 05:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification; SYSOPs (I prefer to use the term Administrators) are not the only users who can revert. Normal users and even ips can do it to-- Phoenix 15 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, N0 D1C4 has reverted the Tom Cryer article at least twice . — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Into The Fray
Before all else, to me there is a question of notability with regard to this page. The single claim to notability is Cryer's acquittal on tax evasion charges; Cryer certainly wasn't (correct me, someone, if I'm wrong) the first person acquitted on tax evasion charges, nor will he likely be the last. Famspear said, I believe (if I'm wrong, please correct me), that Cryer was perhaps notable for being the first tax protester acquitted on tax evasion charges; It has been argued in depth on the talk page that tax protester constitutes a legal term into which Cryer does not fit. To me, it seems that Cryer is the subject of one cited secondary source and is otherwise non-notable. As such, it has long been my intention to nominate this article for deletion. I have not done so because I have left the question open with the thought (read: hope) that another editor may choose to weigh in and explain Cryer's notability. Now that we are in yet another forum, I will once more put the notability question first and leave it alone until tomorrow so that other involved editors have an opportunity to discuss. Please understand that I am not using AfD as a threat -- this is a question that I have raised since I first became involved -- but merely as a stage to discuss on a far broader stage with the community whether Cryer's notability is sufficient to warrant an article here.

Beyond that, I will save my comments on WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:UNDUE and any other policies or guidelines until we get to that (much of this, as Famspear has pointed out, has already been discussed in great detail on the talk page, many aspects of it multiple times). A deletion would make the entire discussion academic.

For the record, I have already expressed a similar concern about the references to Cryer's resume and have made at least one edit to tone it down a bit. I'm fine with toning it down further as Morphh suggested.  Into The Fray  T / C  00:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just tack on a statement as regards my concerns surrounding notability; That is to say that it seems to be settled fact that, regardless of his status as a tax protester, Cryer was not acquitted by dint of any tax protester arguments.  It seems a small point, but to me it is pivotal.  Basically, his status as a tax protester was immaterial to his acquittal as his tax protestation arguments were never made to the jury, unless I have misunderstood some of the facts of the case.   Into The Fray   T / C  17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Famspear in that, as I said before, I don't think that Arthur's status as an admin is germane to this discussion. It might become so if Arthur began to threaten to use his admin tools in the content dispute, but that seems exceedingly unlikely to happen.  Into The Fray  T / C  22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The AfD has been closed and settled and my concerns about notability are allayed. As regards the rest of Mpublius's concerns regarding the article, I'll keep my comments brief; I have already written exhaustively about it on the talk page of the article following the filing of the RfC.  In general, it is my feeling that consensus has been reached on the article.  While I am not particularly pleased by the flow of its writing (he said vs. what the courts say), I agree in essence that one cannot be included without the other.  Into The Fray   T / C  21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion
There isn't really much we can do until Mpublius comments. I would call Tom Cryer a tax protester myself and would say he is notable as he protests against tax because he believes it is unconstitutional, rather than simply avoiding tax for financial gain. Having read through the article I can say that most of it appears to be written from a neutral point of view. The second paragraph appears slightly biased by saying repeatedly saying "according to his (Tom Cryer's) resume published on his website" giving the information there less credibility. I would again suggest rewording it as follows:


 * “According to a resume published by Cryer on his web site, Cryer graduated with honors from Louisiana State University (LSU) Law School in 1973, and was inducted into the LSU Law School Hall of Fame in 1987. Cryer is also a member of the Order of the Coif (a law school honor society), that he served as a Special Advisor and Draftsman at the Louisiana Constitutional Convention in 1973 and that he has argued cases before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Finally, he opened a solo law practice in 1975 and gained experience in many different civil and criminal matters.”

as opposed to:


 * "According to a resume published by Cryer on his web site, he graduated with honors from Louisiana State University (LSU) Law School in 1973, and was inducted into the LSU Law School Hall of Fame in 1987. Cryer's resume further states that he is a member of the Order of the Coif (a law school honor society), that he served as a Special Advisor and Draftsman at the Louisiana Constitutional Convention in 1973 and that he has argued cases before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Finally, according to Cryer's resume, he opened a solo law practice in 1975 and gained experience in many different civil and criminal matters."

There may be more to change once Mpublius makes his statement. For now I'd like to know if you like the rewording (it's slightly different from the one I proposed before)-- Phoenix 15 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Into The Fray, I would have recommended nominating this article for deletion. That would generate a large discussion over the notability and point of view of this article and whether it should be deleted. It would more than likely that an AFD would have settled this dispute once and for all. AFDs can also trigger the dramatic improvement of articles. I know it's unconventional but it works-- Phoenix 15 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it for deletion so that we can put that issue to rest before proceeding any further here.  Into The Fray   T / C  21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)