Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The verdict in this case was rendered on August 23, 2004.

Contents

[edit] Statement of complaint

summarised, as the evidence is now elsewhere.

User:Lir has been a chronic "problem user" falling into the category of difficult users who seem to constantly try to push the limits of the rules and cause maximal disruption to Wikipedia without being banned. These include:

All of this is compounded by Lir’s clear desire to disrupt the current function of Wikipedia, due to its supposedly being run by a "cabal," and due to its being, in his own words, "uberghey". The latest instance of this attempted disruption is shown by Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy.

Mediation has not been attempted with this user to my knowledge, though I do not think this is a case where mediation would be helpful, since the issue here rather transcends any particular pair of users. There has been a lengthy RfC on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir, however.

In the end, though, I do not think the issue is one where attempts at compromise would be fruitful. Lir is a user who is clearly seeking to work within the rules of Wikipedia to disrupt it – much as one would expect from how he was classified by one of his Red Faction allies, User:JRR Trollkien in the listing of WikiHeirarchy, or by his endorsement of trolling. Personal attacks, I think, are personal attacks even if they happen on the (official) Wikipedia IRC channel, and he generally is in violation of the principles set up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette. More to the point, however, I think that Lir’s actions amount to a mildly subtle form of vandalism: his edits are mostly in bad faith, and are attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It could be argued that he falls under the category of “Trolls." However, on the vandalism page, a troll defined as one who is trying to attract flames. Lir is not trying to do that - he is trying to disrupt Wikipedia and waste users time fixing his edits and responding to his accusations. He fits the criteria of a vandal - he is seeking to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

To summarize, I am asking for an arbitration ruling not on the elusive question of the acceptability of banning trolls, but rather on the specific question of whether a pattern of bad-faith edits seemingly designed to damage the Wikipedia without specifically violating any policies (and thus making one a candidate for an easy sysop ban) constitutes vandalism, and is thus problematic. And, of course, on whether or not Lir’s behavior qualifies as such a pattern of behavior. -- Snowspinner (IIRC - sig got lost)

I too implore the arbcom to take this case. →Raul654 01:20, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Striked because Raul is now an arbitrator. Martin 18:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Additional evidence and complaints

Other users have also claimed that Lir has attempted to encourage them to commit vandalism, as in this exchange from IRC:

  • Comrade_Nick: adam (lir) wanted me to vandalize your page guanaco when you banned his editing saddam hussein account
  • Comrade_Nick: he wanted me to repalace you bottle fed lamb with cock fed lamb...

Snowspinner 04:20, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

On July 6, 2004, Lir vandalized a subpage of User:Tim Starling to try to remove evidence Tim had collected for the arbitration committee - see [1]. Snowspinner 14:52, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

On July 4, 2004, when User:TheCustomOfLife let User:Theresa knott know that I was working on the request for arbitration, Lir posted an abusive message to her talk page: [2]. Snowspinner 15:33, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accounts that may be Lir sockpuppets (Someone needs to check these)

These are all accounts that there is a chance of being Lir sockpuppets - a developer will need to check them, at which point I'll be happy to provide specific evidence of problem edits and vandalism on any of their parts. Snowspinner 00:35, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • User:Golden Dreams
    This is confirmed as a Michael puppet by TimStarling. Snowspinner 04:11, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • User:LTGS
  • User:Little Tin God Sysop
  • User:Random IRC quote
  • User:IRC channels are private
    TimStarling has suggested these as being JRR Trolkien, another member of Red Faction. Not Lir, again, but still quite interesting to note, especially in light of the above comments on the part of User:Plato (Comrade Nick) regarding Lir trying to get other users to vandalize pages for him. Snowspinner 04:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Sad Ham
    This is also Michael, because it matches behavior by a previous Michael account. Guanaco 18:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by affected party

  • I am sure that the arbitration committee will find that my attempts to edit Saddam Hussein are in good faith; that I have repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue; that there is not consensus against my edits; and that I am a victim of personal grudges and petty attacks. It is true that I sometimes resort to unacceptable behavior, as when I cyberslapped Bryan; however, his description of my efforts as "nonsense" was not only inappropriate as well -- but, such antagonism can certainly be shown as the source of my angst.
  • I freely admit that my attempts to classify astrology and numerology as academic disciplines were not in accordance with the majority wishes; however, I am aware that minority viewpoints are to be respected here at this website -- NPOV requires that all studies which involve formal schooling be, at the very least, tentatively listed as "academic" in nature. Further note that I created the academic discpline list, which is linked to from the main page -- if my efforts are so "unproductive", how is it that I have managed to create prominent parts of the wikipedia?
    • I resent the claim that I am a "vandal" -- I am clearly not a vandal. I may be argumentative, hostile, defensive, and advocating of minority viewpoints -- but to claim that I am a "troll"...it is indicative of the personal attacks which are relentlessly hurled at me. I hope that, if the arbitration committee wishes to admonish me for my behaviours -- it will also admonish those sysops and users who have also crossed the line.
      • There can be no doubt that I am willing to discuss all issues, be it DNA or Saddam Hussein -- this willingness is shot down by my critics as a "refusal to discuss" -- such propaganda does not change the fact that I am willing (and it is they who would rather vote, ban, criticize, and whatnot -- rather than discuss). In regards to DNA, it is a nucleic acid and I must insist that the article link to the nucleic acid article. In regards to Saddam Hussein, there is some international academic confusion over how to refer to him -- there is no reason the opening should not briefly mention this confusion, and explain that the wiki uses "Saddam" in accordance with the "most common usage" policy."
      • In general, there is nothing even remotely controversial about 90% of my edits -- Jimbo Wales himself, editing via my account, has concurred that there are users who stubbornly oppose my edits solely because I am the editor. If you were to edit with this account -- you would not have to find edit wars, they would find you. Note that, unlike with other users, I am the victim of frequently having entire reams of editing deleted -- editing which even some of my critics tend to argue is generally factually accurate -- how would you feel if all your edits, good and bad, were deleted (instead of merely edited and adjusted)?

The rules are quite clear that, prior to arbitration, a plaintiff must attempt to resolve the issue via the mediation committee -- as Snowspinner has not done this, I expect the committee to follow its own rules and insist that Snowspinner attempt to resolve his personal issues with me, by discussing with me in a mediated fashion.

I am happy to accept mediation and believe that mediation, on this issue, is long overdue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Preliminary decision

[edit] arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

  1. To quote, "the specific question of whether a pattern of bad-faith edits [...] constitutes vandalism" is, IMO, very much a policy question, over which the Arbitration Committee has no power; as such, reject - I'm not going to outstep my bounds on this one. If you want policy to be set, go about it the normal way. However, on the matter of Lir's actions themselves, rather than a policy, accept. James F. (talk) 00:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. I agree with James: accept to look specifically at Lir, but anything more general is a policy matter and needs to be discussed by the community as a whole. --Camembert 01:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. I accept the request to investigate Lir's actions, and their alleged disruptiveness. The case will naturally deal with the issue in its totality. Martin 10:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept Fred Bauder 15:57, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept to judge Lir only --the Epopt 00:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. I'll have to recuse since Lir's first banning was largely due to my lobbying. --mav 03:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (Note - these are no longer in effect)

[edit] Editing under one account

For the duration of this proceeding Lir shall edit only under the account Lir.

Ayes:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Though I'm not sure entirely how this will be handled...)
  3. Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Declare all other accounts

Lir is required to declare all Wikipedia accounts that he has ever used. Where allegations of his use of specific accounts have been made, such as the list provided by Tim Starling, Lir is required to state which of these accounts he has ever used. Lir stated on IRC, log User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir "Lir i have three sysop accounts". These must also be identified. Lir has one week from the passing of this temporary order to make these declarations.

Ayes:
  1. Martin 10:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 12:33, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Nayes:
Abstentions:

[edit] Enforcement

If Lir does not comply with a temporary order then, for the duration of this proceeding, he shall be restricted to editing pages related to his arbitration, and his user and user talk pages.

Ayes:
  1. Martin 10:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 23:52, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Nayes:
Abstentions:


[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] Creation of user accounts

A Wikipedia user may create an account under an alias. A few additional accounts may also be created.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Policy proposals

Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Editing disputes

The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Multiple accounts

Creation by a Wikipedia user of more than a few accounts is not acceptable and may be grounds for negative sanctions. See Mailing list comment by Jimbo Wales

Accepted 4-0, with 1 explicit and 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Personal attacks

Making personal attacks on other users is not permitted.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Acting as another user

A Wikipedia user is not permitted to portray themselves as another user in editing any page, especially not during a vote.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Three revert rule

A Wikipedia user may revert an article a maximum of 3 times during any 24 hour period

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Use of sockpuppets to evade the three revert rule

While a user may have more than one account and edit without logging in they may not use a combination of their accounts to evade the three revert rule.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] No "trolling" or disruptive behaviour

The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Lir is a repeated liar

Lir has repeatedly been discovered to have lied to other Wikipedia users, and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in either trivial or serious matters. Some examples of this tendency are:

  • Lir has claimed that "I do not recall ever having a conversation with anyone on IRC", during this arbitration. Elsewhere Lir has recalled details about a conversation on #wikipedia immediately prior to his being banned from that channel. It is not possible for both of these claims to be true.
  • While Lir was banned from Wikipedia, he used a number of sock puppet accounts, and repeatedly and vehemently denied that they were his accounts, both via email, and via the sock puppets themselves.
  • Lir claimed on IRC to have three sysop accounts. Subsequently he denied having any sysop accounts, and claimed to have never claimed to have such accounts.
Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Lir is not a vandal

The term vandalism is a term of art in Wikipedia discourse, with a narrow definition that does not extend to every bad faith edit, nor to every edit we might prefer had not taken place. Users that engage in vandalism, in this technical sense, are subject to sysop blocks. On the evidence presented thus far, Lir has not engaged in vandalism, though he may have made edits in bad faith, and we might prefer that some of his edits had not taken place.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Creation of multiple accounts

Lir has edited Wikipedia under a large number of user accounts. The list that has been developed may contain some inaccuracies but there is credible evidence available to the Wikipedia developers supporting this conclusion. Lir has repeatedly lied about his use of multiple user accounts in the past, while he was under a ban from Jimbo. As such, his denials in this case are not credible.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy

Lir created the article Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy which was grossly ineffective due to poor wording and Lir's reputation.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Edit warring

Lir regularly engages in editing disputes regarding minor matters and despite extensive discussion of the matters in dispute declines to accept reasonable compromises, for example, regarding the proper name to use in references to Saddam Hussein, See Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming and page history and Talk:DNA and its archives including Talk:DNA/vote

Accepted 4-1 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Personal attacks

During the course of debate on Votes for Deletion, (see Talk:Dan Waniek) regarding deletion of Dan Waniek Lir engaged in personal attacks, see [3], [4], and [5]

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Voting as a banned user

Lir during vote regarding deletion of the article, Dan Waniek. voted as the banned user Irismeister, claiming that, although banned, Irismeister had a right to a vote and that Lir had the right to act as his proxy, see [6]

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Breaking the three revert rule

On June 3, 2004, using a combination of his IP address, 63.230.159.235, and the sockpuppet, Editing Saddam Hussein, Lir broke the 3 revert rule, reverting the article Saddam Hussein 4 times, see[7], [8], [9], [10]

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Accounts

Lir may edit under the user name Lir and up to three other accounts which shall be clearly identified by him on User:Lir and the user pages of the other accounts he edits under.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Policy initiatives

Lir's attempts to influence Wikipedia policy, however ineffective, are permitted under accepted Wikipedia policy and are not grounds for negative sanctions.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Personal attacks

Lir is banned from editing on Wikipedia for one week for making personal attacks. Lir has claimed that un-named people have made attacks against him, but has refused to provide any evidence. Accordingly the arbitration committee cannot take any action regarding this allegation.

Accepted 5-0, with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Voting as another user

Lir is admonished not to vote for or otherwise "proxy" on behalf of banned users.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Breaking the 3 revert rule

Lir is banned for 1 day for violating the 3 revert rule on June 3, 2004 while editing the article Saddam Hussein.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Using a sockpuppet to evade the 3 revert rule

Lir is banned for one week for using the sockpuppet Editing Saddam Hussein to evade the 3 revert rule on June 3, 2004 while editing the article Saddam Hussein.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Seeking compromise

Lir is admonished to avoid edit wars and to seek compromise with other users, giving full weight to the opinions and expertise of other users.

Accepted 4-0 with 3 de facto abstentions

[edit] Penalties are cumulative

The bans imposed on Lir shall run consecutively, not concurrently.

Accepted 5-0 with 2 de facto abstentions

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of restrictions on creating accounts

The first instance of Lir editing under an unauthorized account shall result in a ban of one month for all his accounts. Each successive instance shall result in a ban of a duration of twice the previous ban, i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16 months and so on.

Accepted 4-0 with 3 de facto abstentions

[edit] Parole

Due to the longstanding nature of Lir's violations, a Standing order will be issued, putting Lir on parole: If Lir should make a provocative edit or series of edits (that is, edit wars or other edits which are "disruptive" or in violation of Wikipedia policy, as interpreted by an administrator) those edits may be reverted by an adminstrator who shall post the url of Lir's edits on page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Parole violations together with a brief explanation. Lir may be banned for 24 hours should he revert such a reversion. If Lir should attempt to evade this parole through the use of sockpuppets, a ban of up to one week may be imposed. Any bans made under the terms of this parole should also be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Parole violations The Arbitration Committee shall monitor this matter and may reconsider it at anytime upon 4 Arbitrators agreeing to a motion for reconsideration at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Lir may make such a motion only after 6 months; any other user, including Arbitrators, may at any time.

Accepted 4-0, with 3 de facto abstentions
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Lir_5aeb.html"