From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Contents 1 27 Oct 2 29 Oct 3 31 Oct 4 15 Nov 5 17 Nov 6 18 Nov 7 20 Nov 8 20 - 22 Nov 9 Summary by Snowspinner 10 Summary by Lir 11 Summary by sannse 12 about the moved text 12.1 28 November (by Lirath Q. Pynnor, Grand Archon of Lirland) 12.2 Sannse

[edit] 27 Oct

• 20:04
  • [2]
  • Snowspinner: Lir engaged in personal attacks Jimbo Wales' talk page with his IP address.
  • Lir: Lir did not engage in personal attacks against Jimbo Wales or against any other party. Jimbo Wales was actually complimented and advice was offered for the cabal. The tone may have been critical; however, this is obviously not a personal attack -- the phrase "constructive criticism" comes to mind. Jimbo will acknowledge that he has made personal attacks against Lir, and neither Lir nor Jimbo has come crying to the arbcom about their disagreements...so why is Snowspinner getting involved?

[edit] 29 Oct

• 04:55
  • [3]
  • Snowspinner: Lir vandalized 198's userpage with his IP address.
  • Lir: Lir did not vandalize 198's user page; as everyone can tell, 198 has not objected to Lir's activity. What goes on betwixt Lir and 198 is none of Snowspinner's business.
  • 198: Lir did not vandalize my page I gave him permission to edit my page. He and I where talking on the IRC channel C++ and I had asked him to leave a message on my user page should Jimbo Wales arrive on the Wikipedia IRC Channel.--198 04:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• 04:58
  • [4]
  • Snowspinner: Lir vandalized a policy page with his IP address.
  • Lir: Lir did not vandalize a policy page. One can see that, assuming Lir even made this edit, it is not vandalism of any sort.

• 05:27
  • [5]
  • Snowspinner:In response to Lir's claim below that I did not ban the IP address until I realized it was Lir, note that I did warn the IP address with the standard "test" message as shown here. To clarify, this warning was made on October 29th, and was purely in response to the vandalism listed above, which I had reverted when I saw it. I then left the matter alone and did not actively watch the account. It was not until I realized two weeks later that the account was signing comments as Lir that I became suspicious. The test message is, of course, the standard first warning, followed by an active threat to block. It did not escellate beyond the test message because the vandalism stopped and because I did not actively watch the account after leaving the test message because, well, I don't watch every IP I catch doing a bit of vandalism.
  • Lir: Snowspinner did not warn Lir that he was about to ban him; his message contained no mention of a specific complaint, nor any mention of vandalism at all, and certainly no reference to his intent to ban. Furthermore, there is no reason to think Lir had time to see Snowspinner's message before Snowspinner banned Lir.

[edit] 31 Oct

• 07:02
  • [6]
  • Snowspinner: Lir vandalized a talk page with his IP address.
  • Lir: Lir did not vandalize a talk page. Lir seems to have left a comment of "Its True!" at a talk page.

---

[edit] 15 Nov

• 13:52
  • [7]
  • Snowspinner: This is the vote that I removed. Note that it was made by an IP address and then signed Lir, and thus that it was not a valid vote, as IP addresses are not allowed to vote in polls such as these.
  • Lir: This is the vote which Snowspinner removed. He was aware then, and is aware now, that it was Lir's vote. He has not made amends, he did not seek consensus; he acted unilaterally and did not even bother to leave Lir a message or question on Lir's talk page.

[edit] 17 Nov

• 04:35
  • [8]
  • Snowspinner: In this edit, Lir's IP made a comment and then signed normally, using the four tildes. Lir then went and changed the attribution to Lir:
  • Lir: In this edit, Lir's IP made a comment and then signed normally, using the four tildes. Lir then went and changed the attribution to Lir:

• 04:39
  • [9]
  • Snowspinner: Contrast this with the edit above, in which Lir actively typed [[User:Lir|Lir]] at the end of his post. This post shows that Lir does normally sign with the four tildes method, which makes it unlikely that his above edit, which he deliberately signed Lir, was "accidentally" made while not logged in (Or else it would have, like this edit, required a second edit to reattribute). Note also that Lir made no effort to reattribute his personal attack on Jimbo above, and that no vandalism has been made from the account User:Lir, further suggesting that Lir was deliberately using the IP address to make comments that would not be noticed by people attempting to monitor his contributions.
  • Lir: Lir actively typed [[User:Lir|Lir]] at the end of his post. Lir was obviously not attempting to pretend to be somebody other than Lir. Compare this with the edit above, where Lir once again signed as Lir.

[edit] 18 Nov

• 05:25
  • [10]
  • Snowspinner: This is the edit where I removed Lir's vote. Note that I explicitly invited Lir to recast his vote using his account.
  • Lir: Snowspinner did not inform anyone of his decision to remove Lir's vote; while he did leave a message in the article history, such a message could not reasonably be expected to be seen by anyone. This so-called "notification" was not placed anywhere prominent (such as a talk page); but rather, buried under a lengthy list of edit histories. This was hardly acceptable behavior for a sysop...
  • Lir: Snowspinner has not re-inserted the vote, he seems to think that it is Lir's job to clean-up after Snowspinner's vandalism.

• 05:35
  • Quoted from Wikipedia:Block log: 05:35, 18 Nov 2004 Snowspinner blocked 209.181.211.69 (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 1 Month (Signing comments as Lir. If it is Lir, it's an undeclared account of Lir's, and thus should be banned for a month.)
  • Snowspinner: Note that I banned the IP, not User:Lir. There was no presumption on my part as to whether the IP was Lir. Had I intended to block Lir, I would have blocked Lir. Doing the block this way was a deliberate effort to make it so that, if in fact the IP was not Lir, Lir would be totally unaffected. The duration of a month was chosen on the off chance that the IP was Lir, because if it was a month was the appropriate duration for Lir.
  • Lir: Note that Snowspinner used the name "Lir" three-times; because he knew it was Lir. When Lir attempted to contact Snowspinner via IRC, Snowspinner banned Lir. Snowspinner is clearly unable to exercise his sysop powers with judicial discretion.
  • Lir: Snowspinner had no need to block the Lir account itself; since blocking Lir's IP was just as effective. As Snowspinner noted, "The duration of a month was chosen on the off chance that the IP was Lir, because if it was a month was the appropriate duration for Lir."; clearly, this is the work of a member of the cabal.

[edit] 20 Nov

• 22:23
  • (On IRC)
  • sannse: Lir (using the nick "Hail") asked on #en.Wikipedia to be unblocked. I discussed the block with Lir and others in the channel. The log of this discussion is available to the arbitration committee on request (I will not publish it publicly).

• 23:08
  • Quoted from Wikipedia:Block log: 23:08, 20 Nov 2004 Sannse unblocked 209.181.211.69 (this block does not follow the rules of Lir's parole)
  • sannse: Believing the block related to the "parole" section of the arbitration ruling, and did not fit within that ruling, I unblocked.

• 23:08
  • (On IRC)
  • sannse: I asked Lir to confirm, via a logged in edit on my talk page, that the IP was Lir - saying that I would re-block the IP for impersonating Lir if this wasn't done.

• 23:09
  • [11]
  • sannse: Lir edited my talk page to confirm this

• 23:16
  • [12]
  • sannse: I added an explanation of this edit

• 23:22
  • [13]
  • sannse:I left a message for Snowspinner to let him know that I had unblocked, and invite him to discuss this

• 23:31
  • [14]
  • sannse: Snowspinner replied explaining that the ban related to the "other accounts" section of the ruling rather than the "parole" section

• 23:40
  • [15]
  • sannse: I replied to Snowspinner to say that I did not agree with his interpretation of the "other accounts" section of the ruling

[edit] 20 - 22 Nov

• After the unblock
  • [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].
  • sannse: While not related to the above ban, it should be noted that once unblocked Lir made several provocative edits. One of these I reverted [22], the others I left because I felt that reversion was the aim of the provocation.
  • Lir: Why Sannse thinks he needs to protect Angela from my request that she resign; or why he finds it provocative that I successfully recruited a new member for the red faction; or why he feels that I should not answer Fennec and Snowspinner's "provocative" questions to me...I really don't understand; if Sannse is bothered by what I say to other users, why does he stalk through my edit histories and eavesdrop on conversations which do not involve him?

[edit] Summary by Snowspinner

The previous arbcom ruling on Lir [23]. Note that the restriction on number of accounts is phrased in terms of what is permitted, not what is denied. That is to say, Lir is told that he may edit under Lir and three other accounts - not that he is forbidden to edit on any accounts other than Lir and three other accounts, but that his editing permissions extend to User:Lir and up to three other declared accounts.

My point, incidentally, is not that Lir was trying to disguise his later edits under the IP address as being not Lir edits. (In my initial ban of the IP I was concerned that the IP might be trying to impersonate Lir, but that is neither here nor there.) My objection to Lir editing under an IP address he does not have listed on his userpage is simple - I and several other sysops check Lir's contribution list periodically because of Lir's tendency towards making problems. When Lir uses accounts that are not User:Lir, this becomes impossible. The whole point of restricting Lir's account use was to make him accountable for his edits. Repeatedly and deliberate use of an IP address, even if he signs the edits, reduces his accountability unacceptably. Furthermore, it is my claim that Lir knows that and has been editing in the way that he has been for exactly this reason.

Note that Lir's comment below about being banned for a whole month is misleading, as a month is the arbcom declared ban length for editing under an undeclared account.

[edit] Summary by Lir

• Snowspinner did not feel the above issues qualified as sufficient "vandalism" to induce him to ban the IP until he realized that the IP was used by Lir (as Lir forgot to login and left some talk page comments, signing his name Lir). At no time did Lir commit any vandalism nor did Lir do anything disruptive or problematic (note how the above alleged vandalisms were all quite un-recent, and even those are not vandalism).
  • Having realized that Lir forgot to log in, Snowspinner acted on a personal vendetta and decided to ban Lir for one whole month. Snowspinner proceeded to remove Lir's vote from the page on the 3RR, he did not inform anyone of his decision or ask anyone's opinion of whether his actions were appropriate. He has still not re-inserted the vote (claiming its not his job to clean up his own vandalism). When Lir attempted to address the issue, Snowspinner immediately banned Lir from the IRC channel.
    • Note that at no time did Snowspinner leave a message on Lir's talk page; since, he knew he was banning Lir, he thus felt no inclination to ask Lir whether Lir was impersonating Lir.
    • Snowspinner has clearly abused the sysop powers granted him. He has inflated trumped up charges of vandalism in a lame attempt to justify his personal grudge match. Snowspinner has both claimed that Lir should be banned for impersonating Lir, and for being Lir! He is just grasping at any excuse he can think of to justify his actions. He has also claimed that he is somehow concerned with the fact that, by not logging in, Lir is somehow able to circumvent Snowspinner's ability to supervise Lir; of course, such a claim is nonsensical since Lir repeatedly signed as Lir.
      • Lir reminds the arbcom committee that he/she has made tens of thousands of completely uncontroversial contributions to the Wikipedia, and that the actions of rogue sysops such as Snowspinner are undermining the site's pretense at not having a cabal. It is time for the arbcom to demand due process, and punish those sysops who feel they can get away with suppressing such fundamental rights. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Summary by sannse

I unblocked under the mistaken understanding that the block related to the parole section of the ruling. I now understand that it related to the "other accounts" section. I disagree with Snowspinner's interpretation of this section, although I understand his reasoning and fully understand that he blocked according to his interpretation and without ill intent. I would like the wording of the ruling clarified remove the confusion over whether IP edits are or are not included in the ruling.

[edit] about the moved text

The below text has all been included above. I will not remove it personally so that those involved can check that it has been moved intact. Perhaps once that's been done someone else would remove it (and this message) -- sannse (talk) 15:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 28 November (by Lirath Q. Pynnor, Grand Archon of Lirland)

• [24]
  • Lir did not engage in personal attacks against Jimbo Wales or against any other party. Jimbo Wales was actually complimented and advice was offered for the cabal. The tone may have been critical; however, this is obviously not a personal attack -- the phrase "constructive criticism" comes to mind. Jimbo will acknowledge that he has made personal attacks against Lir, and neither Lir nor Jimbo has come crying to the arbcom about their disagreements...so why is Snowspinner getting involved?

• [25]
  • Lir did not vandalize 198's user page; as everyone can tell, 198 has not objected to Lir's activity. What goes on betwixt Lir and 198 is none of Snowspinner's business.

• [26]
  • Lir did not vandalize a policy page. One can see that, assuming Lir even made this edit, it is not vandalism of any sort.

• [27]
  • Lir did not vandalize a talk page. Lir seems to have left a comment of "Its True!" at a talk page.

• [28]
  • Snowspinner did not warn Lir that he was about to ban him; his message contained no mention of a specific complaint, nor any mention of vandalism at all, and certainly no reference to his intent to ban. Furthermore, there is no reason to think Lir had time to see Snowspinner's message before Snowspinner banned Lir.

• [29]
  • Snowspinner did not inform anyone of his decision to remove Lir's vote; while he did leave a message in the article history, such a message could not reasonably be expected to be seen by anyone. This so-called "notification" was not placed anywhere prominent (such as a talk page); but rather, buried under a lengthy list of edit histories. This was hardly acceptable behavior for a sysop...
  • Snowspinner has not re-inserted the vote, he seems to think that it is Lir's job to clean-up after Snowspinner's vandalism.
  • [30] This is the vote which Snowspinner removed. He was aware then, and is aware now, that it was Lir's vote. He has not made amends, he did not seek consensus; he acted unilaterally and did not even bother to leave Lir a message or question on Lir's talk page.

• [31]
  • In this edit, Lir's IP made a comment and then signed normally, using the four tildes. Lir then went and changed the attribution to Lir at [32].Lir was obviously not attempting to pretend to be somebody other than Lir. Compare this with the edit above, where Lir once again signed as Lir.

• Quoted from Wikipedia:Block log: 05:35, 18 Nov 2004 Snowspinner blocked 209.181.211.69 (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 1 Month (Signing comments as Lir. If it is Lir, it's an undeclared account of Lir's, and thus should be banned for a month.)
  • Note that Snowspinner used the name "Lir" three-times; because he knew it was Lir. When Lir attempted to contact Snowspinner via IRC, Snowspinner banned Lir. Snowspinner is clearly unable to exercise his sysop powers with judicial discretion.
    • Snowspinner had no need to block the Lir account itself; since blocking Lir's IP was just as effective. As Snowspinner noted, "The duration of a month was chosen on the off chance that the IP was Lir, because if it was a month was the appropriate duration for Lir."; clearly, this is the work of a member of the cabal.

[edit] Sannse

Why Sannse thinks he needs to protect Angela from my request that she resign; or why he finds it provocative that I successfully recruited a new member for the red faction; or why he feels that I should not answer Fennec and Snowspinner's "provocative" questions to me...I really don't understand; if Sannse is bothered by what I say to other users, why does he stalk through my edit histories and eavesdrop on conversations which do not involve him? Lirath Q. Pynnor