Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lir (User:Lir/Talk/Contributions) seems to be unable to function in this community. He seems to get into edit wars over trivia in almost every article he touches. He was involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship last night. Hephastos banned Lir twice, which I think was the wrong decision without discussion. I am proposing that we open this discussion. Secretlondon 14:30, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Though I support Hephaestos in his decision and oppose de-opping him, Lir had the right to ask for Hephaestos's de-adminship for violating the stated rules for sysops. Removing his request was unjustified, so that particular edit war should not be used against him. --Jiang 04:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lir

User:Lir keeps adding a plea to be contacted to the top of vfd. When I asked him on IRC to stop, he told me "fuck off max". Lir is a constant troll who should be re-banned. Maximus Rex 21:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with adding my name to this list? User:Anjouli has their name on there too, and I would like to put mine. What is your objection? Jack 23:31, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hey, its been awhile since I put this here, and nobody has said anything. If nobody continues to say anything, I am going to put my name on there. BTW, it would be awesome if I (and maybe everybody?) could just get notifyed of any votes, cause I like to vote, and if nothing else that way I'd get to weigh in. Sometimes it seems like issues are on the fast track, and only a select group makes the decision. Is there a wiki-elite, or what? Jack 08:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've copied the exchange below from my talk page and Jack's talk page so others can weigh in if they want. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:50, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jack -- A lot of us (myself included) have concerns about how much attention gets focused on Votes for deletion, and that there are a lot of negative, anti-wiki aspects to the page -- despite its seeming necessity. Personally, I don't like the idea of an ad-hoc "make it so" deletion squad, and don't feel it's appropriate that the page itself has people listed near the top who can be called upon to push a vote over the edge it it's close. I decided not to join in the mini edit war over removing the message, but I may still offer my two cents. For more on my feelings on the whole issue, see deletionism, inclusionism, and especially this post I made on the mailing list. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, with the exception of your position on the list at the top of VfD, which is of course why you wrote me any of this to begin with ;). In my opinion avoiding debate and involvement of those who would clearly like to be involved (myself, and presumably Anjouli and Lir) is not the optimal way to build a concensus. It is of course, an easier way, but not one which I agree with. I have had VfD on my watchlist ever since I missed out on taking part in a vote for a page that ment alot to me, and which was deleted before I could become very much involved in the decision (see Talk:AKFD/redirect if you are interested). Whilst I can't say I am a deletionist or a inclusionist, an eventualist or an "imediatist", I would like to think I am a healthy combination of the above, and that my opinions are worthwhile, perhaps even necessary, particularly during a close vote. I have detected a certain elitist atmosphere at the wikipedia where some feel they and their vote (or opinion, etc...) are more equal than those of others, and that the opinions of some are not needed at all ;) It is my heartfelt opinion that I bring something of value and balance, and my intent to bring it as often as possible :D Jack 03:20, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. As you wrote, I have detected a certain elitist atmosphere at the wikipedia where some feel they and their vote (or opinion, etc...) are more equal than those of others, and that the opinions of some are not needed at all ;) I want to say that I'm sorry if what I said above sounded elitist, and I do wish to be clear that I don't in any way feel that your opinions or contributions are less important than anyone else's. I'm addressing what seems to me to be a completely different issue. I'm opposed to what I see as a group of people (and it doesn't matter to me who is part of that group) that's called upon to delete articles in case of a close vote. I might feel differently if those listed were listed "to solicit our opinions/votes" or something of that sort. But I can't get away from the feeling that it would function as a sort of "hit squad" in case of close votes. I hope this is a bit more clear than what I wrote earlier.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:39, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm afraid you may have taken me the wrong way. I didn't at any time mean to suggest that you were intending to exclude me from voting, or that you are elitist, etc... I was actually refering to a comment that you didn't make (at least I don't think it was you!) that I saw soon after beginning editing at the wiki, (and which I don't have a link to, etc...) which essentially complained about new users voting, and the potential for them to be trolls ( I believe they were suspicious that this new user was some fellow named "micheal" in disguise). Anyways, its not really worth focusing much on that. My primary point is that I want to be on the search and rescue team, not the hit squad ;) I have almost never voted to delete, actually. I guess I am kinda a inclusionist, but some things (lists for example) annoy me, so I'm certainly not a purist inclusionist, whatever that means! Jack 03:57, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What would be the 'Very' best is if everyone were notifyed when a page were about to be deleted, so that they could vote if they felt a need. I just don't like the idea of pages on the fast track to deletion, w somebodies hard work and going to waste. Jack 04:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Aha! I didn't (of course) make the comment you're referring to, but I do remember it. Thanks for the explanation and the clarification. BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lir (again)

Mediator's note: please be specific. Nearly all the following is generalities, like it's hard dealing with him, makes mistakes or puts in silly/irrelevant stuff. It would help if you gave specific examples of edits. Preferably, a diff (like [1]) so I can just click on link and see exactly what you're talking about. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find Lir impossible to deal with, and my impression is that this is a common experience. Meanwhile, although I haven't made a conscientious study of Lir's edits, among the ones I've seen I haven't regarded any of them as having improved the articles that Lir made them to. On the science pages I watch (e.g. Nervous system and DNA), Lir's edits sometimes create mistakes of fact where there were none before, and I have only seen Lir refuse to accept evidence that they are mistakes. I have read several other users on the talk pages comment angrily about the same phenomenon. I suggest Lir be banned. If Lir is not banned, I would be grateful if someone would explain to me what a user has to do to be banned. 168... 20:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I second that. On an old mailing list post, I found someone speaking of Lir's "Grolier-funded job of sabotaging Wikipedia". While there may be no evidence for this specific theory, it is precisely the impression I get - he is subtly trying to devalue Wikipedia while just staying below the level of blatant vandalism, always maintaining some "plausible deniability". But he frequently changes a good formulation in an article for a worse one, adds his silly punctuation which he knows is wrong, and starts reverting when someone else corrects his mistakes. I don't believe he is in fact the moron he presents himself as (e.g. on his user page, with the self-contradictory lists of heroes and people he supports etc.) - he is doing it deliberately. But he should be banned either way, we need neither morons nor trolls. --Wik 19:55, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] The main problem with Lir is not so much the multiplicity of mistakes or the frequent refusal to accept evidence, but the pattern of behavior that has resulted, for example, in the DNA page being Protected for an extended period. This behavior has probably wasted more time of more people than the average vandal. If Lir would agree to desist from re-inserting changes that others have explained are deleterious, then perhaps there would be no need for a ban. Alternatively, if Lir is unwilling to make and keep such a commitment, then it might suffice to prevent him or her from editing specific articles. Is that currently possible? Peak 07:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody,' I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here.168... 18:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Talk:DNA speaks for itself. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The record shows that, like above, Lir does not date posts, which enables Lir to come back four days after a discussion and edit a post to make Lir seem to have discussed a matter more reasonably than Lir actually did. Doing a thing like this makes Lir's behavior difficult to monitor. If Lir is not banned, then a requirement of any probabtion should be that Lir date all posts, so that Lir's conduct can be accurately assessed. Otherwise, there's no point to probabtion; not that I think Lir really deserves probation anyway. 168... 21:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lirath is a deliberate, persistent and malicious saboteur. He should be banned once and for all. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Realistically, "banning once and for all" is not possible on Wikipedia. lifetime bans are only possible within a much more strictly gated community. However, this says nothing about the advisability or otherwise of a temporary ban. Martin 22:36, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In similar form as above, Lir recently insisted on inserting a long list of historical figures into the introductory paragraphs of New Imperialism. It is a rhetorical device which contributes nothing to the discourse and serves primarily to scare off the reader. Despite repeated lengthy explanations on the Talk page, Lir insists on reinserting this list without offering any kind of meaningful counterargument for doing so, offering just a sneering "If you don't like lists, too bad."
Lir appears desperate to be part of this community and will no doubt return in another guise even if he is banned, but he appears incapable of adapting himself to the prevailing social norms here, which are based above all on rational interchange. Lir seems capable of being a constructive contributor if he wants to but all too often descends into meaningless squabbles for what I can only imagine to be an exessive need for attention. I note for example that Lir is listed under eight articles currently or recently listed as protected on Wikipedia:Protected page. All things considered, I think this community would be better off without Lir. -- Viajero 16:53, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In response to a request for mediation, I have come to ask what all the fuss is about. Please be specific. Yes, I know a half dozen users have registered their discontent above, but would you please give examples? A link to a diff would be ideal.

Remember, what we're after is elimination of annoyance. Abraham Lincoln famously said that he "destroyed" enemies, not by killing them, but by turning them into friends. So let's be clear and detailed about what you like and dislike, and I 'll see if I can get Lir to provide more of what you like and less of what you dislike.

Also, this will certainly take more than one day. So while you're being clear, please be patient, too. :-)

(signed)
Uncle Ed
Official Member of the Mediation Committee

I took the generalized approach you complained about very consciously, and I did it fully knowing that the tradition is instead to cite specifics. But the tradition is faulty. It's bad both for Wikipedia's working environment and for the long-term goal of producing a good encyclopedia. Your premise seems to be that I have something I wish to work through with Lir. But I don't. Lir has destroyed my ability to trust him. You could either accept my word that I don't trust him, or you could take the word of a whole lot of other people that they don't trust him. The lack of trust is irrefutable. What this means in my case is that I do not trust that when Lir states an aim or desire for an article it is his true aim or desire, or that his reasons are his true reasons. I believe at least some of the time--and I'm prepared to think that it is most of the time--Lir's aim is simply to instigate for the sake of instigation, perhaps to get attention and seemingly a lot of the time just to cause aggravation. Compromising aims of my own in order to satisfy those kind of aims is something I will not do, and it feels insulting to be asked. So while I would encourage you to mediate Lir into backing off, or to mediate a formal policy and procedure for banning, otherwise I don't see what there is to mediate.168... 21:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is precisely the point I made to Ed in an email this afternoon. I don't think the situation requires "mediation" insofar as Lir makes no real effort to engage in rational discourse. Mediation implies reconciling argument A with argument B. How can one mediate between a rationally presented argument and juvenile obstinance and petulance? Please refer to Talk:New Imperialism for an example of Lir's attitude towards collaboration. It concerns his insistence on the addition of a long, parenthetical paragraph of historical figures in the introductory paragraphs. As can be seen, 172 and I gave our reasons for deleting on the Talk page but Lir obstinately kept reverting [2] without offering any kind of meaningful justification for its inclusion, simply, it would appear, because he did not want to see his contribution removed. Without any kind of substantial counterargument there is nothing to mediate. -- Viajero 23:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Okay, you two. I get it now. I will take a closer look, but please be patient: I'm going offline for the next 3 days :-( --Uncle Ed 20:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 168... proposes a question he thinks makes much more sense, plus a poll

The question is: Does anybody here value what Lir contributes to articles and discussion? 168... 04:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not cast your vote in a poll?

  • Yes! From what I've seen Lir is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia articles and discussions
    • Sam Spade 00:57, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC) (but we all need a large mediation commitee and peer review etc... when there is trouble.)
    • Toby Bartels: I have seen good edits from Lir and bad edits. On the whole (among edits that I've seen), Lir's contributions have been worse than, say, AxelBoldt's and better than, say, [self-censored].
  • No. I don't find Lir's contributions to articles and discussions valuable on the whole
    • 168... 07:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Lir does some excellent work. The problem is that Lir wastes so much more time of other contributors that Lir ends up doing more harm than good. The project would be better off if Lir was gone. Sad and regrettable... but that's the effect of the constant edit warring. Of course, it takes at least two to "play" and Lir is not the only party responsible. Jamesday 06:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think we are at the polling stage yet since I don't think enough people have commented. Also, up till now, polls were used for article content disputes. We should act slowly on extending their application to user conduct disputes. --mav 07:41, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've just refined the question. It's not a vote on a ban, it's an opinion poll about Lir's contributions to Wikipedia (i.e. edits and discussion). There's no rule against doing such a thing, so far as I know. Why shouldn't we? Isn't this exactly the sort of question we should ask ourselves? 168... 07:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just do not think that Step 2 has failed yet. Therefore a poll is premature. --mav

The steps are a work in progress. This kind of poll seems sensible to me, and I don't see why we should inhibit ourselves on a point of procedure when the procedure has been a state of flux and anyway is just a handful of people's best first guess at a procedure. Before any organization or institution has invented a rule for everything, all it can do is to do what seems sensible.168... 17:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of voting on whether Lir does good or bad edits, the people add links to some of his most prominent contributions with quotes and descriptions. I am only familiar with his changes to Saddam Hussein article, and I don't care enough to go through his edit history. Slected examples of his contributions (both good and bad) would be helpful. Paranoid 11:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lir's Grand Statement of the Rhine

  • Are there any complaints besides the fact that I am involved in edit wars? I mean really, most of you are also involved in edit wars. If I am involved in more edit wars, its primarily because I edit more. Furthermore, everybody is not against me; and indeed, this is not a popularity contest. I think its fairly easy to see at Talk:DNA that I more than willing to engage in dialogue over the contents of articles.
    • In any case, User:Jimbo Wales is more than interested to hear of any allegations of inappropriate activity on my behalf. Please feel free to contact him with your complaints, especially if you feel that I am somehow unwilling to address the issues you raise.
I very strongly disagree with the implication that getting into frequent edit wars are a natural expectaion when being a frequent editor. -- Infrogmation 05:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have not made that implication; however, the fact that a frequent editor gets into a number of edit wars is hardly grounds to automatically assume that the editor is a "troublemaker". This page does not contain any assertations that I am antisocial, that I fail to follow rules, that I vandalize, or that I refuse to engage in discussion and mediation. The sole complaint appears to be that when people delete and revert my edits, I refuse to go away.

I assert that people like Adam Carr, Wik, and 168 are part of a "conspiracy" to revert most anything I add to the wikipedia, the fact they openly advocate that below (and on other pages) gives my belief some substance. This constant seeking out of my edits, and reverting of them, is the primary and sole reason that I am in so many edit wars. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir has a point here. Distressingly, there are users that have declared that they will not try to work with lir. So I'm not at all convinced that it's Lir's fault that lir gets into so many edit wars. OTOH, once the edit wars start, I don't think that Lir necessarily handles them well. In that respect, mav has good advice below. It can be hard to work with other people, especially when they're unreasonable, but continued reversion is almost always less productive. (And hey, that goes for both sides in any edit war!) -- Toby Bartels 03:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think thats a brilliant point Toby. If someone is unable to edit functionally with another user, they should either avoid that user at all costs, discuss the matter with them, or go to wikipedia:conflict resolution. Sam Spade 03:30, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mav's Claim to Edit Supremacy

I edit a lot more than you do Lir. And yet I am not involved in any edit wars at the moment. When I am, it involves just a few reverts and then I try to either work things out or just walk away for a while. It takes at least two people to get into an edit war - you could show some self-restraint by not prolonging revert wars and instead try to find consensus. I'm planning on lobbying for an anti-edit war policy soon largely due to the constant edit wars you, Wik and Reddi get into. Edit wars just don't happen to people, people make them happen. --mav

That's nice mav, this isn't a "who edits more" contest either -- I do not believe you make anywhere near as many edits to issues about economics, politics, and/or religion; and when you do make such edits, they do not tend to be in the form of complete paragraphs and sections. As you can see at New Imperialism, I am showing a great deal of self-restraint by not reverting Wik's revert. I have asked you to mediate and/or protect the page. Please refrain from disparaging criticism of me, when I am exactly following your "advice". Lirath Q. Pynnor

The fact that you are involved in so many edit wars is a serious issue in itself. If you really did consistently show self-restraint by editing while following NPOV and our Wikiquette policy and resolving disputes by using our conflict resolution framework, then this would not be the case. But instead you are still involved in many edit wars that tend to sap the energy of many different people. --mav

As I have noted, I have followed the conflict resolution framework exactly; you have let down your part of the responsibility -- as a sysop it is your job to protect pages at which there are edit wars. You are failing to do your job, edit wars are the result. I have seen you in edit wars mav, please do not pretend that you are somehow above them. In the edit wars in which I am involved, nobody has mentioned POV -- I am apparently following NPOV. Furthermore, I am following Wikiquette -- it is you who makes personal attacks that so-and-so is a troublemaker. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Which is exactly what a troll won't do. They will not compromise, or listen to reason, but focus rather on flamming (calling other people trolls, for example). From what I understand of the concept of trolling, it's not a person who happens to aggresively champion a POV, or have an alternate interpretation of whats best for an article. Strong sentiment is not a bad thing. Were all a bit of a troll, in some small way or another, whenever we dislike someone, or do something theoretically disturbing. Whats important is that we compromise where neccessary, and resort to references and arbitration (always trying to follow wiki-Rules) rather than name calling and hatefullness when we attempt to handle these situations we happen to have some feelings about. Many trolls are simply vandals. But from what I understand, a troll is someone who fights over something they do not care about. They are rather interested in harassing a certain user, or upsetting others. Jack 03:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have no obligation to do any favors to a person who likes to attack me. There are about 150 other Admins that can protect a page for you after you list it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. But don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to respond because many of them know that that will be an essentially useless step due to the fact that edit wars you are involved in tend to resurface over and over again. Again, edit wars do not just happen. You have the power to stop edit wars by simply not engaging in them. Yet you are constantly in them. Sorry if I draw the conclusion that you are a troublemaker when you are surrounded by trouble. Perhaps trouble magnet would be a better term. --mav
So long as we are clear that you have no desire to protect pages or enable mediation, Lirath Q. Pynnor
Not for you because that has proven to be useless. Other Admins may disagree and act on your behalf, but I don't see anybody queuing up for that. --mav
Lir, do you think that was mav's point, or is your reply sarcasm or a dig? I'm trying to understand. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mav's point appears to be that I should not do anything when someone like Wik reverts my text. My point is that since Mav isn't willing to do anything, and since I believe my text is valid -- I am left with little choice but allow all my text to be reverted...or revert the reverts. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Perhaps you should stop and ask yourself if your edit really is "valid". It seems to me you get into edit wars simply because you refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong. -- Viajero 22:48, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Viajero Argues that Lir Is a Chronic Delinquent

Newcomers to Wikipedia should note that since his joining Wikipedia (Fall 2002) Lir (Adam Rinkleff) has been the source of an endless number of conflicts, as can be seen by perusing the mailing list archives [3]. Adam was banned in November 2002 and subsequently resurfaced under various accounts (Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, Dietary Fiber, Pizza Puzzle). The same problems Lir is causing now he was causing more than a year ago.
After a protracted negotiation with Jimbo, Lir was readmitted to the community in September [4]. By all appearances, Lir was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to start over with a clean slate. Despite this generous reprieve, Lir has fallen back into his old habits.
Over the past couple of days, Lir has once again embarked upon an edit war over the article New Imperialism. If you look at the page history [5] you will see that Adam has been involved in protracted edit wars over this article for more than a year: in January as Vera Cruz, this past summer as Pizza Puzzle, and now more recently as Lir. Users 172 (the original author of the article), Wenteng, Snoyes, Wik, Pakaran, and myself have all questioned the wisdom of including the paragraph Lir insists upon; no one has risen to Lir's defense. His response was an authoritarian "it will be reverted and replaced".
By now it is obvious that Lir does more harm than good to Wikipedia and time devoted to dealing with him is time taken away from more constructive activities. Why does this community continue to tolerate him? -- Viajero 17:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, 172 does not object to the paragraph -- I have explicitly informed him of it, and he has replied to my statement with what was apparently acceptance. As for Pakaran, he has recently reverted the article so that it will include the paragraph in question. Lirath Q. Pynnor
This is a ridiculous assertion! 172 edited this paragraph out as far back as 1 August 2003 [6]. Moreover, he made abundantly clear on the Talk page his opposition to it. -- Viajero 18:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its ridiculous to refer to things as ridiculous. I have explicitly asked 172 about the paragraph, his response is here: [7]. He appears to accept the paragraph, now that I have removed it from the opening section. He has certainly not removed it since I put it in the new location. It should also be noted that 172 was reverting User:Pizza Puzzle's earlier version of the paragraph, there is a subtle difference. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 says nothing about that paragraph in that comment. He speaks of "good work" in general, presumably he is referring to some edits you did on Privatization. Ok, the paragraph from the 1 August edit is not exactly the same list of names, but is equally inappropriate. BTW, are you implying that Pizza Puzzle is not you? -- Viajero 19:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172 knows the paragraph is there. He hasn't reverted it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It is not there because over the past month I (and others) have kept reverting your puerile efforts to include it. -- Viajero 22:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. You are not helping your case by being so degrading towards me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Jack and Rick Debate

Lir is not the problem. The problem is as Lir says, the lack of authrority to determine what is appropriate in an article or no. Until that process is made available (I believe it is now in its beta phase) edit wars of attrition are the only option for those in dispute of a given pages vocal majority. Majority rule is not an acceptable way to adjudicate complex matters (non-vandalism) of content disputes. Lir is not a troll, IMO. The wikiprocess is flawed, and appears to be on the mend. Don't take your frustrations out on lir. Create an acceptable content arbitration process for him to appeal to when the mob turns against him. Jack 03:31, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes when everybody is against you, it may just be because you are wrong. RickK 03:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And sometimes not. The majority has no exclusive right to the truth. Jack 20:57, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Carr Speaks of Controversy

As is well-known to most people who edit on controversial topics, Lir is a deliberate, persistent and malicious vandal, not in the crude sense of the word (someone who blanks pages or writes rude words), but in a more insidious sense, in that he constantly and deliberately edits in a provocative and POV way so as to start edit wars, which he then prolongs as long as possible. I can only assume that he gets some kind of thrill from making himself the centre of controversy, as a firebug does from arson. In that sense I am opposed to this discussion, because it just feeds his egotism by making him once again the centre of discussion. I suppose it is futile to ban him since he will always find a way to sneak back under another name, so I guess he should just be ignored as far as possible. His malicious edits should be reverted without giving him the satisfaction of arguing with him. Adam 03:52, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can endorse the tactic of ignoring Lir heartily and without reservation. My quality of life has improved vastly, plus my mere existence now seems to make Lir fume, which has restored my faith that there is some justice in the world. Revert and ignore, I say, it's the only way.168... 04:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The notion that someone on the wikipedia should simply be ignored (without being banned) is both untenable and foolish. This kind of nonsense is what turns community into a divided, divicive place to kill time. The problem is incivility - and this raises the quesion: who is to blame for this problem (incivility)? 168, Wik, Adam, all want to point the finger at Lir, not specifically for peing rude and petulant, but for being wrong, and amateurish in his edits. By sticking to incorrect assumptions or foolish cliams, Lir will naturally make himself enemies among academics who know the correct answers. Lir is indeed to blame for not taking education well. But Lir is not to blame for harming the atmosphere of civility. Rather, it is those who seek to bully him, rather than reason with him through proper channels -- the mailing lists, the new BBS, etc. that in fact provoke Lir. While respected authorities may come to Wikipedia as a place where they imagine that their authorities in certain areas will be respected, the often miss the essential element of Wikipedia's openness. These people often fall prey to the meta:Academic standards disease, and soonafter join the list of Missing Wikipedians. True, Lir does have some accountability to the community for his assertions and tactics. But we know very well that banning him and people like him is not the solution. In fact, Lir (Adam) has taken a sharp rise in both his behaviour and the quality of his editing, since he asked to be unbanned and rejoined. Openness means that we will entertain (in one fashion or another) the edits of third-graders, just as much as we do those of twentieth-graders. 168, Adam, and other's interactions with Lir, AFAICT - have been improper, and have no doubt inflamed the particular situations in question. Respectfully, -戴&#30505sv 21:05, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I don't believe you have read the discussions I have had with Lir prior to my decision to ignore him. I think you are just lumping me into what you have decided, for simplicity, is a single phenomenon. I don't appreciate this one bit. You are assuming bad faith of me, e.g. that I have this "academic syndrome." Your obvious willingness to generalize makes me question the other impressions you give us of Lir. Do any of them come from personal attempts by yourself to reach a resolution with Lir? I don't engage in discussion with Lir because he does not act in a way I find civil and because he strikes me as someone who has another goal than to reach resolutions through reasoned dialogue. If you can point us to examples of nice discussions wherein Lir has resolved his disagreements with others, that would be very interesting. But your overall portrait doesn't square at all with what I've seen of him. 168... 21:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • It has been argued that I am "easily offended". I do indeed take offense at the notion that my edits are amateurish, foolish, and incorrect. I welcome you to discuss any issue you may have with my edits. I particularly take offense when these claims are not substantiated by any evidence; I feel much of the complaints about me are simply based off hearsay.
    • I am currently in an "edit debate" at New Imperialism over whether the "New Imperialism" has a noteworthy relationship with the Long Depression, World War I, and the Second Industrial Revolution. I am likewise being "troublesome" at DNA by insisting that a significant portion of the English-speaking community refers to DNA as the "genetic code of life" -- note, I am not personally advocating that DNA is such a code, I am merely trying to report that the phrase is used.
    • I am more than curious to know what is so provocative about my edits, In short, I think I take my education very seriously.
    • Stevertigo has stated that it is people such as Mr. Carr, Wik, and 168 who "provoke" me. This raises the question -- what do I do when I am provoked? As we all know, the most I tend to do is revert a revert; and I don't even always do that.

So, now Lir comes across polite and serious:

I welcome you to discuss any issue you may have with my edits.

What a joke! During the past month of trying to discuss with him the inappropriate text he has being trying to insert in New Imperialism for at least six months, his customary way of responding with sneers like: If you don't like lists, too bad." and the profoundly intelligent: "Time to revert!" Only after a month of these silly games, does Lir suddenly decide to act serious, perhaps because the "heat is on" -- a community effort is finally underway to ban him once and for all. Actually, Steve, I think you have it backwards: lots of users make "amateurish edits"; it is Lir's rude and petulant behaviour that is the fundamental problem. -- Viajero 22:16, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe the fact that you have to go back a month, and all you can find is that when I reverted your revert -- I said "time to revert!"; well, that kinda indicates that I'm not overly rude. In contrast, nearly every comment u make about me involves some kind of personal attack.
    • As for the lists issue; indeed, if you don't like lists -- that is too bad. Lists are part of what we do here at the wikipedia.
    • I really don't see how my reverting of your reverts, is worse than your reverting of my additions. Especially since it would seem that you agree that my addition was factually accurate.
    • Lirath Q. Pynnor

As I made repeatedly clear on the Talk page, I have nothing against lists. However, yours does not belong where you insist on putting it. Also, stop trying to shift the parameters of the debate. Neither I nor anyone else ever questioned the "factual accuracy" of that paragraph; that is not the issue. As for your manners, the record stands for itself; interested parties are referred to the Talk page and the Page history. -- Viajero 02:29, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There you go with another personal attack, Im not merely disagreeing with you: I'm trying to shift the parameters of the debate. You have provided no reasons for why you feel the article would not benefit from the inclusion of some factual data about the event in question. Lirath Q. Pynnor

That is very convenient: you dismiss every form of criticism as a "personal attack". If you can't tell the difference between the two, then I give up. I have expended considerable effort explaining why the paragraph is inappropriate. If this isn't clear to you, then I give up. If you won't accept criticism, that means you can't work with other people, and you have no business in this collaborative environment. Wik is right: you are "either a moron or a troll" and I give up trying to reason with you. From now on it is revert-and-ignore. The sooner you get permanently banned the better for this community. I look forward to that day. -- Viajero 11:46, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do not dismiss every form of criticism as a personal attack; for instance, were you to say, "I do not understand why Lir believes the Filipino-American War has anything to do with the New Imperialism.", I would not feel slighted. However, when instead of discussing your issue with me, you prefer instead to say things like, "Lir can't work with other people", "Lir tries to shift the parameters of the debate", and "Lir plays silly games" -- of course I feel you make personal attacks. You do, you know you do; as you stated in the previous paragraph, "I am a moron or a troll" -- do you honestly expect to make progress when you can't even be civil towards me? ~~

[edit] Lir calls people attackers

Indead, as Mr. Carr has noted; the topics in question are controversial -- thus arguments occur. I am sure the reader will not be hard pressed to understand why compromise and peace are difficult to achieve -- as Mr. Carr's personal attacks speak for themselves. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I make no personal attacks, since I know nothing about you personally. I only describe what I observe, and make some attempt at understanding your behaviour. If you dispute my amateur psychoanalysis, give us an alternative explanation for your behaviour. (And it's Dr Carr, by the way) Adam 04:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course you make personal attacks, you just finished describing me as a malicious vandal; comparing me to an arsonist. That was a disparaging comment Mr. Carr. Lirath Q. Pynnor

No, a personal attack is when I insinuate that you have sexual relations with your mother. Describing you as a malicious vandal is merely a statement of fact. Adam 04:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack, no matter how factual and true you believe your claim to be.Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Lir just can't avoid edit and revert wars

Gee, Lir is now involved in an edit war on the Wikipedia:Conflicts between users page itself. RickK 05:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Along with whom else? I see a tendency to always blame one side in an edit war as wrong, and the other side as right. That’s very POV, picking favorites. IMO edit wars themselves are a byproduct of to lack of content arbitration here. Maybe m:Wikipedia needs editors has some ideas. But popularity contests and the pecking order mentality of banning the eminently personable Lir for a community problem... its unconscionably POV ;) Jack 05:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jack, there are always two parties needed to engage in an edit war. What is also noticeable is that it always seems to be the same people who engage in edit wars with Lir. - snoyes 06:12, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • If further evidence were needed for the proposition that Lir is a malicious vandal who should be banned, the stupid revert war over this page should provide it. Adam 05:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It is your POV that lots of people have a complaint about my actions. Lirath Q. Pynnor
You seem to be suggesting that there must be something wrong about my conduct because I, for example, keep getting into edit wars with Lir. That doesn't surprise me. It goes with the idyllic and unrealistic ideology that makes it impossible to ever get rid of people like Lir. Why is it so hard to imagine that somebody could be hanging around here to get some kind of stimulation that comes at the expense of others? Content arbitration makes sense in matters of taste. But Lir isn't offer his personal taste as the reason for his edits, he offers seemingly objective reasons as if he is willing to let reason and good sense decide a matter, and then shows himself incapable of discussing anything reasonably to the point of resolution. I personally "get into wars" with Lir because 1) Lir messes with pages I care about 2) because from bitter experience I know there's no point discussing things with him and 3) because Lir gets his way by frustrating people, and I do not think that's a behavior that should be encouraged by allowing it to succeed. Content schmontent.168... 07:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your arguments that I am incapable of discussion. As you can see at Talk:DNA, I have been discussing the issue with several people -- while we still disagree on points, we have been making progress. You, who were part of the edit war, you adamantly and repeatedly refuse to discuss the issue.

Snoyes: Would you mind answering my question of the day for yourself personally and for the record. Do you want Lir to be able to say around here for what Lir has to contribute to Wikipedia?168... 07:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I admit this is just a hunch, but my guess is that Snoyes minds answering because he would rather not say that the only reason he supports Lir is on a point of procedure, and not because he doesn't mind Lir's contributions as much as many other people. I think it makes no sense to defend Lir on a point of what are tentative, makeshift and often unenforced principles that were not actually decided by the consensus of everybody and which have a history of often making it hard to achieve the number one goal of producing good articles. Not to mention that laissez faire allows the environment to be made unpleasant by people no one actually seems to want around, who involve themselves without restriction in whatever collective work of ours they want, and toward whom no efforts of rehabilitation are being directed. 168... 18:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is the wrong question. I have never seen any evidence that Lir wants to "contribute" anything. I think the sole reason he comes to Wikipedia is to start fights and draw attention to himself. Adam 12:35, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think I definitely see where you're coming from, but I think you misunderstand what I intended to convey by "contribution." I mean both edits and discussion. You're wrong if you think he never edits articles. It's that behavior which brings me into contact with him. He'd have nothing to revert if he didn't make an edit first.168... 18:01, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lir: Grolier-funded? Maybe not, but...

Wik posted this in an ealier discussion of Lir and I am reposting it here because I found it an accurate assessment. -- Viajero 23:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On an old mailing list post, I found someone speaking of Lir's "Grolier-funded job of sabotaging Wikipedia". While there may be no evidence for this specific theory, it is precisely the impression I get - he is subtly trying to devalue Wikipedia while just staying below the level of blatant vandalism, always maintaining some "plausible deniability". But he frequently changes a good formulation in an article for a worse one, adds his silly punctuation which he knows is wrong, and starts reverting when someone else corrects his mistakes. I don't believe he is in fact the moron he presents himself as (e.g. on his user page, with the self-contradictory lists of heroes and people he supports etc.) - he is doing it deliberately. But he should be banned either way, we need neither morons nor trolls. --Wik 19:55, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks, you are not furthering your position by attempting to degrade me. Lirath Q. Pynnor


Who or what is Grolier? Can we pay them to take Lir away? Adam 00:00, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is an American encyclopedia. -- Viajero 00:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DNA is the genetic code of life

[edit] A lesson in endless dialogue with Lir

(This is culled from Talk:DNA. I think it represents the complete dialogue on this subject, so where you see no answer from Lir, that's because he didn't answer. Lir doesn't date his posts, but other people do, and I suggest you note how much time passes with no resolution ever being reached. This extract also contains me reaching my decision not to discuss things with Lir. Here it is, for your reading pleasure: 168... 02:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC))


Version J:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the chief chemical component of chromosomes and is the material of which genes are made. It is sometimes called the "molecule of heredity," because parents transmit copied portions of their own DNA to offspring during reproduction, and because they propagate their traits by doing so. This transmission of DNA is the primary mechanism of biological inheritance.

I am not saying this is perfect, but it does introduce the idea of DNA being the "molecule of heredity", a phrase which is used later in the article. My suggestion is that we use this Talk page constructively to attempt to devise a formulation that is better than J, Q and Z. Peak 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who refers to it as the "molecule of heredity"? I think if a user makes edits, and you don't like them; YOU need to go to the talk page, instead of reverting. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Who?These people 168... 06:28, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so if I find a list of people who refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life"; does that mean I can include it too? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Of course, so long as they are reliable people. 168... 06:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well there you go: [8] [9] [Chronological note: Lir switched to this second link some time after 168...'s reply.]

On a quick skim, I didn't see any reliable sources for your assertion. Only one I saw was academic. None used the word DNA in close connection with the phrase as you propose to do. 168... 06:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, your quick skim isn't exactly appropriate. Please do not waste my time arguing with me, if you can't be bothered to act appropriately. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Just pick your favorite piece of evidence and I will be happy to take a careful look at it. I was just telling you that from skimming I don't expect that you'll be able to find even a single piece of evidence that I regard as good. But I would encourage you to try and then to show it to us.168... 15:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[Peak:] Lest my silence be misinterpreted, please note that I remain in agreement with 168... on every point. For those who don't see the point about the phrase "genetic code", please see the Wiki article at genetic code. Some consideration should be given to 168...'s evident expertise and superlative track record. Peak 09:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


T4 is just begging for that common quote, "DNA is the genetic code of life". (Lir)

Fortunately, it's not so common: Google gives 4 hits. "DNA is the secret of life" has 45 hits :-) Perhaps you or someone else would like to make use of this formulation:
Each gene, a segment of DNA, encodes the instructions for building a single protein.
Peak 07:56, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


You haven't looked very hard. lots of hits (Lir)

Could you give us a specific piece of evidence to look at?
[Peak:] Lir - As has already been emphasized, the phrase "genetic code of life" is perfectly valid, and there is a fine Wiki article on the genetic code, so your query is totally irrelevant. Once the fog lifts, perhaps you will be able to tell us whether or not the confusion here is the result of confusion about the difference between the noun "code" and the verb "encode". Peak 17:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I sense a total difference of writing philosophy lurking behind the paragraph suggestions that descend from Lir's early revision and paragraphs similar to the one that's up and protected right now. This potential difference in philosophy makes me worry that the intro paragraph is only the beginning, and that I am going to be asked to sign on to a complete recasting of every paragraph from the top to the bottom of this article. I think this article as it stands now carries just the right tone, has clear and engaging explanations, and embodies more or less exactly the philosophy that I would like it to. I suppose it's no suprise and not persuasive that I should feel this way, because this article has my fingerprints all over it. Yet despite being one of the most highly viewed pages on Wikipedia (according to a list I saw somewhere on the site), it has been stable for a long time. It's very tempting to make one's mark on an article about an important subject, and lots of people know what DNA is and so could indulge their desire to give in to temptation. I think the fact that it's remained more less unchanged for a long time shows that the vast majority of a large number of people must have found this article at the very least acceptable. It's even listed as Wikipedia: Brilliant prose, for whatever that's worth. So I would like to ask Lir in particular and anybody else who would care to chime in: Can you predict what your long-range approach to this article is likely to be? What do you think of it as it stands now overall, in particular with regard to its structure and tone? Do you expect to be pretty close to being satisfied after some changes are made to the intro? Or do you think the whole article needs a lot of work?168... 23:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Also, my ability to assume good faith wanes as Lir continues to ignore my efforts to pursue a discussion to a conclusion. Lir ignored my first request for a specific piece of evidence for "DNA is the genetic code of life" for days and has not yet responded to my recent repeat of the request, which I made after it became clear that Lir did not consider the matter resolved. Are we dealing with someone who can conduct a reasonable conversation or aren't we? 168... 06:29, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are two links to evidence that DNA is sometimes referred to as the "genetic code of life"; those links are found on this page, and are marked as such. I would probably edit "carrying" to "which carries"; but I doubt that is a serious issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, you have not answered my question. I must now assume bad faith, or at least that you have different goals for discussion than I do. I will not be discussing anything further with you.168... 14:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have answered your question no less than three times. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir, could you please post links to the edits where 168's question is answered? Thanks, Cyan 23:15, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
=="Genetic Code of Life"==

[Peak:] Google gives six hits for "DNA is the genetic code of life":

  1. ) Talk:DNA (yes, this page is indexed!)
  2. ) Two occurrences in a James D. Watson biography by someone who goes by the name of "Bryan R."
  3. ) One is an article on a French website. They can perhaps be forgiven for their Franglais.
  4. ) Kent School District
  5. ) www.roche-hiv.com - I guess their expertise would be in drugs and HIV.

Excluding Talk:DNA, that makes 4 independent occurrences. This is hardly overwhelming evidence for DNA having a common nickname as you state, especially given these Google counts:

  • "DNA: the secret of life" = 8,140
  • "DNA is the secret of life" = 54
  • "science is a waste of time" = 44
  • "scientists are fools" = 36
  • "all scientists are liars" = 12
  • "Elvis lives" = 17,300

In any case, even if there were 17,300 occurrences, that would not justify repeating the mistake on Wikipedia, as has been explained before. Or are you proposing that we say: "also sometimes erroneously nicknamed 'the genetic code of life'"?

By the way, what's wrong with my proposal for including "genetic code"? You can tack on "of life" so far as I'm concerned. Peak 05:41, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Im glad you are speaking to me again.
[Peak:] It was 168... who stopped responding to you.
This is the third or fourth time which I have posted this link: [10]. You will find here ~187 examples of websites which refer to DNA as the "genetic code of life"
[Peak:] And for the umpteenth time, your Google search picks up occurrences such as the following one, which occurs on the first page returned by Google:
DNA holds the "key" to protein synthesis, the genetic code for life.
That is, it picks up co-occurrences of "DNA" and "genetic code".

-- this is not all of the websites which do so, this is just a group which I have selected. I have no idea why you are having so much trouble finding more links on google.

[Peak:] When I write a Google search as "xyzzy is foo bar", the quotation marks are included so that articles with the exact phrase are selected.
    • Judging from your above comments, we should also add that DNA is described as the "secret of life".
[Peak:] I think that part of the problem here may be that you are confusing DESCRIPTIONS with NAMEs (whether NICK or not).

Furthermore, please understand that it is your POV that DNA is erroneously known as the "genetic code of life".

Again you are missing the main point: the Wikipedia article on genetic code. There is no point introducing inconsistency within Wikipedia when none is called for. (By the way, are you saying that if person P acknowledges fact F, that thereby the truth status of F is reduced to a POV?)

Frankly, I agree with you -- I don't like nicknames. However, the nickname is used, and we will report that it is used. Your proposal is unacceptable because it first off defines DNA as the genetic code of life;

[Peak:]I think you miswrote the preceding sentence. In any case, permit me to remind you thatt my proposal mentions the phrase "genetic code" BEFORE the phrase "molecule of heredity".

and secondly, fails to note that some people (besides wikipedia) do refer to it as such. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[Peak:] The preamble should be short. If you want to mention all the synonyms, nicknames, characterizations and mischaracterizations that have ever been made, that should be done in a subsequent section.Peak 06:57, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Note: Lir attempted to replace Peak's comments above with the following paraphrase, which I consider tantamount to censorship168... 02:06, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Peak wrote a bunch of stuff interspersed with the above comments, [4]The gist of it was that not all of the links described DNA as the genetic code of life; however, I must clarify that many of the links do. If I find an article from a government certified school or a public broadcasting station (within the list that Peak so quickly discards), that describes it as such -- will that be sufficient? What if I find two or three? How many will it take? What if I find a celebrity who refers to it that way, is that good enough? Peak also suggested that the nicknames should be in a seperate section, since I can currently only think of three nicknames (or illustrative descriptions, if one will) -- it seems they can all fit within one single sentence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Example 2: A first encounter with Lir

(Culled from Talk:DNA, the beginnings of a discussion about two versions of the same intro paragraph. One is my proposed compromise, based on a version that was up for months, and the other is a much changed version created by Lir.)

Version Q:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the basic biochemical component of chromosomes. This nucleic acid is the primary mechanism of genetic inheritance; it is transmitted to offspring, via reproduction.

Version Z:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the chief chemical component of chromosomes and is the material of which genes are made. Parent organisms transmit copied portions of their DNA to offspring during reproduction. This transmission is the primary mechanism of biological inheritance.

What are the reasons for prefering one version over the other? Start discussing here. -- Cyan 03:28, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...

I think I'm probably mostly responsible for version Z, and as can probably be deduced from the page history I prefer this version over Q. In general, I favor succinctness, but not with these two choices. I don't like Q's use of the semi-colon, which I think makes for a clunky and hard-to-read sentence. Re: your point #2, "gene" has many meanings, but in what I think must be the primary molecular biological sense of the word, a gene is a piece of DNA. Hence, DNA is the material of which genes are made. Because "gene" is a culturally important word, and because many people have only a weak mastery of, and because I think to speak of genes being made of a material is cool and provocative and instructive, I like seeing this idea expressed explicitly. Q's construction, "component of chromosomes and genes", doesn't express it explicitly. Z's construction does and, although it's longer than Q's, I think it reads even better; partly for being less abstract and partly for being less dense.168... 04:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As an editor, you have certain responsibilities. That means, if you don't like my use of the semi-colon...then you edit my semi-colon. A semi-colon is not grounds for reversion. The same goes for whether one says "made of" or "composed of". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Absolutely, he reverted my text and then his criticism amounted to "I don't like the semi-colon". He never tried to edit my text, which is what the wiki is about -- editing, not deleting. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Somebody is misinterpreting the sentence in question, not mention ignoring all the others.168... 05:33, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The rest of your sentence argued against one portion of one sentence ("component of chromosomes and genes"). Your point there was that you preferred "made of" over "composed of" -- which was the same sort of issue. You could easily have edited my paragraph and changed those two points, instead you chose to revert. I'm sure if you had raised these points instead of reverting, I wouldn't have pointed out your responsibility to edit things, rather than merely reverting what you feel isn't good enough. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Suspected bad faith on a talk page

On Talk:Citric acid cycle, Lir stated that he was in possession of a text, published in 2003, that refers to the citric acid cycle by its old name, the Krebs cycle. On that page, he ignored two requests by Lexor for the reference, and refused one request.

Recently, I have been in email contact with Lir, and in the course of that correspondence, I have twice requested the same reference. The first time I was ignored; the second time, refused.

I conjecture that Lir is not in possession of the text, as he claimed; to be blunt, I suspect he lied. However, I could be wrong; I urge Lir to lay my suspiscions to rest by providing the reference, as requested.

As Lir has noted, he edits articles about economics, politics, and/or religion - this was the reason he gave for being in more edit wars than mav. Given that Lir is and has been involved in a fairly large number of edit wars and discussions on protected pages, I find this evidence of bad faith (i.e. Lir's refusal to give a reference to a text he claims to possess) to be a serious cause for concern. -- Cyan 16:26, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • *rolls eyes* Ill happily supply the name of the text, if that means that Cyan is banned; otherwise, its none of your business what Im reading. Just because I name a book, doesn't mean our articles should adopt that books nomenclature; as such, I saw no reason to reference the book. There is no where in the wiki rules that states I should have to prove myself innocent of your bullshit accusations that I am a "liar", simply because I don't want to talk to you about my book. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • *picks nose*168... 22:11, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lir, if you give me the name of the text, then after I verify your claim, I will make one post to exonerate you, and I will self-ban. -- Cyan 22:55, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Human Biology: Concepts and Current Issues by Michael D. Johnson -- Second Edition: 2003 ISBN: 0-8053-5098-5 -- p.65-67; its been a pleasure doing business with you. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'm glad it's impossible to verify whether Lir had this book at the time he invited people to take his claim in good faith. It would be a shame to see Cyan go.168... 01:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have the receipt. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Tell us the date on it and then mail the original to Jimbo.168... 01:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will verify my purchase if it means you will promise to leave the Wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The date I said.168... 01:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll only waste my time on that if I can use it to ban you. Otherwise, I have better things to do than verify my shopping habits to you. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Will the receipt have your name on it, and will the date precede your claim to have read it? 168... 02:40, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My search at the Library of Congress website [11] turns up no results for that ISBN; nor does my search at Indigo [12]. Amazon has the book, but under a different ISBN, and published in 2002 [13]. Hmm... this is pretty close. Lir's claim to veracity is certainly more plausible now that I have the reference.

No verification can be absolutely certain; I only require reasonable verification. Lir, if the digital camera with which the picture on User:Lir was taken is still available to you, you could photograph the publication information page of the text, showing the ISBN and the date of publication, and the receipt as well. That would be more than enough verification for me. -- Cyan 03:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Jeeeeezus. First off, I didn't take that picture - I do not own a digital camera. You asked for the title of the book, you have the title -- and still you demand more and more. I don't have time for this nonsense. If you are so interested in verifying the existence of this book, you can call 847-486-2635 and talk to the publishers yourself. Or perhaps you'd rather call the author: 304-293-1514. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It had occurred to me that you might not have access to a digital camera, which is why I wrote, "If [it's] still available to you..." The phrase I used, "more than enough verification", implies that I will be satisfied with less than what I suggested.

On a different subject, the publisher's website gives the required information [14]. I will endeavor to find a copy so that I can verify that it uses "Krebs cycle". At this point, I consider Lir's original claim so plausible that I will not be editing Wikipedia anymore, except to report final verification or lack thereof.

-- Cyan 04:48, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's this companion book that carries the exact title Lir referenced, but it has a different ISBN.168... 05:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lir wrote to me:

"You know, I really do not desire that you leave the wikipedia ...

...So, in short -- by all means continue editing the wikipedia -- but do try to put more effort into a line of thinking which doesn't view me in such a negative manner -- Im very tired of being treated with constant disrespect. I don't want apologies or bannings, I just want to edit articles (without having shit deleted because so and so holds a grudge).

...I don't want you to leave the wikipedia, I just want to stop being constantly treated like some kind of problem user."

With this in mind, I no longer feel bound by my word to withdraw from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, right now I'm trying to concentrate on my Ph.D., and it's so terribly easy to procrastinate on Wikipedia; I'm going to try to limit my time spent here sensibly. -- Cyan 03:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lir's many edit wars

copied here from User talk:Ed Poor

Less that two months into Lir?s new life here, he fell into edit wars. Since that time (early November) he has been involved in edit wars in at least 20 different articles, resulting directly in the imposed protection of at least 15 of them. Six of those protections are currently active. (A rundown is listed below.)

List complied by Kingturtle 03:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edit war and page protection history (more recent listed first):

  • Nervous system: Lir is currently involved with an edit war than began January 1, 2004; the article was protected from January 15 to January 29; the article was placed again under protection on January 30.
  • DNA: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began January 3, 2004; the article was protected from January 15, 2004 to January 22, 2004 due to the edit war, and is now protected again.
  • New Imperialism: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began December 12, 2003; the article is currently protected due to the edit war. The article was previously protected from January 15 to January 29, 2004, and was placed again under protection on February 3.
  • Nucleic acid: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began January 17, 2004; the article is currently protected due to the edit war.
  • Socialism: Lir was involved in an edit war from January 6 to January 7, 2004.
  • 2003 U.S.-Canada Blackout: Lir was involved in an edit war from December 1, 2003 to January 2, 2004; the article is currently protected due to the edit war.
  • Death camp: Lir is currently involved with an edit war that began November 24, 2003; due to the edit war, this article has been protected since January 15, 2004.
  • October 2003: Lir was involved in an edit war from December 7 to December 8, 2003.
  • Extermination camp: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 21 to November 24, 2003.
  • Zyklon B: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 21, 2003.
  • Bush family conspiracy theory: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 19 to November 20, 2003.
  • Johannes Brahms: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 12 to November 14, 2003.
  • Joseph Goebbels: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
  • Anton Chekhov: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
  • Impressionism: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
  • Fyodor Dostoevsky: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 12, 2003.
  • Evolutionary socialism: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 7, 2003.
  • Richard Neustadt: Lir was involved in an edit war from November 1 to November 7, 2003.
  • Second Industrial Revolution: Lir was involved in an edit war on November 7, 2003.
  • Ferdinand Porsche: Lir was involved in an edit war from October 28 to November 9, 2003.
  • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Lir was involved in an edit war on October 20, 2003.


Wik, 168, and Viajero account for pretty much that entire list. Wik alone is at least three-fourths p\of them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Request for clarification

As a person who has not, up until now, been involved with this, I'd appreciate if those users who are unhappy with Lir would please:

  1. summarize what behavior they view as a problem: as far as I can tell it's mainly using wars of attrition rather than mediation process to settle disputes, but maybe there is more? It seems maybe it is also that they just find after time that they do not like this person, which is inconvenient, but certainly not a reason for banning.
  2. cite, here, examples of text passages they consider particularly egregious. I've tried following up a few of the examples in the lists above, and it seems that it's mainly about relatively innocuous passages, nothing worse than bloat, not misinformation. Is this correct?

Conversely, I'd really appreciate if Lir would point to, say, 3 to 5 of what he considers his most significant contributions. With all due respect, fighting hard to keep relative fluff in the wikipedia does not impress me, but maybe there are other things with which I should be impressed?

This is supposed to be about producing an encyclopedia, and I agree that it is possible for a person who makes some positive contributions to nonetheless be a net drain. As in any enterprise, if someone creates a lot of hassle, they'd better be contributing a lot of value. On the other hand, if the worst editorial (as against community) offense is adding a bit of fluff, it's hard to see what the excitement is about. There's a lot of quieter fluff-generators out there.

Jmabel 08:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You bring up some tremendously insightful questions, and I for one respond by seconding your assumptions. IMO this is all based on people disliking lir. The edit wars he has had were (IMO) a result of the power vacuum which result(ed)s from not having a functional option for solving edit disputes when concensus does not occur. While I think fighting over minor issues is best avoided, it is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from a bunch of encyclopedia editors ;) The petty infighting and inability to compromise on the other hand I'd expect to find... elsewhere. It is frankly anti-intellectual, and against the spirit of the wiki. In conclusion, these are community problems, not problems with lir. Sam Spade 12:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My first inclination was to cooperate and try to find my "best" articles, but upon further reflection I must note that it is not my responsibility to prove either my innocence or worth -- in fact, in a traditional court of law, my lawyer would strongly advise me not to try and do this. There is an important reason why even innocent people are advised not to represent or testify on their own behalf.

I make a lot of edits, I have made more than 20,000 edits to the wikipedia -- contrary to some allegations, those edits are not all to the same page (and they are not all minor or "fluff"). I have edited numerous topics on astronomy, biology, cosmology, history, political science, physics, criminal justice, sporting, computer science, mathematics, and technology.

I have been editing the Wikipedia for more than a year, it would really be problematic to sum up my efforts in "3 or 5 of my most significant contributions". My edits vary from myofibril to German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis, from Procedural defense to Military history of the Philippines, from calculus to New Imperialism, from protoplanet to SmarTruck II, from wind winnowing to tanning -- so I suppose I have made a vague effort to comply; however, since I have edited so many thousands of articles...these are just a few -- frankly, the list of topics which I have edited is longer than this sampling of random articles. You can view a list of my first several hundred articles at: [15] (scroll down aways)Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, I am going to try to paraphrase what you just said above, as it sounds from where I'm standing, but I think you are not going to like it. What you seem to be saying to me is, "I don't care if you have an open mind and would be ready to enter this dispute without prejudice. I'm not going to save you any effort by presenting a comprehensible brief for my side of the dispute. Unless you are willing to do a bunch of research [which, by the way, I am not], this is going to look to you like a game of 'he said / she said' (or, in this case 'he said / they said')."
I am not going to go through a bunch of history lists trying to work out what content was yours, what portion of that content was worthwhile, and in particular what portion of that content was disputed. If you are willing to take the time to show me, in one place, several things you have done which are positive contributions to wikipedia, I am liable to try to mediate or even to take up your side in this. Failing that, why should I bother? I see a bunch of generally good contributors who view your approach as a problem. I'd like to be able to judge for myself, but I'm not willing to give a lot of my time to it. Either you can write up the sort of briefing I'm asking for or not. If not, I'm out of this. Not my affair, and I have better things to do with the bulk of my time on this project than try to understand a dispute about one contributor. -- Jmabel 00:34, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course I won't like the above comments. You should adopt a policy of "innocent until proven guilty" -- if you don't want to do the research to decide whether or not I'm bad; then, you should assume I'm not bad. 168 says I am a vandal, intent on destroying the wikipedia -- how do you expect me to prove my innocence? In fact, I tried above to comply and respond to your comments -- I listed more than 5 articles I have worked on, and youre response was, "Either you can write up the sort of briefing I'm asking for or not." -- I think you should earnestly reflect on why lawyers urge their clients not to say anything about a case.
    • I am not a vandal, I am not bad, instead of criticizing me for not providing evidence of my innocence -- you should criticize those who make unsubstantiated claims against me.
    • If you are interested in mediating, I have not been able to obtain mediation at New Imperialism -- despite a year of requesting.

Jmabel, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Lir has edited under other user names in the past, and a good deal of the worthwhile stuff Lir has contributed has been under other names. For example, of what Lir cites above, most of the German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis, SmarTruck II and Military history of the Philippines were written by Lir under the username Vera Cruz. None of those articles seem to have been the subject of any dispute (though I can't personally vouch for them, as they're on subjects I don't know anything about). I should probably add that Lir has, if I remember correctly, also added a fair amount of decent stuff under the Lir user name, but I'm not able to lay my virtual hands upon it at the moment. Hope that helps in some way. --Camembert

You can easily view a list of what I did in October and November of 2002 -- [16]. I have since quit maintaining such a list, it is very time consuming and tiresome to do. According to most of my critics, the "quality" of my edits has since increased. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I assert that there is only a small handful of people who take issue with me. They feel that it is necessary to trump up their claims by stating that "many" people complain about me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

WARNING: Like many others before me (as I have since found out), I gave Lir the benefit of the doubt, only to find that it was not just a tremendous waste of time for me, but for many others as well; worse still, Lir has discovered how to take advantage of Wikipedia's generous policies to create havoc on a large number of Wikipedia articles. It's hard to understand why anyone would go to all the trouble of creating such chaos and distress over a long period of time. Some interesting theories have been proposed. Possibly Lir suffers from an unusual constellation of problems. But whatever the cause, the main problem is that Wikipedia remains vulnerable to Lir's brand of subvandalism. Until someone can attest to Lir's having been cured, perhaps the best is to ignore everything he writes on Talk pages, and to seek help in keeping articles free of any of his edits that don't clearly improve them. Volunteers may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir.

Peak 06:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

I've grown tired of the stuff that's on Talk:Saddam Hussein. We just can't reason with Lir. Since he keeps reverting good stuff and isn't listening to us... WhisperToMe 06:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lol, you haven't even tried to reason. All I am asking for is that there be a one sentence notice, somewhere within the opening paragraph, that refers to the confusion surrounding Hussein's name. Is it too much to ask for? No. Have you made any effort to discuss the issue? No. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'm not going to debate whether or not I am "debating properly" (which I have made an effort to) - You keep insisting on reverting other people's work despite the fact it's so god-damned easy to paste, and that you could just be patient and discuss. We have five+ of us screaming in your ears. You refuse to acknowledge the possibiltity that you are not taking good choices in your actions.

Don't laugh me off. This is your second chance and you are treading on very thin ice. WhisperToMe 09:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whatever dude, maybe if you stopped screaming in my ears -- you would see that it is you who is out of line. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Don't talk about me being "out of line". This is already at the RFA stage. Again, start to worry about yourself. WhisperToMe 21:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lol -- shoo fly, don't bother me. Lirath Q. Pynnor