Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed on January 1, 2005

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint[edit]

Snowspinner blocked Lir for one month, after Lir forgot to log in and used a so-called 'anon IP'. It should be noted that although Lir signed all his 'anon' talkpage edits with User:Lir; Snowspinner attempted to abuse the arbcom parole ruling by arguing that the IP was either someone impersonating Lir...or else, it was Lir evading the parole with a sockpuppet which always signed its edits User:Lir.

Regardless, Snowspinner made no attempt to contact the user behind the IP; he left messages neither on the IP page, nor on Lir's page. He circumvented the dispute resolution process, and despite the lack of vandalism decided to pretend that emergency action was necessary.

Proof that Lir has attempted to resolve this with Snowspinner can be seen in the Wikipedia IRC channel logs, where Snowspinner promptly banned Lir after Lir attempted to discuss the issue. It is obviously pointless to discuss this with Snowspinner now, since he has already made the ban and there is nothing further to discuss (beyond the question of why the arbcom does not discipline sysop abusers). During the dispute, any attempts of Lir to discuss were blocked by Snowspinner's abuse of sysop powers.

For the record, Snowspinner did not ban Lir from the IRC channel. Snowspinner banned the address associated with an unstated sockpuppet of Lir. Lir was masquerading as a third party while in the IRC channel and decidedly NOT openly present as Lir. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:44, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Except, of course, for the fact that she said he was Lir when asked, his profile said Lir, he never said she wasn't Lir, and her IP was a known Lir IP. Dante is just helping Snowspinner make up bogus excuses after the fact. Nobody would accuse jwales of sockpuppetry if he logged into irc, and said, "Jimbo says hi!" Lirath Q. Pynnor
Claim what you like Lir, your continued insistance on using the 3rd person (and usage of multiple gender terms) confuses the issue. You also don't have any idea what my motivations are, kindly stop stating that you do. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I see. you get to talk about my motivations; but I don't get to talk about yours? Hmmm, I smell a cabalian... Yes, Lir's using the third person and refusing to accept the wikipedia's assigned gender is most certainly confusing...at least for you it seems. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I talked about your motivations when exactly? And it is confusing to me.. which is exactly what I stated. Do you have problems understanding my writing? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:01, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you stop trolling, mmk? Lirath Q. Pynnor
I clarified an important issue for the arbitrators and you accuse me of helping Snowspinner making up bogus excuses after the fact and I'm the one trolling? Cute. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:17, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


The arbitration committee is expected to address the question of what to do with the cabal of sysops who repeatedly take turns banning Lir for trivial and made-up offenses. The arbcom is reminded that it has previously sided with Lir in 4 previous unjustified bannings; obviously, action needs to be taken against this cabal.

In addition, the arbcom is asked to reinstate Lir's vote at the 3 RevertRule Vote; which Snowspinner took it upon himself to remove, without attempting to discuss whether it should be removed on the talk page. Snowspinner should also be disciplined for failing to notify anyone that he had removed Lir's vote. Lir would re-insert the edit; however, the arbcom has declared that Lir is to be banned if he re-inserts any edits which Snowspinner removes.

Furthermore, the arbcom is expected to unban Lir from the IRC channel. Members of the arbcom have operator status on said channel, the channel is used by members of the wikipedia, the arbcom itself has a channel there -- claiming that Snowspinner has the right to ban Lir with impunity will not bode well for the arbcom's honor. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I request that the arbcom does take this case to consider reinstating Lir's month ban, as the IP address was not declared on Lir's userpage as the previous arbcom ruling demands. I also request that Lir be given a short ban for these edits, which are a mix of personal attacks and vandalism: [1], [2], and [3], [4]. Snowspinner 23:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I unblocked Lir understanding this ban to relate to the "parole" section of the ruling. I understand now that it relates to the other accounts section. I'm not sure that "other accounts" also refers to non-logged in edits. If it does, I think this needs clarifying. I can see that Lir might also be confused on this point, and would suggest that any ban only be implemented if this happens again once the wording has been clarified (unless this has already been explained to Lir elsewhere of course). I agree with Snowspinner that the edits under that IP (which Lir has confirmed as hers) need looking at -- sannse (talk) 23:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I also unblocked Lir following Snowspinner's block. Snowspinner re-blocked Lir. All this was openly discussed in the IRC channel #wikipedia. I told Snowspinner I would not re-unblock Lir if Snowspinner blocked again. I disagree with Snowspinner's interpretation of the ArbCom ruling, but that does NOT mean that I don't understand his reasoning. I find Snowspinner's reasoning sound (although I don't support his conclusions) and therefore do not consider his actions to constitute abuse, but to fall in the realm of discretion. I said as much at the time in the IRC channel. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
My objection to the IP account is that one of the reasons Lir needs to declare accounts is accountability - so that Lir's edits are transparent, basically, and can be observed. This made it so that it was difficult to track Lir's edits using User Contributions, and thus subverted one of the basic reasons his sockpuppetry was a problem. Snowspinner 23:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I would clarify, for Lir, that the arbcom ruling is that he is not to re-insert any edits that ANY admin removes, so long as those edits are listed as "provacative." I made no such listing regarding Lir's vote. I did, however, object to an IP address voting and then correcting its signature to read as Lir. That was unverifiably Lir, and there is ample precedent against counting IP votes. If Lir wishes to vote again under his account instead of as an anonymous IP, he should do so. Snowspinner 18:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I would clarify, for Snowspinner, that the wikipedia ruling is that he is not to delete other user's votes. The fact that Snowpinner banned me for being Lir, shows that he knew I was Lir (voting as Lir) -- as such, he shouldn't have removed my vote (and he should put it back, I don't have time to waste following Snowspinner around and undoing all of his abuses of authority). Lirath Q. Pynnor
Other than the actions of the IP in signing comments "Lir" I had no way of knowing that the IP was in fact Lir until this point. So I removed an IP vote and I banned the IP for a month. This is in no way a violation of policy - votes not made by logged in users have never counted. Snowspinner 00:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Removing a vote, and making no effort to inform others that you removed it...that is in violation of policy. Likewise, banning IPs for signing as a user is also a violation of policy (except when there is good reason to think the IP isn't that person) -- obviously (from your comments at the time of the banning), you had reason to think the IP was me. You certainly made no effort to find out if the IP was me, and the IP certainly wasn't vandalizing anything -- thus, that is yet another violation of policy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Blocking any account you use that is not declared in your userpage is in no way a violation of policy. Rather, it is in exact compliance with the AC ruling against you. As for the claim that the IP wasn't vandalizing anything, would you like to look at the four edits listed above? Snowspinner 02:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
My IP is not an account. Nobody has ever been banned for forgetting to log in. The above edits are not vandalism; in any case, you didn't see any need to ban me for them when they were made...why wait until you realized that was my IP? Obviously, you have a grudge (didn't I call you a lapdog?) and you are unable to use your powers with responsiblity. Lirath Q. Pynnor
You are not an ordinary user, Lir. You're a user under an arbcom restriction. Pointing to how other users is treated is beside the point. You get to be banned for things that ordinary user doesn't get banned for. And if that includes conveniently forgetting to log in when you vandalize Wikipedia, well, perhaps you shouldn't have gotten yourself to the point where the ruling against you was needed. Snowspinner 04:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
You are not an ordinary sysop, Snowie. You are a sysop who breaks the rules and needs to be under arbcom restriction. I do get to be banned for things that the ordinary user doesn't...just not the things you banned me for. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I think Lir should be disciplined for referring to himself in the 3rd person. In my past attempts to help Lir, I have found him to be uncooperative even (or especially) on petty matters. He wastes our time on technicalities instead of agreeing with our objective of cooperationg to make accurate articles. Make him follow the rules, or keep him off this website. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Lir has to wonder at some of the people on this site... "...[lir] wastes our time on technicalities...make him follow the rules" LoL Ed, I'm sure Lir has found you to be just as uncooperative as you have found her. Lirath Q. Pynnor


Statement by affected party[edit]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)[edit]

  1. Accept. Clearly both parties agree that Snowspinner blocked Lir for a month -- that was either justified or not. If justified, I think it means the Lir problem needs revisiting. If not, then we need to reprimand Snowspinner somehow. Either way, accept. Let's just try to keep the evidence page as evidence, not lengthy diatribes, please? Jwrosenzweig 20:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. Martin 01:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept Fred Bauder 13:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept. James F. (talk) 20:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept --the Epopt 01:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Recuse since I led the effort to get him banned the first time. --mav 07:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)

Principles[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee.

Accepted 8-0

2) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a violation of Wiki-etiquette.

Accepted 8-0

3) In general, anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia.

Accepted 8-0

Findings of Fact[edit]

1) Lir made edits from the IP address User:209.181.211.69 (his comments on the talk page concede this) without declaring it on his userpage.

Accepted 9-0

2) This was a violation of the previous arbitration committee ruling on him - "Lir may edit under the user name Lir and up to three other accounts which shall be clearly identified by him on User:Lir and the user pages of the other accounts he edits under."

Accepted 8-1

3) Since his return following his previous ban, Lir has made numerous intentionally inflammatory and provocative edits.

Accepted 8-0

Remedies[edit]

1) Lir is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.

Accepted 6-3

2) Should Lir make a provocative edit, an administrator may summarily ban him for a period of up to one week, with no prior warning required. Determining what is provocative will be left up to the determination of the banning administrator.

Accepted 6-2

Enforcement[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Snowspinner_vs._Lir&oldid=431111276"