Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister

Case closed

This arbitration involves accusations against User:Irismeister levied by a number of other Wikipedians. Voting on proposals can be found at the bottom of this page, with a summary of the decision, reached on 31 March 2004, at /Decision. For the evidence, see /Evidence.

Rationale for accepting the case

 * I vote we accept The Matter of Irismeister for the purpose of deciding whether exaggerated, aggressive, and persistant advocacy of an eccentric point of view is a violation of Wikpedia practices. And also to consider whether his accusation of libel against User:Theresa knott has any basis in fact and whether raising baseless legal claims against other users is a violation of Wikipedia practices. Fred Bauder 13:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur. Irismeister's comments to Theresa knott are not in accordance with our policy and do not serve the purpose of creating the encyclopedia. --mav 08:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I vote to accept the Irismeister question due to the seriousness of the libel charges. --the Epopt 14:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I vote to accept as well, as this seems to be a recurring issue that ought to be considered. --Delirium 10:24, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Arguments for/against accepting the case
This section has been copied from Requests for arbitration

See Conflicts_between_users and Requests for comment/Irismeister.


 * I would like the arbitration committee to consider banning User:Irismeister. He violates several key wikipedia rules on a daily basis – most seriously NPOV and "No personal attacks".  He is rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising (to newbies and to well respected wikipedians) and he is intimidating other users with threats of legal action.  When he is asked to justify what other users see as POV edits, he launches into long and often incomprehensible rants (which he cross-posts to unrelated wikipedia pages) with the aim of evading simple questions and obfuscating debates.  Simple (and reasonable) requests for sources or further explanation result in references to Stalinist police interrogations, or boasts of his professional reputation (which is disputed).  Due to his inability to discuss issues calmly and clearly, I believe that mediation would be useless, and just give him more time to hound or scare off valuable contributors. - fabiform | talk 14:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC).


 * I would like to add that mediation is impossible. Mediation is a private process, conducted by email. Therfore both the mediator and whoever tried mediation with irismeister would necessarily let irismiester know their email address and possible other information that is contained in the header. I firmly believe that irismeister would try to use this information in order to threaten legal proceedings should the mediator not agree with him on everything he says.I too support the request for arbitration and I too request a ban.theresa knott 14:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation would have been possible and was indeed attempted at least from my side. Peace would have been brought only with a written apology. We could have concentrated on issues not on persons. We could have written more and better Wiki articles. Indeed, pages once blossoming in "scholarly" dispute now rot orphan of competence and as creatively as any Shakesperean plot. Somebody would rather have me banned than listen to my arguments. Escalation and arbitration are therefore where we reached so far. And, as it appears, we won't stop here. Errare humanum, perseverare diabolicum. - Happy arbitration and living together everafter! It's really competence which has to be banned and has a poor press, your honors - but there isn't much left anyway : O )- irismeister 00:42, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, if "baby" is an insult and shows a pattern of harassment, while "full of s---" and instantly reverting all my edits are not, who needs arbitration ? We live in interesting times. What I can assure my fellow editors is that, banned or not, complete with such "decrees" and such finding of "fact" like the ones on this shame of a page, deceit shall never rule, justice will. Indeed, I intend to fight for the rule of law, meritocracies, good information and justice until "laser-guided democracy enhancers" (LGDEs) sent from some brave helicopters from a safe distance in the general direction of my office in Paris will attempt to offer me the final "argument" in a rational discussion. This said, I am quite unsure I would like to continue being a member of the club who would accept me - Happy editing quand même - irismeister 14:55, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)

Statement by Irismeister

 * Note for Theresa - please edit your previous entry for clarity.
 * Note for Fabiform - thank you for helping Theresa keep the page decently wide : O)
 * Note for both Theresa and Jwrosenwweigh - my lawyers have all the necessary data, so please relax. If you did nothing wrong in terms of libel and disinformation, then perhaps, like myself, you will have nothing to fear in the immediate future.

I would like the arbitration committee to admit only serious requests. The only possible merits of the above request are personal vendetta and matters of vanity from the requestor. Although I NEVER insulted anyone, and for matters of principle will never engage in personal attacks, let alone conflicts, I WAS repeteadly insulted on a daily basis, by Theresa, LordKenneth, etc. As per Wiki rules, Wikiquette and Wikilove, as per good old common sense audiatur et altera partem and valued peace-making traditions, I NEVER considered addressing the arbitration committee. Indeed, I believe we all have better things to do with our time than six-grade-worth rant, loads of lies and libel. All the above has perhaps some merit in attracting some attention to issues of censorship and personal idiosyncratic rejections of real issues - masked as a carnivel of wolves masked as lambs and crying wolf. I believe personally that whatever arbitration would remain gentle to such lambs would in the process be very cruel and unfair to the real lambs. I am never rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising - only mannered and using the style which is proper to me. Fascist and Stalinist attempts to force my expression of individuality and opinion in the unique thinking and a priori proper ways have long since joined only the parties repressing Thoughtcrimes. I do believe that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not essential to democracy. I believe FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DEMOCRACY. No diversion of my personal style towards forced admissions of tort would be productive in the advancement of knowledge, happiness or freedom. Neverthelss, if the honorable would-be arbitration committee cares to accept the case, then I will co-operate fully and with all material in my possession. Last, allegations of an obscure aim of evading simple questions and obfuscating debates must perhaps be considered by all parts, as long as we are a group. Inability, from me, to address the group? If anything mine are articulate polite answers, plus the sense of spiritual pleasure. Reading with humor the above interventions I believe the accusations to be obscure at best, false at worst, and ridicule as a consensus-seeking solution :-) If anything, in my view, the above request of fabiform | talk on his behalf and on behalf of JRosenzweigh (as shown from the respective talk pages) qualifies for a personal description of their own behavior. While I scare nobody, perhaps more creative diversions are needed to scare off this contributor. I've been banned before for fictitious reasons which I explained already :-) Sincerely, irismeister 14:47, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

If your honors decide to go on with arbitration, I would like to add as an outstanding issue the mere number of insults I was obliged to survive and cope with, in Wiki, for authoring 27 major articles and editing 24,000+ pages. These include Bully/Dude/Semiliterate/Quack/Nutcase/Full of *--- (full list with links available upon request). Clearing the record with a written excuse on this page by each of the perpetrators clears the outstanding and ongoing libel issue AFAIAC. As we cannot applaud with only one hand, your honors are invited to address both sides of the outstanding issues. Happy editing - irismeister 19:00, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Experiments in democracy

 * I will only make one brief comment here. Irismeister is welcome to leave comments on my talk page.  I may archive them at my discretion, but I will not delete them.  I personally consider the rest of his charges without merit and unworthy of censure (though my colleagues here are free to disagree and ought to inform me if they do), and his proposals unhelpful (beyond the general idea that all editors here ought to be less aggressive and more kind to each other).  Jwrosenzweig 23:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a welcome change that deeply rejoices me :O) So I did not lose my time afterall in the month Jwrosenzweig wouldn't speak to me! I consider the above as a good will measure, and if it will be assorted by a written modes word of excuse here, for the time lost by us all (excuses to be asked for the benefit of the whole Wiki community, not for myself!) I will consider the matter closed. Thank you all and happy editing - irismeister 23:39, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)


 * Irismeister, I am not going to apologize. I do not believe it is wrong for me to delete your commentary in my talk page, and will do so again should your pattern of legal threats return.  But I think it is more productive and collegial at the present time not to maintain that policy, as the AC is making it clear that you are to desist making those threats.  Furthermore, you have taken up the community's time on this page twice now concerning that legitimate and justifiable decision of mine, and I would like to spare everyone some time (for the entire community's benefit, as you note).  That is all I mean by this.  It should be taken as no admission of fault or guilt concerning my actions towards you.  Thank you, Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The fallacy of circular arguments, aka petitio principi is a catch and even intelligent editors and admins like you are, jwr, commit it. You (or fab) put me in the AC because you can't find rational arguments, and then you use the AC procedures (not final yet) as a label on me ! Justice will prevail, but you missed an occasion which was important. How can intelligent people insult others, not excuse themselves, and then pretend the issue is different? The issue is libel, not the legal threat. LEGAL procedures are meant to bring JUSTICE not threats. JUSTICE IS NOT A THREAT ! What a pity for an otherwise excellent admin, to fail to see justice at face value ! - irismeister 07:15, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

More evidence for libel from a trusted party
"I admit I said that he either needed to admit he didn't mean his 2nd statement, or else admit that he had been a liar in making his original statement. My patience was wearing thin, I admit. You may judge whether I have acted wrongly."
 * Admission of tort, libel and harassment

"Irismeister is a quack and a nutcase. There! (Ah, that felt good to say!)''"
 * Aggravating, inexcusable, continuing libel


 * The definition of libel BTW, is simple, and comes directly from the Wiki trusted, NPOV source:
 * Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander".  Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems.  The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.

Final Statement by Irismeister
Will all due respect, I consider the case closed, if the perpetrators of libel excuse themselves in writing in front of the Wiki community for being disingenious and dishonoring the spirit of truth. Your honors, I admit I crave for justice, need it and cherish it. Truth and justice are the love and marriage, the horse and carriage of any competent and serious public manifestation. I am not important. Truth is. If there were a single message to remain in Wiki after you vote in this arbitration, this is indeed simple - there is no alternative to loving, caring attention to truth and justice anywhere. - irismeister 11:02, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

Voting
Gutza declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from the case. The Cunctator, nohat and Delirium did not vote.

For the final decision, see /Decision.

Findings of fact
1. Irismeister has engaged in inappropriate personal attacks. This is against the widely accepted policy to refrain from personal attacks. The following three edits are examples of such attacks:
 * This edit to Talk:Alternative medicine, dated 09:19, 9 Feb 2004
 * Repeated use of the term "baby" and "baby watching" with respect to Theresa Knott, such as the edit summary dated 15:24, 7 Feb 2004 to Mycobacterium leprae history
 * This edit to Talk:Reflexology, dated 15:40, 20 Feb 2004


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 20:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Irismeister made personal attacks in response to the personal attacks of others which should be mentioned in any finding of fact we make. Fred Bauder 12:45, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain:

1A. User:DavidWBrooks, , User:Theresa knott, User:Lord Kenneth and User:Irismeister ,   and possibly others have violated the No personal attacks policy. See Talk:Iridology, Talk:Iridology/archive1, Talk:Iridology/archive2, Talk:Iridology/archive3 and their revision histories.


 * For:
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) (think above is better phrasing - will vote for if others disagree)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I don't know what this is for - doesn't it just repeat the above?)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I'm not prepared to censure the whole group together.)
 * the Epopt 20:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (This seems to be a proposed finding of fact, not a penalty.)

2. Irismeister has engaged in legal threats that could be considered a breach of Wikiquette. The following three edits are examples of such threats:
 * The edit dated 23:27, 22 Feb 2004, marked (STOP calling me a lier or face legal consequences for libel in less than 24 hours !) on Talk:Disinfectant
 * The edit dated 00:24, 20 Feb 2004, marked (Libel, slander, good will and... back to editing :-) on Talk:Iridology
 * The edit dated 15:08, 23 Feb 2004, marked (Never fear if you really did nothing wrong in terms of libel) on Requests for arbitration


 * For:
 * Martin
 * James F. (talk) 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:
 * the Epopt 20:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3. Certain Wikipedians have made some harsh comments or personal attacks with respect to Irismeister. The following four edits are examples of such inappropriate comments:
 * Lord Kenneth's edit dated 12:23, 3 Feb 2004 to User talk:Lord Kenneth
 * Theresa knott's edit dated 08:14, 8 Feb 2004 to Requests for comment/Irismeister (although Theresa knott later retracted the "nutcase" comment in the edit dated 10:12, 9 Feb 2004 and apologised for it in the edit dated 10:16, 9 Feb 2004)
 * DavidWBrooks' edit dated 16:15, 21 Jan 2004 (though DavidWBrooks' later apologied for this "semi-literate" comment twice, in an edit dated 16:36, 21 Jan 2004 and an edit dated of 18:10, 21 Jan 2004)
 * DavidWBrooks' edit dated 20:32, 22 Jan 2004


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 20:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:

4. We consider that Irismeister's edits, taken as a whole, show a pattern of harrassment towards Theresa Knott.


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 20:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:

5. Irismeister, who is apparently both a medical doctor and a practicing Iridologist in Paris, has in the course of editing the article, Iridology violated Neutral point of view policy by engaging in edits which advanced his point of view and strongly resisted efforts by others to write the article from a neutral point of view. See Iridology and its revision history.


 * For:
 * James F. (talk) 00:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 20:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) (while some edits were troublesome, they were not sufficiently clear cut so as to deviate from common practice, IMO)
 * Abstain:
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I haven't had time to look into this, but in any case, I feel the other points are enough for us to act)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I will have to do some research to find out just what would be neutral in the area of study)

Avoid personal attacks
A. DavidWBrooks Theresa knott, Lord Kenneth and Irismeister, are reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikiquette, and are instructed to not engage in personal attacks or harrassment.


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 00:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 20:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:

B. User:DavidWBrooks User:Theresa knott, User:Lord Kenneth and User:Irismeister are admonished to not engage in the future in personal attacks.


 * For:
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (this should really go for everybody everywhere on Wikipedia)
 * Against:
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) - no point in this given the point immediately above. Call this an abstention if you like, but I'm against it because I think the above is better. What is this even here for?
 * the Epopt 20:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) (think above is better phrasing - will vote for if others disagree)
 * James F. (talk) 00:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Editing restrictions
A. Editing by User:Irismeister of the article Iridology is prohibited for an indefinite period.


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) (sensible precautionary move)
 * James F. (talk) 00:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (way too much conflict - no end in sight of that)
 * the Epopt 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (as I've abstained with regard to the iridology finding above, I feel I must also abstain on this point)

B. Irismeister's editing privileges are revoked for ten days.


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) (less strongly)
 * James F. (talk) 00:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (for his personal attacks and legal threats)
 * Fred Bauder 15:30, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Abstain:
 * the Epopt 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Libel & legal threats
A. Irismeister is instructed to avoid making legal threats on Wikipedia. If legal action is a genuine possibility, Irismeister should instead use appropriate legal channels to inform potential defendants.


 * For:
 * James F. (talk) 00:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (this is an unfair tactic)
 * the Epopt 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Sue, or sue not. There is no threaten.)
 * Against:
 * We should consider any libel claim ourselves. Any court action should be an appeal of our decision. Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (not because I agree with Fred, but I only care about legal threats as they are a breach of Wikiquette, and that is covered above. I don't think that random legal threats should be treated any differently to any other intimidating behaviour.)
 * Martin (changed mind: review of past discussion does not indicate sufficient community support for no legal threats, nor can the avoidance of legal threats on Wikipedia be said to be common practice at this stage).
 * Abstain:

B. Accusations of libel are not well founded as the various characterizations of User:Irismeister appear to be either true, opinion, or "fair comment". Notice is taken that apologies have been made in some cases.


 * For:
 * Martin 23:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 00:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * While very rude, e.g. "nutcase", the characterizations are true. Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Against:
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) (we shouldn't be passing judgement on whether Irismeister has a libel case or not. We're not qualified (at least I'm not). Some people made slightly unpleasant comments about Irismeister, and we've noted that. Some comments Irismeister made were intimidating, and we've noted that. That's all we need to do. We shouldn't pretend to be lawyers.)
 * the Epopt 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (I am not qualified to have a meaningful opinion on what a court jury might find, and I seriously doubt that any of us are.)
 * Abstain:
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (IANAL)

C. User:Irismeister is instructed to desist from attempting to intimidate other users by making unfounded legal threats or by any other means.


 * For:
 * Martin 23:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 00:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:26, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 03:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * mav 06:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 20:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Sue, or sue not. There is no threaten.)
 * Against:
 * Abstain: