Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
 * Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
 * Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders
1) {text of proposed orders}


 * Aye:


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Principles
Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 02:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 02:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 02:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Edits made while not logged in
Lir made edits from the IP address 209.181.211.69 (his comments on the talk page concede this) without declaring it on his his userpage.


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Cunctator 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is true.
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 02:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Use of multiple accounts
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."


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 02:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree with Cunc; the ruling didn't mention using IPs, and it really should have done. However, this was the spirit of the ruling.
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Did he break the record for most sock puppets ever? - David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * The Cunctator 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Not logging in is not the same as using another account.


 * Abstain:

Voting with multiple accounts
Lir used that anonymous account to vote in the three revert rule enforcement poll. This was a violation of the previous arbitration committee ruling on him - "A Wikipedia user is not permitted to portray themselves as another user in editing any page, especially not during a vote."


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * The Cunctator 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is nonsense. Lir identified himself as Lir--the only thing he failed to do was log in. Not logging in is not the same as using an anonymous account.
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) Agree with The Cunctator; there doesn't appear to have been an attempt to misrepresent himself here.
 * James F. (talk) 02:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree.
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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

A sampling of these edits include:
 * Vandalism
 * Vandalism
 * Vandalism
 * Demanding Jimbo's resignation, and lying about the number of accounts he has (Lir has repeatedly lied about his use of multiple user accounts in the past, while he was under a ban from Jimbo. As such, his denials in this case are not credible. -- Requests for arbitration/Lir)
 * Again lying about the number of accounts he has
 * Vandalism
 * Urging Angela resign from the board for abusing her authority
 * Calling snowspinner a stalker


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 20:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) Although I'd characterize them more as "intentionally annoying". Also, I have no problem with him (or anyone) calling for people's resignations, so this "yes" vote is for the other annoying edits, like petty vandalism and what seems to me to be trying to provoke people intentionally.
 * James F. (talk) 02:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree with Cunc. Changed from abstention to 'aye'; agree with Mark over a general right for all to call for anyone's resignation. James F. (talk) 01:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:
 * The Cunctator 23:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) What, specifically? Let's not use nonspecific language.

Lirpedia and WikipediaSucks.com
Lir has taken part in Lirpedia and WikipediaSucks.com. In both of these activites Lir's actions deliberately caused harm to Wikipedia and are a source of disruption. Withdrawn in the interests of a speedy decision. Neutralitytalk)


 * Aye:
 * #Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * I don't think they've really done any harm or caused much disruption (or at least, Lir's participation hasn't). Ambi 06:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 06:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) First sentence yes, second sentence I'm not convinced - these don't harm Wikipedia in any way comparable to his actions on Wikipedia itself. But this is a side issue
 * Neutralitytalk 06:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 21:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi 01:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see a productive edit coming from him, ever - David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * The Cunctator 22:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) So far this doesn't deal with Lir's claim that his editing when not logged in was just a mistake.
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) This seems too harsh for what I can see from the evidence page, especially given my disagreement with the strongest claim above (violating a previous ruling).
 * James F. (talk) 02:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Unsuitable given the above FoFs.


 * Abstain:

Standing order
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.


 * Aye:
 * &rarr;Raul654 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * --the Epopt [[TINC| of the Cabal ]] 21:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 22:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 03:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi 06:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay:
 * Delirium 01:26, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) "Provocative" is too open-ended for my tastes.
 * James F. (talk) 02:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 48 hours, perhaps. Whilst this says "up to", I have little faith that it will be read as anything other than a standing order to ban for a week for any perceived infraction.


 * Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators
I declare my intention to remain recused in this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:27, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Motion to close
Four Aye votes needed to close case

All findings and remedies have passed. Not much point keeping it open any longer.


 * Ambi 06:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Neutralitytalk 06:12, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 06:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 14:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)