Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir

Case closed

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
Regardless of the whole debate around Lir..., I think that User:Guanaco did things that are not really okay. Lir tried to raise a comment page on it, but naturally, due to her own situation, no one commented and the page was deleted. I spent a couple of hours deciphering the situation, and my opinion is that indeed, Guanaco was borderline as a sysop. (I also think the guidelines regarding sockpuppetry handling are not clear, but even then, I think he was too heavy). In spite of my attempts, no one wishes to discuss light abuse.

I must insist that Guanaco was very helpful and willing to discuss all this peacefull, and I *really* appreciated that.

However, it bugs me a bit that it seems to be considered just "okay" that some sysops make small errors here and there and get out of it without even a comment. On a larger picture, I think it is now so much a habit that sysop are extremely rarely issued warnings or extremely rarely punished (168 might be one of these few exceptions), that when it happens, it tends to degenerate into meaningless battles. I think that if we came to see errors as human, it would benefit the way sysops are perceived, and it would make it easier to assume when small errors are done.

Hence my request that this case is studied. Since "comments to the community" lead nowhere, I come to give work to you ;-).

Note : if this is really not the right place, just tell me, but I would appreciate that this is not buried as so often it is. That means I do not think it is meant to become a one line topic for everyone to vote on (because, just naturally, people will see "Lir" and vote in a certain direction. They will tend to vote with their heart rather than mind I fear :-)). Lir considers she was abused. Discussion doesnot seem to have solved the issue. And I do not think the MC went to go any further in this. Note as well, that I do not put this request as a mediator, but as an editor buggued to see how small errors are handled.

Am I right in thinking that the block we're talking about is this one (excerpted from the block log, so more recent entries are at the top):
 * 05:40, 28 Jun 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (blocked because of mistaken identity)


 * 05:08, 28 Jun 2004 Guanaco blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 24 hours (use of multiple sockpuppets to edit war)


 * Yes. ant

Is the following excerpt from the block log at all relevant?:


 * 19:22, 3 Jul 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (clearly a violation of policy)
 * 19:14, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reinstating Hephaestos' block)
 * 19:03, 3 Jul 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "Lir" (not unilateral any more then)
 * 18:56, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reverting Guanaco's unblocking of Lir, reinstating Hephaestos' block of 30 days - Guanaco please stop acting unilaterally)
 * 18:21, 3 Jul 2004 Guanaco unblocked "Lir" (Lir didn't actually admit to trolling. He just said "Trolling is not a valid reason to oppose sysophood". )
 * 05:22, 3 Jul 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (Admitting to trolling)

Camembert 12:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * this, no. ant

--

On the 27th or 28th, Guanaco blocked Lir. The reason he did so was for using sockpuppets in an edit war. Guanaco thought Lir was User:YES, User:Yuna, User:Yuna's Revenge. He blocked YES and others for being sockpuppets, then he blocked Lir, because he thought Lir was using sockpuppets. He said using sockpuppets is illegal on Wikipedia. The decision for blocking was done without any quickpoll. Lir was not banned at that time.

Yes et al later were said to be Michael sockpuppets.

Guanaco unblocked Lir after he was told the sockpuppets were not Lir.

Lir comment : Guanaco banned me, accusing me of sockpuppetry. He provided no evidence of this, he unilaterally banned me without quickpoll, discussing the issue with me, or following any of the various dispute processes. An examination of this page's history, shows that Guanaco has repeatedly violated the procedures for banning. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Guanaco comment with regard to Lir opinion is "i understand it, but i feel that what i did was correct based on what i thought to be true at the time"

Lir said "what im looking for is not so much punishment of Guanaco, but a renewed emphasis on "rule of law" and such things as rights and what have you" "not to mention more of an effort at resolving edit disputes in a less totalitarian fashion"

Anthere : Guanaco, do you agree that you banned Lir, because of some sock puppet issue ?
 * Guanaco : yes

Anthere why ?
 * Guanaco i thought it was a illegitimate sockpuppet of lir

Anthere Guanaco: what made you think YES was Lir ?
 * Guanaco the fact that lir had used ESH before, and YES's actions, editing saddam hussein, and the fact Lir has already used sockpuppets before

Anthere did you ask other people opinion on that suspicion ? did you ask a developer to do an ip check ?
 * Guanaco answered no on a private channel

Anthere what is illegitimate sockpuppetry Guanaco ?
 * sannse As far as I know there is no rule against multiple accounts - there may be in using them to vote twice or to add several coments to the same discussion (making it appear this is more support)
 * Guanaco ant: illegitimate sockpuppetry would be using multiple sockpuppets to get around the three revert limit in edit wars and making sockpuppet votes

Anthere "did you apology for your mistake to Lir" ?
 * Guanaco 1. no, i didn't, and i should have, but i was frustrated by the RfC

Anthere "do you think you were being right when you did it, ie, following a rule" (and not realising you were not) ?
 * Guanaco 2. at the time i thought i was, because it seemed to be a clear abuse of sockpuppets, but it was actually one of michael's mind games

Anthere "do you think you will do it again, because you think it should be the correct way " ?
 * Guanaco 3. i may do it again, depending on the circumstances, if IP and other evidence shows that the accounts are the same person

See User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir for full public discussion. Private log was not kept.

Some links are *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&action=edit&section=4
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_review_of_administrative_actions&diff=0&oldid=4332256
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Guanaco&action=edit
 * Requests for comment/Guanaco (was deleted because the delay had expired with no comment)
 * I have restored and protected it so it can be easily reviewed. Guanaco 17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * several noisy requests on ml.

What is a problem to me is
 * the blocking was done unilaterally, with no community opinion asked.
 * there was no check for evidence
 * Lir was not banned then, so blocking him for the reason he might be using sockpuppets seems to me to be a very poor argument. It is certainly not a case listed for blocking
 * Sockpuppets are not illegal. Voting with socks is certainly problematic, but requires quiet check and cancelling of votes, not blocking
 * No apology for the mistake was provided.

if the ban was on socks alone (with no vandalism from the main account or the socks) then were is the authority to ban?

SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the ban several days later by Hephaestos is more serious -- firstly, Guanaco's illegitmate reason was that he felt I was a sockpuppet; Hephaestos' reason was even worse: he banned me solely because I objected to denying a user the promotion to sysop, solely because the user is a "troll". Furthermore, while the incident with Guanaco happened just the one time, Hephestos wrongly banned me twice in January (at which time my complaints were censored).

Really, a more appropriate title for this case would not be Lir vs Guanaco -- but rather, Lir vs WikiSysops. Lirath Q. Pynnor

arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

 * 1) Accept Fred Bauder 12:06, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept Martin 12:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept James F. (talk) 13:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Accept --the Epopt 17:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Principles
1) Wikipedia administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block other users or IP addresses provided that Blocking policy is followed. Administrators


 * 6 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004

2) Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed. Nor may users be blocked for unpopular opinions. Editing under multiple accounts when their "main" account is not blocked is not grounds for blocking.


 * 6 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004

Findings of fact
1) Sysops User:Hephaestos, User:Hcheney and User:Guanaco blocked User:Lir in violation of Blocking policy. 05:22, 3 Jul 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (Admitting to trolling), a block for expressing the unpopular opinion that "trolling was no barrier to being a sysop" which Hephaestos considered, "Admitting to trolling". Unblocked by Guanaco, 18:56, 3 Jul 2004 Hcheney blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 30 days (reverting Guanaco's unblocking of Lir, reinstating Hephaestos' block of 30 days - Guanaco please stop acting unilaterally). 05:08, 28 Jun 2004 Guanaco blocked "Lir" with an expiry time of 24 hours (use of multiple sockpuppets to edit war) which he admits was a case of mistaken identity.


 * 6 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004

Remedies
1) All Wikipedia administrators are required to follow the requirements set forth in Blocking policy. All Wikipedia administrators must set forth in the block log a reference to the part of Blocking policy on which they are relying in making the block.


 * 5 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004. One abstention.

2) Hephaestos has previously been warned for making inappropriate use of blocks. Accordingly Hephaestos is instructed to only use blocks in clear-cut cases, and given a second warning. Further problems may result in the revocation of Hephaestos's sysop privileges.


 * 4 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004

3) All Wikipedia administrators are instructed to follow the Blocking policy. Administrators who have been criticised in arbitration rulings are required to set forth in the block log a reference to the part of Blocking policy on which they are relying in making the block. At the time of writing these are: RickK, Hephaestos, Ed Poor, Guanaco, and Hcheney. All other administrators are encouraged but not required to do the same.


 * 4 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004

Enforcement
1) When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the Blocking policy, they may reverse the block but should post a note on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page explaining why the block was reversed.


 * 6 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004

2) Should it come to the attention of any Wikipedia user that a block made under Blocking policy is not supported by the facts of the matter, they are encouraged to enter into the Dispute resolution process in order that the underlying fact dispute may be resolved.


 * 6 out of 6 active arbitrators voted to accept this item as of 5 Aug 2004