Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir blocking and unblocking

This was previously a standard request for comment. It has since been refactored into a general review of the actions of all users involved in the situation of blocking and unblocking Lir for "admitting to trolling." Feel free to comment on any user listed below or any other user you feel was involved.

Views of the actions of Hcheney

Accusations

Hcheney has repeatedly reinstated Hephaestos's block of Lir for "admitting to trolling" after Lir was unblocked by both Guanaco and Martin. Lir's statement used the word "troll", but he was not admitting to trolling. The block was in clear violation of policy.

After Hcheney blocked Lir, he proceeded to remove Lir's vote from Wikipedia:Quickpolls

Applicable policies

Blocking policy

Banning policy

Blocks are not the same as bans, and even if they were, Lir was not blocked at the time he made the vote.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

Guan aco 19:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lirath Q. Pynnor
172.152.114.121 18:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) ([Hcheney…] has acted unilaterally in banning and unbanning several people WITHOUT community approval or any kind of justification […]!)

Other users who endorse this statement (sign with ~~~~):

cprompt 22:54, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
172.152.114.121 18:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response by Hcheney

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy

In so far as Lir was concerned, I did not set the original ban, but merely reverting Guanaco's unban back to Hephaestos' original ban of thirty days. Upon realizing that there was broader community support for unbanning Lir, I have not rebanned Lir.

Block log:

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)

If my blocking Lir twice is of question, why is Guanaco's double unblocking acceptable?

I removed the vote of Lir, because at that moment, Lir would have been blocked if it was not for Guanaco's unilateral action. Upon realizing there was some community support for including Lir's vote, I left Lir's vote as it was, and added a note of objection.

I did not ban Lir for holding "unpopular opinions". I banned Lir because I felt that Lir was evading an earlier block with the aid of Guanaco.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--H. CHENEY 20:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality 03:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cribcage 04:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Against policy but in good faith

While Hephaestos' block was against policy, I believe Hcheney, in that he honestly didn't know that he was violating policy. And I do think we need to set up an RFC against Lir.;

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

WhisperToMe 06:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 06:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) I also think Hephaestos acted in good faith, but was rather hasty in imposing the original block because he was happy to have an excuse to block Lir.
Guan aco 06:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) Hcheney probably thought it was within policy and that the unblocking was similar to that of unblocking the account User:Michael.
Jwrosenzweig 22:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) I second Michael Snow's comment whole-heartedly. I hope that Hcheney and Heph will be much more careful in the future, but I recognize that they were taking actions they believed to be in Wikipedia's best interests. I hope that they have apologized to Lir for the misunderstanding (which I know may be a difficult pill to swallow, but which I think is important).
Everyone makes mistakes now and then. The important thing it to learn from them and move on. theresa knott 22:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Views of the actions of Hephaestos

Response by Hephaestos

I made the original block. HCheney was simply enforcing it.

Lir then goes to wikipedia-l, where it's clearly just noise, to gripe about it.

But Lir doesn't have the cojones to make his own complaint, so you do it for him.

And you do it against the wrong person.

And you have the unmitigated gall to lecture others about "procedure"?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Hephaestos|§ 05:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
RickK 05:13, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
Wile E. Heresiarch 23:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
68.36.175.254 06:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) NO ONE should be banned unless they're vandlizing pages with TRUE vandalism (different P.O.V.'s, partial aritcles, and even biased writing is NOT vandalizing--vandalizing is intentionally removing or destroying legitimate content for no reason other than the vandal is amused by his actions.
I'll probably be accused of joining the cabal by signing this, but I really do believe that Hcheney was rightly enforcing a rightful block. blankfaze | •• | •• 17:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Views of the actions of Guanaco

Guanaco has recently unilaterally unblocked hardbanned user Michael (19:11, 27 Jun 2004), Bird (02:38, 2 Jul 2004), several vandal bots, various incarnations of Wik, Michael, EntmootsofTrolls, Bird, etc. --H. CHENEY 20:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) (from Response by Hcheney)

That being said, if a group of people all concluded that this Lir is nothing more than a petty vandal, Guanaco is in NO POSITION to unilaterally do ANYTHING. He's unilaterally banned AND unbanned people, neither of which is an acceptable action at a site where we're all creating something as equals. I say, revoke Guanaco's banning privileges. Power tends to corrupt, and Guanaco's on an ego-driven power high! 68.36.175.254 06:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) (from Response by Hephaestos)

Views of the actions of MyRedDice

Martin unblocked Lir once at my request when he was being reblocked by Lir. He agreed fully that Lir was improperly blocked. He also reinstated Lir's vote on the recent quickpoll about trolling. [3] He reverted once [4] and Hcheney reverted twice. [5] [6] He reverted a second time and posted a comment to explain why he reinstated the vote. [7] Hcheney then placed a note that he disputed the vote because "Lir was blocked for using sockpuppets to manipulate another election on Wikipedia." [8] Guan aco 03:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Views of the actions of Lir

Lir is a troll who should be banned. RickK 05:13, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, Lir is a troll who should be banned. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir is probably a troll who deserves banning. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir needs to shape up both his attitudes and actions right now. If he doesn't, we need to send him packing. WhisperToMe 03:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This section only has to do with Lir's actions that Hephaestos and Hcheney reacted to and his actions in response to their blocks. Guan aco 06:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does the RFC for Lir redirect here? WhisperToMe 00:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The 48 hours for certification expired, so I removed the listing. Based on the attempt to consolidate discussion of the incident on this page, I redirected that subpage here. --Michael Snow 06:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir is a troll. End of story. Neutrality 03:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ban Lir. Cribcage 04:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Views of actions by other users

Add a new section above this one if you feel that another user was involved. Use the header:

==Views of the actions of [[User:Example user|Example user]]==

Obviously Lir has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Has HCheney had previoys incidents?