Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lir

Lir seems to be unable to function in this community. He seems to get into edit wars over trivia in almost every article he touches. He was involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship last night. Hephastos banned Lir twice, which I think was the wrong decision without discussion. I am proposing that we open this discussion. Secretlondon 14:30, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Though I support Hephaestos in his decision and oppose de-opping him, Lir had the right to ask for Hephaestos's de-adminship for violating the stated rules for sysops. Removing his request was unjustified, so that particular edit war should not be used against him. --Jia ng 04:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lir's Grand Statement of the Rhine

Are there any complaints besides the fact that I am involved in edit wars? I mean really, most of you are also involved in edit wars. If I am involved in more edit wars, its primarily because I edit more. Furthermore, everybody is not against me; and indeed, this is not a popularity contest. I think its fairly easy to see at Talk:DNA that I more than willing to engage in dialogue over the contents of articles.
- In any case, User:Jimbo Wales is more than interested to hear of any allegations of inappropriate activity on my behalf. Please feel free to contact him with your complaints, especially if you feel that I am somehow unwilling to address the issues you raise.
  - Lirath Q. Pynnor

Mav's Claim to Edit Supremacy

I edit a lot more than you do Lir. And yet I am not involved in any edit wars at the moment. When I am, it involves just a few reverts and then I try to either work things out or just walk away for a while. It takes at least two people to get into an edit war - you could show some self-restraint by not prolonging revert wars and instead try to find consensus. I'm planning on lobbying for an anti-edit war policy soon largely due to the constant edit wars you, Wik and Reddi get into. Edit wars just don't happen to people, people make them happen. --mav

That's nice mav, this isn't a "who edits more" contest either -- I do not believe you make anywhere near as many edits to issues about economics, politics, and/or religion; and when you do make such edits, they do not tend to be in the form of complete paragraphs and sections. As you can see at New Imperialism, I am showing a great deal of self-restraint by not reverting Wik's revert. I have asked you to mediate and/or protect the page. Please refrain from disparaging criticism of me, when I am exactly following your "advice". Lirath Q. Pynnor

The fact that you are involved in so many edit wars is a serious issue in itself. If you really did consistently show self-restraint by editing while following NPOV and our Wikiquette policy and resolving disputes by using our conflict resolution framework, then this would not be the case. But instead you are still involved in many edit wars that tend to sap the energy of many different people. --mav

As I have noted, I have followed the conflict resolution framework exactly; you have let down your part of the responsibility -- as a sysop it is your job to protect pages at which there are edit wars. You are failing to do your job, edit wars are the result. I have seen you in edit wars mav, please do not pretend that you are somehow above them. In the edit wars in which I am involved, nobody has mentioned POV -- I am apparently following NPOV. Furthermore, I am following Wikiquette -- it is you who makes personal attacks that so-and-so is a troublemaker. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Which is exactly what a troll won't do. They will not compromise, or listen to reason, but focus rather on flamming (calling people other people trolls, for example). From what I understand of the concept of trolling, it's not a person who happens to aggresively champion a POV, or have an altername interpretation of whats best for an article. Strong sentiment is not a bad thing. Were all a bit of a troll, in some small way or another, whenever we dislike someone, or do something theoretically disturbing. Whats important is that we compromise where neccessary, and resort to references and arbitration (always trying to follow wiki-Rules) rather than name calling and hatefullness when we attempt to handle these cituations we happen to have some feelings about. Many trolls are simply vandals. But from what I understand, a troll is someone who fights over something they do not care about. They are rather interested in harassing a certain user, or upsetting others. Jack 03:56, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Viajero Argues that Lir Is a Chronic Delinquent

Newcomers to Wikipedia should note that since his joining Wikipedia (Fall 2002) Lir (Adam Rinkleff) has been the source of an endless number of conflicts, as can be seen by perusing the mailing list archives [1]. Adam was banned in November 2002 and subsequently resurfaced under various accounts (Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, Dietary Fiber, Pizza Puzzle). The same problems Lir is causing now he was causing more than a year ago.

After a protracted negotiation with Jimbo, Lir was readmitted to the community in September [2]. By all appearances, Lir was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to start over with a clean slate. Despite this generous reprieve, Lir has fallen back into his old habits.

Over the past couple of days, Lir has once again embarked upon an edit war over the article New Imperialism. If you look at the page history [3] you will see that Adam has been involved in protracted edit wars over this article for more than a year: in January as Vera Cruz, this past summer as Pizza Puzzle, and now more recently as Lir. Users 172 (the original author of the article), Wenteng, Snoyes, Wik, Pakaran, and myself have all questioned the wisdom of including the paragraph Lir insists upon; no one has risen to Lir's defense. His response was an authoritarian "it will be reverted and replaced".

By now it is obvious that Lir does more harm than good to Wikipedia and time devoted to dealing with him is time taken away from more constructive activities. Why does this community continue to tolerate him? -- Viajero 17:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, 172 does not object to the paragraph -- I have explicitly informed him of it, and he has replied to my statement with what was apparently acceptance. As for Pakaran, he has recently reverted the article so that it will include the paragraph in question. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Jack and Rick Debate

Lir is not the problem. The problem is as Lir says, the lack of authrority to determine what is appropriate in an article or no. Until that process is made available (I believe it is now in its beta phase) edit wars of attrition are the only option for those in dispute of a given pages vocal majority. Majority rule is not an acceptable way to adjudicate complex matters (non-vandalism) of content disputes. Lir is not a troll, IMO. The wikiprocess is flawed, and appears to be on the mend. Don't take your frustrations out on lir. Create an acceptable content arbotration process for him to appeal to when the mob turns against him. Jack 03:31, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes when everybody is against you, it may just be because you are wrong. RickK 03:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Carr Speaks of Controversy

As is well-known to most people who edit on controversial topics, Lir is a deliberate, persistent and malicious vandal, not in the crude sense of the word (someone who blanks pages or writes rude words), but in a more insidious sense, in that he constantly and deliberately edits in a provocative and POV way so as to start edit wars, which he then prolongs as long as possible. I can only assume that he gets some kind of thrill from making himself the centre of controversy, as a firebug does from arson. In that sense I am opposed to this discussion, because it just feeds his egotism by making him once again the centre of discussion. I suppose it is futile to ban him since he will always find a way to sneak back under another name, so I guess he should just be ignored as far as possible. His malicious edits should be reverted without giving him the satisfaction of arguing with him. Adam 03:52, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168 endorses censorship

I can endorse the tactic of ignoring Lir heartily and without reservation. My quality of life has improved vastly, plus my mere existence now seems to make Lir fume, which has restored my faith that there is some justice in the world. Revert and ignore, I say, it's the only way.168... 04:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lir Teaches About Personal Attacks

Indead, as Mr. Carr has noted; the topics in question are controversial -- thus arguments occur. I am sure the reader will not be hard pressed to understand why compromise and peace are difficult to achieve -- as Mr. Carr's personal attacks speak for themselves. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I make no personal attacks, since I know nothing about you personally. I only describe what I observe, and make some attempt at understanding your behaviour. If you dispute my amateur psychoanalysis, give us an alternative explanation for your behaviour. (And it's Dr Carr, by the way) Adam 04:06, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course you make personal attacks, you just finished describing me as a malicious vandal; comparing me to an arsonist. That was a disparaging comment Mr. Carr. Lirath Q. Pynnor

No, a personal attack is when I insinuate that you have sexual relations with your mother. Describing you as a malicious vandal is merely a statement of fact. Adam 04:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack, no matter how factual and true you believe your claim to be.Lirath Q. Pynnor