Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Vandalism 2 sock puppet 3 Proposed amendments 4 IRC log 5 Edit warring 6 Creation of multiple accounts 7 Moved from project page 8 from User talk:MyRedDice 9 Claiming to be another user

[edit] Vandalism

I think the currently offered finding of fact regarding Lir and his Sysop Accountability policy misses the mark slightly. It was not only ineffective because it was poorly worded - considering Lir's explicitly avowed views on Wikipedia politics, his history as a user, and his tendency to seek to disrupt Wikipedia, I think the SAP was perfectly worded for what it was trying to do - it was inflammatory, offensive, and attention-getting.

Furthermore, I think Lir's reputation caused it to fare better than it would have if posted by a new user - had a new user posted it, it would have been deleted on sight as patent nonsense and vandalism. Snowspinner 15:58, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think the "mark" you want us to hit, a finding that it is forbidden for Lir to offer "nonsense" as proposed policy, is not permissible under our policies. Basically you want us to pronounce him a "troll" and accord him an inferior status. Given that he has an inferior status, to a certain extent our duty is to accord him his full rights despite his status as a "problem" user.Fred Bauder 17:48, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think our current vandalism policy forbids editing nonsense into much of anything - articles, policy, talk pages, etc. So a central question, I think, is whether or not this is a sincere and misguided attempt at policy, or a "bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." If it is misguided but in good faith, then you're obviously correct - it's acceptable. If it was done in bad-faith and was an attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia (In this case by starting a large scale feud among sysops and to foster mistrust and acrimony), then it is vandalism and is actionable. So I suppose my puzzlement on this finding of fact is that I think it considers the wrong issue, and that a finding needs to be made on the question of good faith vs bad faith. Which may be in progress for all I know - it wasn't really meant as a criticism so much as a "Hrm, I hope you plan to consider this too." Snowspinner 18:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

The last few proposals make me feel much better about all of this, and I'm going to stop whining now. :) Snowspinner 18:38, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism, as a long-standing term of art in Wikipedia discourse, is not an accurate description of Lir's Sysop Accountability policy. Irrespective of whether Lir is acting in bad faith Martin 10:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sock puppet

A second issue, and I'll go back left for this, is the proposed sockpuppet ruling - there is not currently any way to enforce that ruling. As the leadup to this has shown, it's very easy to get confused on what a Lir sockpuppet is, and some of the seeming Lir sockpuppets have actually been Michael, presumably trying to get Lir into trouble. Others have been Lir. But with no good way of checking that, such a policy is not helpful - especially since Lir is now aware of what had been our best sockpuppet finder, password matches, and can thus easily sidestep it. But I'm hesitant about a policy that's going to allow many sockpuppets to slip through the net, while possibly getting a lot of false positives. Snowspinner 18:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Also bear in mind the recent block/unblock wars. We are finding it difficult enough to get consensus as to identifying sockpuppets of people who are outright banned. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That would imply that the sockpuppet ruling was something that might not be worth enforcing very hard, but enforcement is typically not a matter for arbcom. It's kinda like giving you the weapon - it's up to the community to decide whether the risks of using that weapon are worth the inconvenience. Martin 00:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed amendments

The section Three revert rule needs to clarify that there are exceptions listed at Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version, such as reversion of banned users and simple vandalism. Perhaps the Committee should rule that these will no longer apply to Lir.

Also, Lir's sockpuppet was User:Editing Saddam Hussein, not Saddam Hussein. Guanaco 19:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that the ban proposed for using Editing Saddam Hussein be reduced to one day. While he did exceed three reverts, and he did use an account other than Lir, he did not use multiple accounts to revert that day. He reverted twice anonymously as 63.230.159.235 and then twice as User:Editing Saddam Hussein. Guanaco 19:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that's just semantics. However, I see Fred has reduced the ban to one day. I have no strong objection to that. Martin 00:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] IRC log

On IRC, log at User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir Lir stated, "Lir im actually a sock of Ed Poor."

As Martin and James F have said, this was an obvious joke, and I took it as such with my reply: "we've known that one for years Lir" -- sannse (talk) 16:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

• You really need to look at this more closely -- at Saddam Hussein, there was no dispute over what name to use...the only dispute was over whether the introduction should include an explanation of why "Saddam" was being used (due to the most common English usage policy). Since that has been added to the article, and the issue is no longer disputed by anyone...it would seem that I have "accepted reasonable compromises".
  • As for the DNA issue, while I do not think it is resolved -- the fact that I have refrained from editing it for several months...is that not indicative of a degree of cooperativeness which I am not being given credit for? Lirath Q. Pynnor

[edit] Creation of multiple accounts

• Actually, since being reinstated, I have only used other accounts (User:Qwert) with the explicit permission of Mr. Wales. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Well, this can easily be confirmed or otherwise. Martin 22:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from project page

--Wow. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Surprised? Juries regularly judge whether a witness is reliable or not. Martin

--Is it a crime? Lirath Q. Pynnor

It's a finding of fact. Martin

What is? Im sorry, these comments are all out of context -- you did a good job destroying my ability to defend myself Martin! --Lir

It is not my responsibility to present your defence. Please feel free to add to the evidence and the statements you have made elsewhere. However, please do not interfere with an AC-only page. Thank you. Martin

--If the arbitration committee wants to avoid edit wars, it would do well to inquire into the nature of these edit wars. Repeateadly, a cabal of users has openly worked to delete and revert all of my edits (regardless of merit) -- while I have recently largely refrained from these edit wars (such as the one at [[New Imperialism)...the arbitration committee is expected to address this issue at some point. Lirath Q. Pynnor

--Its true. A number of months ago, for a few minutes or so, I made some personal attacks in response to the numerous similar attacks which have been made against me. Mediation was never attemped in regards to this issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Perhaps you would like to detail those personal attacks on /Evidence, or a subpage? Martin

Not really -- I don't believe you want the personal attacks against me to stop. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I never made any personal attacks against Lir. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 19:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you don't provide evidence, then I only have your word to go on. I am unlikely to find against other editors based only on your word. Martin

--It wasn't a permanent ban, and an issue of import to him was being voted on. There is no rule against doing this, there was no duplicity involved; I did not edit war over the incident, and the vote had no impact on the article's fate (it was kept regardless). Lirath Q. Pynnor

--Why is it, that the arbitration committee refuses to address the IRC channel when I am a victim of personal attacks and unfair banning; yet, it treats the channel as "official" when evidence can be used against me (even when the evidence is as flimsy and absurd as this)? Lirath Q. Pynnor

We've taken evidence from places other than Wikipedia before, in the case of Mr. Natural Health. You are not a special case. Martin

What is a special case, is your choosing to take evidence from this outside source only when it can be used against me.Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you have evidence from any source that you believe bolsters your defence, please add it to the /Evidence page. Martin

--Its amazingly hypocritical that this is even up for arbitration; since mediation was never attempted. I allegedly revert one time too many, and I am on trial; yet, editors like 172 can make 100 reverts a day...and the committee doesn't even so much as ask them not to do it again. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You reverted one time too many under a false account, which in the past (Cantus) we have judged as being a more serious issue. Martin

No, I didn't. User:ESH was not me; furthermore, it is hypocritical to worry about my 1 alleged inappropriate edit -- while ignoring 172s behaviour. This is a one-sided kangaroo court. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Your claim that ESH is not you has been noted, and I have weighed it against the other evidence on the matter. As someone who has repeatedly lied over similar issues in the past, I do not find you to be a reliable witness on this matter. Martin

--It wasn't a permanent ban, and an issue of import to him was being voted on. There is no rule against doing this, there was no duplicity involved; I did not edit war over the incident, and the vote had no impact on the article's fate (it was kept regardless). Lirath Q. Pynnor

-- Considering how my edit wars tend to involve other users deleting my text; only to have it finally be inserted after several months...it would seem that the best course of action is to admonish the community that it should have more respect for my "expertise", instead of feeling it can delete my work simply because the cabal has labeled me a "troll". Lirath Q. Pynnor

-- Martin, its really shameful that you can't be bothered to discuss anything on my talk page. Without telling me, you are using typos as "evidence" against me -- thats ridiculous. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, I've had a lengthy discussion with you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense. I will continue to ask you questions as and when I feel it helps progress the case. To what typos do you refer? Martin 19:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was hardly any discussion at all; basically, you repeatedly insinuated that I am a liar. You have never left a question on my talk page, you just leave questions at strange out of the way (and hard to find) spots; and later accuse me of ignoring them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

To what typos do you refer?

Where have I accused you of ignoring questions, where in fact you simply had not seen those questions? Martin

I don't want to talk to you anymore Martin -- you are disrupting my attempts to defend myself. You have no moral right to remove my comments from the page -- you are not acting in an appropriate manner. You are taking things out of context, not asking my opinion or views, and being wholly unreasonable. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If you have opinions and views that you feel are relevant to the case, please add them to your statement on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir, or in some other appropriate place, and I will be happy to read and consider them. Martin

[edit] from User talk:MyRedDice

Its really not appropriate to delete my defense from the arbitration page. You seem to be power-tripping; you should calm down and think about your actions. In what way are you harmed by my presentation of a defense? Why are you eschewing even the most basic precepts of justice? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I didn't delete them, I read them and moved them here. Martin 17:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You deleted them, they aren't being read here, most people will never look at this page, you never told me about it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir- you are not a member of the AC so you don't get to edit AC only pages.It's as simple as that. You've had a chance to present your defence elsewhere. Trying to antagonize a member of the AC is foolish. You would be wise to stop it. Theresa knott

You can hide behind your policies all you want; but that doesn't make them valid. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Tha AC could discuss their proposed rulings privately by email. They choose to make thier discussions public instead. You have had plenty of opportunity to present a defence. There is nothing stopping you putting more here on the talk page if you want to. it's not true to say nobody reads this page. The arbitrators certainly do. So you whole point about martin being unfair is invalid. As for you not knowing, why didn't you add the proposed descision page to your watchlist after you edited it? If you had done that you would have seen Martin's move because this talk page would automatically go on your watchlist as well. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 08:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Claiming to be another user

On IRC, log at User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir Lir stated, "Lir im actually a sock of Ed Poor."

Ayes:

1. Fred Bauder 20:31, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

1. This is obviously a joke. Martin 22:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Martin. James F. (talk) 22:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Martin. →Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 22:43, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Abstentions:

Moved here - no support remaining. Martin 14:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)