Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision

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)

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)

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)

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 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

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)

Moved from project page

--Wow. Lirath Q. Pynnor

--Is it a crime? Lirath Q. Pynnor

It's a finding of fact. 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

--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

--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

--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)