Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  sock puppet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed amendments 

message: 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)
thread_title: IRC log

message: *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)
thread_title:  Creation of multiple accounts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  from [[User talk:MyRedDice]] 

message: On IRC, log at User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir Lir stated, "Lir im actually a sock of Ed Poor."
: Ayes:
# Fred Bauder 20:31, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
: Nayes:
# This is obviously a joke. Martin 22:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Abstentions:
Moved here - no support remaining. Martin 14:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Claiming to be another user