Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

Only items that receive a majority yea vote will be enacted.
Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority yea or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

Creation of user accounts

A Wikipedia user may create an account under an alias. A few additional accounts may also be created.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:06, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Policy proposals

Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (but such pages should be marked as proposals, should not be spam, should follow appropriate Wikiquette, etc)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Editing disputes

The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:57, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (implicit in much of policy and common practice)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Multiple accounts

Creation by a Wikipedia user of more than a few accounts is not acceptable and may be grounds for negative sanctions. See Mailing list comment by Jimbo Wales

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:22, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (there could conceivably be exceptional circumstances. I can also support James's wording)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 00:45, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Hmm. Perhaps "[...] of a significant number of accounts [...]"? James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~I'm inclined to agree - I'd like clarification on "few" →Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)~~

This principle is in support of this proposed remedy: [1]Fred Bauder 12:45, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. →Raul654 00:45, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Making personal attacks on other users is not permitted.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 18:16, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Banned users

A banned user is not permited to edit Wikipedia during the period of their ban, nor is any other user permitted to act as their proxy.

Ayes:

Accept Fred Bauder 18:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (the "proxy" clause is provisional - it is based on my interpretation of current community feeling, and may be inaccurate. discussion on wikipedia talk:banning policy takes precedence)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Hmm. If a thinking-proxy, with some level of thought going into the relayd comments... Will think about this. James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) "Hey, Foo! Baz misspelled 'portray' on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision -- why don't you go fix it, since I'm banned?"

Acting as another user

A Wikipedia user is not permitted to portray themselves as another user in editing any page, especially not during a vote.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 18:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (implicit in wikipedia:polling guidelines, and basic honesty)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Three revert rule

A Wikipedia user may revert an article a maximum of 3 times during any 24 hour period

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 19:00, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I'm hesitant, because there is some opposition, and some who feel this should be "just" a guidelines, but most of the controversy is over enforcement, not over desired behaviour)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Use of sockpuppets to evade the three revert rule

While a user may have more than one account and edit without logging in they may not use a combination of their accounts to evade the three revert rule.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 19:00, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (true even for those who feel 3RR is a guideline)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

No "trolling" or disruptive behaviour

The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.

Ayes:

Martin 22:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 23:34, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 16:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:06, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Proposed temporary orders

Editing under one account

For the duration of this proceeding Lir shall edit only under the account Lir.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:22, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 07:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Though I'm not sure entirely how this will be handled...)
Martin 10:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Declare all other accounts

Lir is required to declare all Wikipedia accounts that he has ever used. Where allegations of his use of specific accounts have been made, such as the list provided by Tim Starling, Lir is required to state which of these accounts he has ever used. Lir stated on IRC, log User:Anthere/Guanaco and Lir "Lir i have three sysop accounts". These must also be identified. Lir has one week from the passing of this temporary order to make these declarations.

Ayes:

Martin 10:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 12:33, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 23:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Enforcement

If Lir does not comply with a temporary order then, for the duration of this proceeding, he shall be restricted to editing pages related to his arbitration, and his user and user talk pages.

Ayes:

Martin 10:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 23:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 23:52, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

Lir is a repeated liar

Lir has repeatedly been discovered to have lied to other Wikipedia users, and cannot be trusted to tell the truth in either trivial or serious matters. Some examples of this tendency are:

Lir has claimed that "I do not recall ever having a conversation with anyone on IRC", during this arbitration. Elsewhere Lir has recalled details about a conversation on #wikipedia immediately prior to his being banned from that channel. It is not possible for both of these claims to be true.
While Lir was banned from Wikipedia, he used a number of sock puppet accounts, and repeatedly and vehemently denied that they were his accounts, both via email, and via the sock puppets themselves.
Lir claimed on IRC to have three sysop accounts. Subsequently he denied having any sysop accounts, and claimed to have never claimed to have such accounts.

Ayes:

Martin 22:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 17:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 22:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

~~All humans are liars. I would vote regarding particular lies. Fred Bauder 17:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)~~

Lir is not a vandal

The term vandalism is a term of art in Wikipedia discourse, with a narrow definition that does not extend to every bad faith edit, nor to every edit we might prefer had not taken place. Users that engage in vandalism, in this technical sense, are subject to sysop blocks. On the evidence presented thus far, Lir has not engaged in vandalism, though he may have made edits in bad faith, and we might prefer that some of his edits had not taken place.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:34, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
Martin 13:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 18:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 17:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 20:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Creation of multiple accounts

Lir has edited Wikipedia under a large number of user accounts. The list that has been developed may contain some inaccuracies but there is credible evidence available to the Wikipedia developers supporting this conclusion. Lir has repeatedly lied about his use of multiple user accounts in the past, while he was under a ban from Jimbo. As such, his denials in this case are not credible.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:22, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Martin 13:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) (with addition in italics)
James F. (talk) 18:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Including Martin's addition.)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy

Lir created the article Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy which was grossly ineffective due to poor wording and Lir's reputation.

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:35, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 22:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 13:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) (stating the obvious, though)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- and your point is ... ? This supposed offense was in the complaint. Fred Bauder 21:43, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:12, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Edit warring

Lir regularly engages in editing disputes regarding minor matters and despite extensive discussion of the matters in dispute declines to accept reasonable compromises, for example, regarding the proper name to use in references to Saddam Hussein, See Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming and page history and Talk:DNA and its archives including Talk:DNA/vote

Ayes:

Fred Bauder He did indeed in the cited example accept a compromise, but nevertheless regularly engages in editing disputes regarding minor matters. Fred Bauder 16:16, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 22:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Martin 14:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) An examination of Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming shows that Lir did accept a compromise, when it was made. Further, the dispute predates Lir's arrival. Further, as newsrooms have had this discussion, it is not unreasonable that we have it on Wikipedia. This is not an endorsement of Lir's editing methods, for which see below.

Abstentions:

During edit wars on Saddam Hussein and DNA, Lir regularly deliberately reverted changes to which he did not object, in order to reinsert a note after the introduction. (see [2] and [3] as examples). We find that this form of edit warring is unnecessarilly disruptive, both to improving the article in other ways, and to eventually resolving the dispute, both of which are contrary to established Wikipedia principles.

Ayes:

Martin 14:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 14:49, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Personal attacks

During the course of debate on Votes for Deletion, (see Talk:Dan Waniek) regarding deletion of Dan Waniek Lir engaged in personal attacks, see [4], [5], and [6]

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:36, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 22:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Martin 22:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (I'll try to put a fuller list on the /Evidence page sometime, but those examples are a good start)
the Epopt 17:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

~~Regarding deletion of ... what? --the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
- ~~of the article Dan Waniek... Martin 22:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~

Voting as a banned user

Lir during vote regarding deletion of the article, Dan Waniek. voted as the banned user Irismeister, claiming that, although banned, Irismeister had a right to a vote and that Lir had the right to act as his proxy, see [7]

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:36, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 22:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Martin 14:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) (true, though not a serious offence imo)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Breaking the three revert rule

On June 3, 2004, using a combination of his IP address, 63.230.159.235, and the sockpuppet, Editing Saddam Hussein, Lir broke the 3 revert rule, reverting the article Saddam Hussein 4 times, see[8], [9], [10], [11]

Ayes:

Fred Bauder 12:36, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 18:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Martin 22:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Lir of course claims that "Editing Saddam Hussein" is not him, but regretfully burnt off his credibility on such matters some time ago)
→Raul654 07:20, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Nayes:

Abstentions:

Proposed remedies

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Arbitrator votes for proposed remedy 1:

Arbitrator votes against proposed remedy 1:

Arbitrator abstains regarding proposed remedy 1:

Accounts

Lir may edit under the user name Lir and up to three other accounts which shall be clearly identified by him on User:Lir and the user pages of the other accounts he edits under.

Accept Fred Bauder 12:06, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Martin 23:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Policy initiatives

Lir's attempts to influence Wikipedia policy, however ineffective, are permitted under accepted Wikipedia policy and are not grounds for negative sanctions.

Accept Fred Bauder 12:39, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Martin 23:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any objections to merging this into the finding of fact above? It makes more sense to me as a single item. Martin

Personal attacks

Lir is banned from editing on Wikipedia for one month for making personal attacks.

Accept Fred Bauder 18:18, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reject. Martin 14:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lir's losing his temper is not worthy of a month's ban. Propose one week, as below.
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abstain for now. Lir has suggested that he's been similarly attacked by those he's lost his temper with (and others), would like to see him present evidence of that before coming to a conclusion. Martin 18:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lir is banned from editing on Wikipedia for one week for making personal attacks. Lir has claimed that un-named people have made attacks against him, but has refused to provide any evidence. Accordingly the arbitration committee cannot take any action regarding this allegation.

Martin 14:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 14:51, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 00:47, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Voting as another user

Lir is banned from editing on Wikipedia for 6 months for voting using the name of another user.

~~the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Accept Fred Bauder 18:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)~~

Oppose. While Lir shouldn't have done this, distaste for proxying is a comparatively recent addition to policy, and this was a single offence. Propose the below instead.Martin 23:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 22:45, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 23:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lir is admonished not to vote for or otherwise "proxy" on behalf of banned users.

Martin 23:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 23:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Acting as a proxy for a banned user

Lir is banned from editing on Wikipedia for 3 months for acting as a proxy for the banned user Irismeister.

Accept Fred Bauder 18:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose, as above. Martin 23:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
" " →Raul654 06:36, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Breaking the 3 revert rule

Lir is banned for 1 day for violating the 3 revert rule on June 3, 2003 while editing the article Saddam Hussein.

Accept Fred Bauder 19:08, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Martin 14:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 21:05, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Using a sockpuppet to evade the 3 revert rule

Lir is banned for one week for using the sockpuppet Editing Saddam Hussein to evade the 3 revert rule on June 3, 2003 while editing the article Saddam Hussein.

Accept Fred Bauder 19:08, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 18:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Martin 14:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seeking compromise

Lir is admonished to avoid edit wars and to seek compromise with other users, giving full weight to the opinions and expertise of other users.

Accept Fred Bauder 19:11, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 07:22, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC) (he should be doing this anyway)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Penalties are cumulative

The bans imposed on Lir shall run consecutively, not concurrently.

Accept Fred Bauder 18:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Martin 23:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 16:31, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pattern of bad faith edits

Due to the large number and seriousness of the violations Lir has committed, the question of whether a pattern of bad-faith edits seemingly designed to damage the Wikipedia without specifically violating any policies constitutes vandalism has not been addressed as this is not such a case.

Accept Fred Bauder 19:17, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Reject -- this is not a remedy, it is a finding, and a badly worded one at that. --the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Reject - conflicts with "Lir is not a vandal" finding, above. Martin 23:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions on creating accounts

The first instance of Lir editing under an unauthorized account shall result in a ban of one month for all his accounts. Each successive instance shall result in a ban of a duration of twice the previous ban, i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16 months and so on.

Accept

Fred Bauder 12:06, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 00:48, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Parole

1) Due to the longstanding nature of Lir's violations, a Standing order will be issued, putting Lir on parole: If Lir should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "disruptive" or in violation of Wikipedia policy, as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Lir for a period of 24 hours, not subject to the normal warnings and protections afforded other users. If Lir should attempt to evade this through the use of sockpuppets, this ban would be extended to one week After 6 months, the arbitration committee will reconsider the matter.

Accept

→Raul654 06:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Reject

Goes too far, see proposal 2 below. Fred Bauder 14:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Fred's proposal below seems fairer. Martin 21:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 23:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abstain

-

2) Due to the longstanding nature of Lir's violations, a Standing order will be issued, putting Lir on parole: If Lir should make a provocative edit or series of edits (that is, edit wars or other edits which are "disruptive" or in violation of Wikipedia policy, as interpreted by an administrator) those edits may be reverted by an adminstrator who shall post the url of Lir's edits on page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Parole violations together with a brief explanation. Lir may be banned for 24 hours should he revert such a reversion. If Lir should attempt to evade this parole through the use of sockpuppets, a ban of up to one week may be imposed. Any bans made under the terms of this parole should also be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Parole violations The Arbitration Committee shall monitor this matter and may reconsider it at anytime upon 4 Arbitrators agreeing to a motion for reconsideration at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Lir may make such a motion only after 6 months, any other user, including Arbitrators, may at any time.

Accept

Fred Bauder 14:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I find this acceptable. →Raul654 22:21, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 20:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 23:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reject

-

Abstain

Abstain for now. Not entirely convinced it's this simple. Martin 21:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

Lir's counter-claim of being unfairly blocked are being looked at in the Guanaco vs Lir case. Martin 22:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do intend to vote on the rest, but I'd like to see the results of the temporary order first, in many cases. Martin 00:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, while the temporary order didn't pass, I've got enough from my conversation with Lir at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense to carry on. We're skirting around the core of the case, I feel, which is:

Is trolling allowed?
Is Lir a troll?
If so, what should be done about this?

The first I think is a clear yes. For the second, this will require folks to review the evidence - it's impossible to point to individual edits and say "this is trolling, that is not" - it's something which becomes obvious over time. Martin 23:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)