Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense

I do not have three sysop accounts, nor have I ever claimed to. I do not recall ever having a conversation with anyone on IRC, with the exceptions of a few exchanges in which vulgar remarks about my mother were made by sysops. In particular, I do not recall speaking with User:Anthere; I do not recall ever having, or claiming to have, three sysop accounts. I am not User:Editing Saddam Hussein, who has been accused of reverting an article 4 times within one day (although, looking at the edit history, I dispute that the user is guilty of that; and furthermore, I dispute that a rule regarding reverts exists, or that there is any adequate means for users to discover that said rule exists). Since my reinstatment, I have only used other accounts (ie: User:Qwert) with the explicit permission of Jimbo Wales -- on those accounts, I committed no crimes, and there is no rule against using multuple accounts. I do not know who created the following user accounts: *insert lengthy list of random names here*

This is my response to: the evidence page


 * Lir is regularly hostile and difficult in discussions, rejecting all attempts at consensus or discussion – examples of this can be found on Talk:Saddam Hussein, in which he has continued to insist on an article insertion despite clear consensus against it, as in:
 * I stated, "I know from experience, that you don't honestly care how many users support me.", and its true -- they don't care. They have repeatedly accused me of not having any "support" -- it is a waste of my time to mobilize a "counter-cabal" (and prove my support exists) unless they first concede that the existence of such support negates their complaint that I have no support.
 * As I state here, "There is nothing unreasonable about including a sentence about the naming issue within the article opening" -- is there? How can I be accused of refusing to discuss, where is the plaintiff's response? Am I being unreasonable?
 * Here I state, "When you want to discuss, let me know." -- where is the trolling? Clearly I am bending over backwards to try and discuss things with the plaintiff.
 * I can see why people hire lawyers -- defending myself against these petty "crimes" is quite tedious. Here I state, "I believe the opening of the article should mention the name issue." -- lol, what a crime! The plaintiff has argued that this "implicitly admits to edit warring" -- um, ok?
 * This edit is simply an attempt to encourage other users to edit my edits, rather than deleting them. The wikipedia states that one will be "edited mercilessly" -- which does not quite mean "deleted mercilessly". I am the one editing, they are the ones deleting -- perhaps the arbitration committee should be investigating them.
 * Ok, this is too much. It really is a waste of my time to respond to all this, I'm gonna have to declare a recess. The full text of this edit is "Yes". By admitting that I believe the Saddam Hussein article introduction should include some sort of brief note about the usage of "Saddam", what crime has been committed?


 * For now, I have ended my rebuttal of the complaints -- if the arbitration commitee has further questions, they can contact me. I may continue this defense, I may not.
 * To clarify, my point was not "These are all unreasonable edits." My point was "This is the length at which Lir carried on a debate, accepting no degrees of compromise, and refusing to back down no matter how many people responded and disagreed." Snowspinner 02:13, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think you made your point. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * I shall continue on...even though the arbitration committee has rudely given no notice that it is reading this page. (at least I am - cf Talk)
 * 
 * Essentially, they are asking me to stop reverting them; and of course, I am asking the same of them (stop reverting me). The link gives an incorrect impression that I never tried to "prove" my case; complaint 10 (below) is in regards to my asking them to stop archiving the page everytime support for my position is stated, I "proved" my case more than once.
 * I was not the instigator of the edit war in question -- and I am refusing to let them bully me into withdrawing; they are arguing how inconvenient it is for them to be reverted, but what about their reversion of me? I don't think its very hard to realize that there is controversy over this issue. Offhand, here is one link which discusses it: . As another user, who agreed with me, noted, "Doesn't the fact that we are arguing about it, indicate that there is controversy?"
 * Furthermore, in the above edit, I noted how tiresome it is for me to have to constantly re-insert my edits -- I hope that the arbitration committee investigates those who insist on deleting my work. In the future, pages should be protected when there is an edit war; so that the edit war participants are not inadvertantly reverting material added by users who are not involved in the conflict.
 * Since there was not consensus against me (despite what Rick claims...do note, the page now bears the statement which I was arguing for -- there is no longer any significant opposition to it...apparently, the consensus is in my favour); I pointed out that discussion is more appropriate than reverting. Obviously, if I don't continue to re-insert my deleted work; there is no way I will be able to get people to seriously discuss the merits of my contributions. Contrary to "popular opinion", I am the one attempting to get people to talk -- I am neither starting edit wars, nor refusing to debate or compromise...all I am doing is re-inserting factually valid and NPOV information for which there is no consensus against.
 * Christ almighty, I fear that the plaintiff has made a link to every comment I made on the talk page. In this edit, I merely observe that after several people spoke up and agreed with me; the page was archived, making it difficult for others to see that I was not alone in advocating my position. Obviously, I have committed no crime.
 * Unless Snowspinner can prove that User:YES is me, I hardly see how my pleading "not guilty" can be considered evidence of inappropriate behaviour. Perhaps the arbitration committee should punish those who insist on harassing me, and insist on wasting my time (by forcing me to defend myself against this nonsense).
 * I'm not sure how my reverting is inherently more wrong than the reverting done by others; however, I make a good point in this edit. Page protections would solve the problem that occurs when an edit war takes place on a busy article. Its very problematic to have to continually insert your text back into an article which is in a state of flux.


 * Ok then, that's enough for now. I think it's fairly clear that I am being charged with non-existant crimes; such things as being "difficult in discussions". As Snowspinner notes above, "My point was not, "These are all unreasonable edits." My point was, "This is the length at which Lir carried on a debate."" Well, kudos to me -- obviously I am dedicated and take the time to make reasonable arguments. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Today I wasted some time to look at evidence 12-15 -- I am not going to waste my time linking them from this page, it seems clear that the arbitration committee is neither reading this page...nor are the charges against me of any substance. 12-15 are touted as "evidence" that I insist on a particularly "cumbersome" form of dispute-resolution...that method, which I advocate, is simply that we should discuss articles, starting at the beginning, and working our way through. Lirath Q. Pynnor

20] And now, I remove my listing of Jimbo Wales...since I have come to understand that this isn't a vote for a mediator; but rather, a vote for who will make the final determination of what will be on the page.
 * Since Martin indicated he was reading this, I will also respond to charges 16-22.
 * 16:Am I to be banned for noting that the talk page is "a mess"?
 * 17: I stated, "I think this talk page should be linked to from the "criticism of Wikipedia" page. It would only be NPOV to note that the traditional editing process becomes less and less viable as more and more users attempt to work on a page."
 * Apparently, users don't like me because I am critical of the Wikipedia. I am sorry; but, the Wikipedia still hasn't figured out how to resolve a two-party dispute...let alone a dispute between multiple parties with conflicting agendas. Why am I being harrassed for observing some of the flaws here? It would seem that some people believe the way to solve disputes is to ban their opposition (commonly known as "trolls").
 * 18 The debate here was over whether the term "deoxynucleic acid" was used intentionally by authors; it is, and I believe I successfully demonstrated this by citing sources which use the term. Last I checked, the article is still reverted so that my contributions are being ignored by the POV-cabal which refuses to acknowledge this.
 * 19 I am to be banned for listing Jimbo Wales as somebody whom I would accept as a mediator?
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:DNA&diff=2827803&oldid=2827761
 * 21 This is just a harmless comment, in an argument over whether since so many academics use the term "deoxynucleic acid"...we should at least include the word within our article. I think we should, what do you think?
 * 22 I stated, "You won't see any discussion here unless you join me in demanding that the mediation committee do something." And indeed there hasn't been any discussion on that article in months, since the mediation committee refuses to do it's job.
 * 23 Here I respond to someone's complaint about how long discussion takes; since they are a newcomer, I ask them how long they have been participating in the debate.


 * Despite the extremely rude insistence of the arbitration committee that they can edit this page at will (thus denying me the right to present my own defence), I will continue attempting to address the alleged crimes of which I am accused. Today we shall look at 24-27.
 * 24 In this horrendous edit, I go out of my way to note that a yahoo search supports my argument.
 * 25 Here I am making the atrocious argument that any subject which is studied in an academic manner, be considered academic -- regardless of the editors personal POV regarding the subject's validity.
 * 26 Here I note that mathematics is an academic field; and historically, numerology has been commonly considered part of mathematics. I then make the obvious argument that since some people still consider numerology to be academic; that we should maintain NPOV.
 * 27 Here I cite modern academic experts who engaged in the study of numerology. I then go on to make a compromise with regards to astrology; clearly, it is not I who is incapable of discussion and compromise.

Ah, responding to this endless monotony of complaints is a real waste of time...and for what? Its not like the arbitration committee has given any sign that it intends to pursue things in a judicious or reasonable manner. I believe I will take a break now.