If Raul and Snowspinner are going to accuse me of vandalising user pages ... shouldn't the users whose pages were allegedly vandalised feel that their page was vandalised? There are obviously certain arbcom members who wish to run this like a kangaroo court. It is stunning that a talk page comment of "Its true!" could be construed as vandalism. Certainly, the users in question have not expressed the belief that they were vandalised. Lirath Q. Pynnor 14:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why is the arbcom not addressing the actual issue here, which was Snowspinner's illegal one month ban of Lir. All these complaints about what Lir responded to Fennec's question about how things should change at the wiki (*gasp* he suggested Jimbo should resign) or that *gasp* Lir somehow allegedly inserted the letters "da" into an article (which Im sure every member of the arbcom has done at least once, accidents happen) -- all these frivolous complaints by snowspinner were never addressed at any earlier levels of dispute resolution. If Snowspinner feels offended by my friendly request for Angela to resign, shouldn't he seek mediation? Why doesn't the arbcom follow its own rules?
Does anyone else find it blatantly absurd that the following edit could possibly be considered "lying": yes, fyi i have nearly one hundred sockpuppets. That includes 23 sysops, 3 developers, 2 arbcom members, and a member of the board in a pear tree.
The charges against me are trumped up and completely bogus. The case falters on four points: A) I didn't cause any vandalism or even edit any articles B) You have no evidence that not logging in was not an accident. C) There was no ruling that accidentally not logging in was unacceptable. D)The sole reason you know I forgot to login, was because I told you I forgot to log in, because I took time to sign my name.Lirath Q. Pynnor
