Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by {Alastair Haines}

The following evidence supporting my appeal to ArbCom is representative not exhaustive. It is not simply edits, but many pages of talk page posts almost all repeating the same opinions regarding me, without serious engagement with article content, or any other context except like opinions (hearsay). It has lasted several months, thank you for your patience.

User:Ilkali is taking time to understand the processes

from "Many religions believe in a God or gods. These religions have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to divine persons."
to "The entity God is a component of many religions, which have a range of views regarding its gender."
  • The text Ilkali replaced had been provided by me more than a year earlier.
  • Before Ilkali's arrival, the page used to get more than 1,250 hits per month (it has doubled since). The stable text had survived about 15,000 hits and several hundred edits.
  • I count 25 edits by Ilkali at the article. Nearly all are reverts or contain removal of text, specifically text originated by me, irrespective of them being stable, sourced or endorsed by others, such as Tim.
  • I think the only edits of Ilkali's currently standing in the text are this and this.
  • The reverts and removals have only been made against my edits and Tim's, specifically Tim's that endorsed mine.
  • For long periods, every edit I made was reverted by Ilkali.
  • Ilkali has nearly always considered his edit summary sufficient discussion. He has never once sought my opinion on an edit, or opened discussion with me before reverting me.
  • He does, however, respond to everything I post in talk, though this often does not constitute seriously engaging with the issue. For example quoting me, but providing "So what?" as his argument to three of my points.
  • I not particularly concerned with which policies Ilkali may be breaking here, but the reality has been I've been a "marked man", unable to edit without Ilkali's approval, and he's never once accepted any argument or modified form of text I've provided. Or, for that matter, any text of his own, sourced or otherwise—just immovably blocked my edits, almost always sourced and always verifiable.
  • It "feels" to me like he plays to a crowd, offering arguments sufficient to persuade others that he should be supported in opposing my editing. Often presumed or actual support is offered as sufficient grounds to render my content arguments and sources irrelevant. See more under ad hominem below.

Ilkali removed a talk page post of Alastair's 3 times in 24 hours

  • In two years at Wiki I've never needed to 3RR or WQA anyone (but see Lisa below). I've always backed out and found ways around the issues. Ilkali was immovable, but it was only when he removed a post I'd written in reply to a long standing discussion with User:Andowney I got upset. Andrew and I had been amicably disagreeing for more than a year, and Andrew had just come up with a really quality source against my view of scholastic consensus in Daniel B. Wallace, but also provided an excellent one against his own in Liturgicam Authenticam.
  • It was at this point I seriously revisited the dispute resolution process. Actually I went to the ArbCom page first, but saw the sense in informal processes like WQA. I warned Ilkali, and with the 4th revision started the WQA process. The first poster agreed with Ilkali, which surprised me, I anticipated that things were not going to be easy, unwatched the page and hoped for the best. I got a couple of weeks of peace to get on with serious work on other articles and projects. Please note here, that despite a long period of frustration with Ilkali, and providing warnings regarding edit warring, I did not want to place him at risk of blocking, I wanted him to listen to other views before editing, nothing more.
  • As soon as the WQA finished in his favour he removed my post to Andrew again. Since no one had bothered to discuss the result with me before making it, I restored the post. When User:Abtract who was Ilkali's "consensus" at the time moved everything to an archive, Ilkali finally stopped deleting the post.

Ilkali has a habit of arguing ad hominem

'"X's opinion on grammar should be ignored because he's fat" is an ad hominem.
"X's opinion on grammar should be ignored because he doesn't know anything about grammar" is not.'
  • I think this partly explains the whole problem we face at the moment. It all stems from Ilkali believing it is appropriate to argue ad hominem in cases like he describes, hence circumventing WP:No personal attacks. It might sound odd to suggest I think Ilkali makes personal attacks in good faith, but that's precisely what I believe. Of course, ultimately personal attacks are personal attacks and have defamatory consequences when unfounded. But from Ilkali's POV, the person being attacked is not a valid source of evidence regarding whether something is a personal attack or not. What disappoints me is not so much Ilkali's personal attacks, at least I can believe he doesn't realise what he's doing. What disappoints me is other editors and processes not setting him straight on the matter. Had they done so, we wouldn't be here today.
  • In case the mistake in Ilkali's understanding is not clear. Let me explain how I can see it arising. A student frequently reads books where academics say: "X fails to appreciate the argument", "Y overstates the evidence", "Z is an expert on Indo-European languages, but not Semitic ones". These appear to be relevant to the case at hand, addressing relevant aspects of the scholars being criticised. However, what Ilkali seems to have overlooked is that these are the conclusions of arguments, not their premises. They are summary statements of the arguments to follow. Ilkali, however, wants to start from "X knows no grammar" to argue that "X is wrong about this point of grammar". Of course this is invalid. The Infinite monkey theorem points out that even a lucky set of guesses might produce a valid argument. A scholar's well known incompetance or bias might be good grounds to anticipate an entertainingly poor argument, but it is not proof. In fact, the scholar's argument, if poor, can be disproved without even needing to resort to ad hominem language. Precisely, I thought, the point of WP:No personal attacks.
  • Why I believe Ilkali does this in good faith is because he did it to Tim too in Talk:Gender of God#New Intro. In my reading (and Tim's) as Ilkali finds another editor disagreeing with his arguments, when further counter arguments run out, he attributes to the other editor either motives that stop him listening or an inability to understand Ilkali's arguments. When you're absolutely sure you're right, and pursuaded by your own arguments, what else can you do? Well, some of us might feel we could be overlooking something and actually be wrong ourselves. Perhaps Ilkali does this sometimes, but in the many examples of him being presented with sources and arguments by Alastair and Tim, he has ended up resorting to ad hominem, at which point he always wins, because then his opponent has no valid come-back. Especially if the crowd endorse his ad hominem, which has happened frequently.
  • Unless this rather simple matter is addressed, Alastair and Tim won't be the only ones who end up having to tolerate, give in or seek community support in conflicts with Ilkali. But there's another point, in my particular case, the ad hominem's extended to my edit style, rather ironically suggesting I'm stubborn (which I do sometimes choose to be), but expressing this as characteristic (which he can't know) and as completely oblivious to the opinions of others (which can clearly be demonstrated to be false even in Ilkali's own case).
  • The fact that the personal attacks have de-famed me is proven by this very ArbCom case. L'Aquatique has given credence to views that ultimately arise in the light of interpretation of my actions first provided by Ilkali, then repeated by others. They are not the only interpretation, nor are they a likely interpretation if two years of editing, or real life aquaintance are investigated. They are serious (in a Wiki context) allegations, based on hearsay interpretation in a specific context, where that context alone has not been adequately explored.
  • Please note here that I'm not looking for vengance, I'm just wanting the air cleared by adequate examination. I personally propose no sanctions on anyone, and will defend Ilkali, L'Aquatique and others were the committee to propose such measures on them. What has happened seems to me to reflect limited time available to volunteers, my own unwillingness to get messed up with WQA, my own choice to meet Ilkali's (imo) stubbornness with modified counter-stubbornness, and the consequence is me appealing to the most generous volunteers of all to clear my name and that of those who administer processes at Wiki.

User:L'Aquatique serves beyond the call of duty

  • "It will be a cold day in hell before I apologize for being honest." L'Aquatique, 19:35, 6 July 2008

Evidence presented by LisaLiel

Alastair engages in edit wars

(It may seem hypocritical for me to point out that Alastair engages in edit wars when I have as well, but I've acknowledged my culpability in doing so. Alastair continues to maintain that he has never done anything wrong in his 2 years editing Wikipedia.)

Alastair is unwilling to admit fault

  • Alastair claims he has never misbehaved in any way on Wikipedia ([13]).
  • Alastair considers his editing "flawless" ([14]).
  • When criticized for insulting other editors, Alastair characterizes his remarks as "true, polite and appropriate" and says that "they are very nicely expressed in my usual unswervingly polite and respectful style" ([15]).

Alastair insults/belittles other editors

  • Alastair has called other editors "trolls" ([16]).
  • Alastair calls criticisms of himself "poor reading" ([17]).
  • "I have always and always will hold the Wiki community and foundation accountable for defamation regarding me published on its pages" ([18]).

Alastair makes baseless accusations against other editors

  • Alastair accuses other editors of "misusing Wikipedia processes for your own ends" ([19]).
  • Alastair accuses other editors of "defaming" him ([20]).

-LisaLiel (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair believes he "owns" Wikipedia articles

  • Alastair claims that if his edits have been in an article for sufficiently long, the text is considered "consensus" and "stable", and that any changes must be approved by him in advance. And that he is entitled to simply revert changes he hasn't approved of ([21], [22], [23], [24]).

Alastair disrespects Wikipedia processes

  • Although this RfA is about Alastair, he has taken it upon himself, unilaterally, to add Ilkali and L'Aquatique as "defendants", choosing to attack them rather than defend his own behavior.

-LisaLiel (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair positions himself as "the teacher"

Finally, I would like to point out the evidence given by two of Alastair's supporters, which demonstrates the basic problem here:

  • Buster7: ([25], [26], [27], [28]).
    • "there is very little room for debate unless the arguments speak to a LOGICAL transition of Alastasirs long-held opinions/beliefs"
    • "He must be convinced or else it's Katie Bar the Door!."
    • "Alastairs logical positioning of himself as an important cog" "Did he, at times, say things that could be construed, after the fact, as harsh. I suppose so! If one is a teacher in a classroom and the student chastizes you in the front of the classroom, disrespectfully, rudely, with no consideration or regard, you may have a tendency to strike back."
    • "He does not reprimand unless challenged"
  • Miguel.mateo: ([29])
    • "in all my interactions with Alistair he has been always "the teacher"."

In my opinion, these views are clearly shared by Alastair, and are at the root of the problems with him as an editor. All the constructive content he provides is offset by his positioning himself as "superior" to all other editors. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by John254

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Please see [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

Ilkali has disruptively removed other users' comments which might be regarded as reasonably related to improvement of article content from talk pages

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

Evidence presented by L'Aquatique

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Alastair Haines is uncivil

  • Calls others trolls [54][55]
  • "Your empty rudeness and slander above ill becomes a would-be mediator. I expect we will come to those matters eventually. You have been and are being very foolish." [56]
  • Demands that mediators focus on his desire to punish other users [57]

Alastair Haines takes the "Law" into his own hands

  • "Ilkali is a user who is still demonstrating misuse of BRD and other Wikipedia policies and is being watched and warned by me." [58]
  • "NOTE: The following is a record of User Alastair Haines patiently answering increasingly impolite and irrelevant comments by User Ilkali... The final step in resolving this is for Ilkali to apologize by removing all personal attacks against me in his original offending text. Once he has done that, the comments regarding his incivility can be removed also." (after removing content on talk page) [59]
  • "Don't take Ilkali too seriously Buster, he's a notorious edit warrer awaiting discipline when I choose to pursue it."[60]

RE:User:L'Aquatique serves above and beyond the call of duty

  • That is rather taken out of context, I think. Here's what happened. Alastair's poor behavior caused Rushyo to quit as mediator of the Gender of God case. I left a rather terse note on his talk page advising him to clean up his act ([61]), he responded with a demand for an apology ([62]), Rushyo backed me up ([63]), then I made the cold day in hell comment, along with a lot of other, more civil, advice- ([64]). L'Aquatique[talk] 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Buster7

wikipedia at work

You are charged to gather and evaluate information.

I will not speak to any facts about the article in question other than to say that its subject matter is a hot bed for disHarmony, always has been and, perhaps, always will be. So the fact that a little "lively" discussion and edit warring occurred should not surprise anyone. it is almost a to be expected thing. Afterall, this was not an article about a new Punk rock band. z(Come to think of it what happens at a rock band article is, im sure, much more severe).

This is alastair's field of expertise...not a hobby, not a passing fancy. Its his lifes work---his baby. So his sub-conscious positioning of himself in any theological discussion will be that of a teacher, a mentor, an educator. As with most seasoned experts I have dealt with, there is very little room for debate unless the arguments speak to a LOGICAL transition of Alastasirs long-held opinions/beliefs. He must be convinced or else it's Katie Bar the Door!. Not unlike almost every ediucator we ALL have known. (Imagine having to convince your Math professor that 1+1=not2).....So , if alastair is a bit "sour" to his fellow combatants, it is to be expected.

What happened here

In my estimation that is what happened here. Alastairs logical positioning of himself as an important cog in creating a timely article to "live for the Ages' was apparent. Again, this is not a "light" subject. It is a core "What it means to be Human Being" type subject. Repeatedly, all thru the building of the Gender of God article,, Alastair displayed a willingness and civility to work with ALL the editors involved. Did he, at times, say things that could be construed, after the fact, as harsh? I suppose so! If one is a teacher in a classroom and the student chastizes you in the front of the classroom, disrespectfully, rudely, with no consideration or regard, you may have a tendency to strike back.

As a father of 5 and a grandfather of 14, I always ask.."who started it?' I don't have the answer...just the question. It seems to have started somewhere else. Without getting into details, I feel that someone threw a pebble, someone else threw a rock and the war was on!

To the Information gatherers

You are charged to gather and evaluate information. Please examine well and expose the harsh and uncomfortable reality of the misguided actions of some administrators. They may know what fork to use, but they are stabbing their fellow tablemates. It is vexing and troublesome. Use this opportunity to challenge greatness from the sysops. More than vandalism, their misdeeds will be the ruin of WikiWorld.

In real life I would not know Alastair if I bumped into him at the candy store. But, in WikiWorld, when I have bumped into him, he is always Civil to everyone, harmonious, precise, and measured---in control. "He plays well with others!"

He does not reprimand unless challenged.

He does not sermonize, he counsels.

Admittedly he is a Wikifriend. But he is a Wikifriend because of what I saw in his discussions/talks/etc.

As coincidence would have it I have had personal dealings with other editors in this case or I have bumped into them as my Mouse wandered where it wanted. I have seen them in action but I have no examples to share. However, I was NOT drawn to ask them to be a Mentor. After 3 months of searching and asking selected other editors to mentor me, it was Alsatair who said, "Yes". And I am very glad he did.

Conclusion

Sadly, LisaLiel and L'Aqutique and Ilkali have missed a wonderful opportunity to create a positive relationship with an excellent, good-faith editor. I'm sure they do not agreee. It is their loss. Anything less than a full disregarding may result in the loss of a quality encyclopedist. It has happened over and over and over again. Can WikiPedia survive if it keeps throwing its best sailors into the sea. I don't think so

In Response to Ilkali

What would Ilkali like me to point out? I have not directly addressed any of the evidence because, In Truth, to me, there is NO evidence. Every diff presented is an example of Alastairs attempt to achieve a reputable article. Each one, when investigated, is preceeded or followed by surronding reasonable dialogue, that creates Alastairs response or edit. I am really having a hard time finding 'good cause' for this case. So, from my vantage point, how can I comment on evidence that is not there.

I DO SEE EVIDENCE...but it is not evidence of any wrongdoing by AListair. Some administrators involved in this case have shown considerably more venom and vigor toward me than any of the mild responses/edits by Alistair. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.--Buster7 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Miguel.mateo

This case is not only about Alistair Haines

I think the involved parties section should also include User:Ilkali, User:LisaLiel and User:Teclontz to be fair to the case. The edit war involves all those editors, and if fairness is what we seek all of them should be included in this arbitration. I have asked this to the arbitration requester in his talk page ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to second Buster7, in all my interactions with Alistair he has been always "the teacher". The nature of the articles where we have had our interactions are by far less problematic, and this is a very good point here: we should be prepared to have cases like this for the many years to come on any editors that, that even with good faith, want to change the articles covered in this discussion.

Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Lisa's last entry, this cannot be used as evidence of any sort and it is absolutely irrelevant to the case. It is like me, as an example, citing every single word she said against herself for been short minded (against, just a sample, I am not judging nobody). I consider myself new in Wikipedia (started seriously less than a year ago with only close to 3000 edits) and my area of contribution is very limited. I have learned a lot from Alistair and he has been always willing to help (and teach) when asked. As a senior member he is does that make him "superior"? Why do we have a mentor program then? That sentence is absolutely non-sense ...

Alistair has been walking an extra mail to help others

  • My first interaction, when following an advice, I approached him for copy/editing a numismatic article; regardless that this subject is not his comfort area, he did help with the article. [65]
  • Having a problem with a copyright issue, that it turned to be nothing, my frustration was "cool down" by Alistair's comment, a sample to follow and I will not forget, it can clearly seen that he is trying to avoid conflicts [66]
  • Having a problem with prose in a FLC that I nominated, even though he is still on stress for all of these events, he still offered to help with the copy/edit of this list, and indeed he did a couple of sections ... I admire that regardless of been fire fighting he still took a couple of hours to fix my article. [67]

Evidence presented by Rushyo

Alastair Haines has demeaned and insulted other parties

[68] [69] (TBC)

Alastair Haines has intimidated and threatened other parties

[70] [71] [72] [73] (TBC)

Alastair Haines does not listen to the community or respect dispute resolution

[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] (TBC)

User:Ilkali's actions have not been investigated through due process

No RfC has been made against Ilkali and the RfM regarding the content of Gender of God never occurred (due to Alastair's contempt for the process [81]). Alastair has stated that he brought the Mediation Cabal content dispute case for the sole reason of chastising Ilkali. [82] [83]

Evidence presented by Teclontz

L'Aquatique and Alastiar are the two victims here

I may require more than a week to assemble my evidence, but this is the result of long standing bullying and wikilawyering by two different people: Ilkali and Lisaliel. Ilkali initiated an earlier action against Alastair that resulted in a warning for everyone to play nice. Lisaliel initiated an earlier action against me attempting to prevent me from editing in any Jewish section of any article anywhere on Wikipedia -- and that action is still in process. Shortly after I made my first entry into the Jewish section of the Gender of God article, Lisaliel began to radically rewrite that section, eliminating long standing and well cited information, simply because it disagreed with her POV. This initiated an edit war that Alastair had the good sense and experience to back out of. The edit war itself was between Lisaliel and myself. We are the guilty parties, not Alastair.

But this was the third such incident:

  1. Lisaliel initiated the hijacking and destruction of a Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms because in her POV Messianic Judaism should not be a subject in Wikipedia. She created an AfD on that article and actively disrupted the article for the sole purpose of causing it to go away. Hundreds of hours and well over a hundred citations from a good number of editors of different faiths were eliminated. I have not seen much activity from a Muslim editor after that time.
  2. Lisaliel initiated the hijacking of the Shituf article because it included POVs other than her own. When L'Aquatique and I each offered sandbox proposals in our user space Lisaliel took over those as well. Ultimately L'Aquatique and I had to sit back and watch as our user spaces were manipulated by Lisaliel to conform to her POV and her POV only. She created a mediation cabal trying to get me gagged from all Jewish subjects on Wikipedia. Well cited historical information and different POVs were eliminated from an article that Lisaliel rewrote into her own POV. I have not seen any activity from the editor who created the Philo citations after that time.
  3. Lisaliel attempted to enforce her own request to have me gagged by doing so herself on the Gender of God article. Since it's very easy to see that Alastair has been a good counsel and Wikipedia mentor to me, counseling me to patience, since he was already vulnerable because of Ilkali's attack, and since it's a good opportunity to cover her tracks, Lisaliel is enthusiastically accusing Alastair here, in spite of the fact that he is still trying to create a middle ground on the Gender of God article.

In all three instances, the edit warring only ended when Lisaliel caused all other editors and all other POVs to unconditionally surrender to her solitary rewrites.

The evidence I am presenting will connect the dots for all three of these hijackings. I would encourage all members of the committee to look at the histories of these pages for themselves and form their own impressions. I am actively compiling my own impressions, and will refine them as I continue to research.

Summary: L'Aquatique had no way of knowing the history of this ongoing disaster that is running off editors and eliminating well cited results of previous cooperative editing. L'Aquatique is also a victim here.

That makes two victims: Alastair and L'Aquatique. My request is that this arbitration committee not become the third set of victims. We've already had three pages hijacked that I've witnessed. There may be more.

NOTE: These were first impressions, and as such is a first draft of the dates covered. Once I catch up to the present AN/I, I will proof these diffs to see if a second impression is the same as the first.

AGAIN, NOTE: the interpretations presented here are merely first impressions. It may take weeks and some proof-reading from some impartial third parties before I can present this in any affirmative form.

At this time, this is not here as an attack on the user in question, but is here instead to lay the foundation of evidence in defense of another user, Alastair, who was unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time for the last in a long series of edit wars I've either seen or been involved in:

From November 19 2007 through mid day December 31, 2007 (I'm adding more each day until I catch up to the present)

Generic Edit War:

First Instance --

[84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]

Second Instance –

[94] [95] [96]

Third Instance –

[97] [98] [99]

Fourth Instance –

[100] [101] [102]

Fifth Instance –

[103]

Sixth Instance –

[104] [105]

Seventh Instance –

[106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

Eighth Instance –

[112] [113] [114] [115] [116]

Ninth Instance –

[117] [118] [119]

Tenth Instance –

[120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]

Eleventh Instance –

[128] [129] [130]


Wikithreats –

[131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]

Received Warning –

[144]

Wikilawyering –

[145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]

Wikihijacking –

[153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]

Personal Cracks –

[172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]

Intentional Deception About Another’s Motives –

[188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213]

Bad Faith Editing (editing a page with the purpose of destroying it) –

[214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] (here she shows the ultimate reason for removing the Messianic column; it removes the entire basis for the article so that the article itself can disappear) [228] (and after removing the basis for the article, and hijacking it into a format of her choosing, she is NOW trying to get the AfD approved on HER OWN EDITS) [229] (again arguing for the deletion of HER OWN EDITS) [230] [231] (since her version of the article turned it into a violation of NPOV, I had no choice but to vote for delete, and here she again argues for the immediate deletion OF HER OWN EDITS) [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] (here she is trying to get rid of the ONLY title the glossary could have existed in – and in fact a similar glossary HAS remained stable under that title for over half a year; Lisa would have known this, and is trying to get a title that would cause the page to fail the AfD) [239] [240] [241] [242] (created a title that cannot remain stable) [243] (created a format that cannot remain stable)

Evidence presented by {Jerryofaiken}

{Lisa Liel is engaged in religious censorship of articles to promote her orthodox Jewish religious views and eliminate the academic views of others.}

1. I created referenced citations on the Shituf article concerning the Works of Philo on January 12, 2008.
2. Lisaliel eliminated those citations since they did not conform to her POV bias.
3. Because of the elimination of my edits I’ve been researching the players.
4. It appears that Lisaliel has a destructive POV bias that is scaring off other editors and destroying work.
5. It ALSO appears that she’s only been able to get away with it because of administrative bias that allows her to edit war because it shares her POV bias.
6. It is not a question of IF Lisaliel is doing this (because the histories of destroyed articles speak for themselves).
7. It is a question of HOW Lisaliel has been able to get away with it.
8. SLRubenstein and Lisaliel are promoting a single religious agenda and destroying properly referenced material that conforms to Wikipedia's standards. Lisaliel is deleting reference material and is supported administratively by SLRubenstein in order to promote orthodox Judaism. As proof that they are deliberately promoting their form of religious orthodox Judaism at the expense of academic references I refer to their bias in a communciation between SLRubenstein and another administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACailil&diff=230053222&oldid=230023881 "Lisa too often seems to be willing to edit-war, but she is clear about her point of view and it seems like she generally represents the Orthodox Jewish POV accurately." (SLRubenstein) This citation proves that lisaliel engages in edit war and is supported in that activity by SLRubenstein because her edits conform to orthodox Judaism in the opinion of SL Rubenstein
9. I've restored my Philo edits for the Shituf article and I submit that anyone with a semblance of academic neutrality would agree that these references have merit with reference to the topic of Shituf. If you agree, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Lisaliel and SLRubenstein are promoting their particular religious views on Wikipedia at the expense of knowledge. 10. Lisaliel has started an edit war on the Shituf page as we are discussing her activities.

Evidence presented by Ilkali

I have serious concerns about the statements made here. In particular, users Miguel.mateo, Buster7, John254 and Jerryofaiken have at no point been involved in the relevant events. Every person who has defended Alastair has some history with him and none have directly addressed the evidence against him, instead either speaking of prior good experiences with him or attacking one of the editors criticising him. We have little need for the former here; I think everybody agrees that Alastair is usually polite and friendly. This case is about what happens when he is not. I'm also concerned that both Teclontz and Jerryofaiken seem to be using these proceedings as a vehicle to air personal grievances against LisaLiel over something entirely unrelated.

In brief response to criticisms of my own character: Most of the evidence cited is from some months ago and was already the subject of a WQA. I acknowledge that I was incivil at points (although not nearly as often as Alastair would allege) and regret this. Regarding talk page removals, between the WQA and a followup AN/I, three uninvolved editors agreed that the section should be removed. Adding myself and Abtract, that makes 5v1. It was on this consensus that I tried to remove it. I did not violate 3RR (see evidence below). Finally, I suggest that Alastair's quote regarding ad hominems be taken in context. The only point I was making is that the term ad hominem is popularly misunderstood to encompass any criticism or insult.

I intend to fill my evidence list sometime over the next couple of days, but much of it will be the same as in the RfC and AN/I. Additionally, there will likely be some overlap with other editors' evidence. If ArbCom protocol allows it, it may be worthwhile for us to work to merge our evidence into a single, more easily-processed collection.

Alastair treats Wikipedia as a battleground

Alastair is guilty of wikilawyering and system-gaming

Alastair acts as though he owns articles

Alastair refuses to consider that he may have acted wrongly

  • He blames me for the criticism made against him by several editors: [244]
  • He insists that his own editing is "flawless":

Alastair bullies editors with threats and warnings

Alastair makes personal attacks

Alastair assumes bad faith in other editors

Alastair is dishonest

Alastair frequently makes claims that are not true. While many of them may be honest mistakes, it is difficult to imagine how some can be anything but deliberate:

Evidence presented by {abtract}

I have found AH to be a self opinionated bully who acts as though he owns the articles he edits

It's not so much tha he edit wars (don't we all on occasions?) but he will consider no other opinion than his own because he is an expert and hasn't changed his ways clearly from this recent pompous edit. He is a bore of the first order and I have given up editing the article in question ...indeed even adding to this thread increases my frustration at the guy ... ban him for life is my advice. I could add more diffs but he just isn't worth it. Abtract (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiss bulying is subtle and effective. What we have here is an intelligent, well-educated, knowledgeable expert in his field who uses his skills to get his own way; he is a bully whose main objective is to see his version of the truth in print. He rarely engages in an obvious edit war, preferring to bide his time and simply go back a day or so later to the version he wants which he will call something like "the stable version" or the "neutral version". Some examples of his subtle edit warring are (watch for the pattern and note the arogant way he uses edit summaries to "warn" editors): [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268] ... this is so boring I am going to stop now but just note that last one ... what a pompous diatribe, if only he would use his skills in a positive and cooperative way he would be a good editor but I am quite convinced he will never change his spots ... he is (deleted), get rid of him. Abtract (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by JCDenton2052

Alastair Haines engages in bad faith editing

Why Men Rule has multiple issues. Namely, it is written like a book review and has multiple WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations. I fixed some of the problems [269] and tagged it [270] with article level tags so that the rest could be fixed. Alastair Haines removed the tags. [271] I explained the tags on the talk page [272] and added them back. Alastair Haines responded to one issue out of many [273] and removed the tags. [274] I reverted his bad faith edit [275] and explained on the talk page that the tags should not be removed until all issues have been dealt with. [276] I suggested that he ask for a third opinion. He responded [277] claiming that one editor alone cannot tag a page and that since no one who had previously viewed the page tagged it, they all agreed that it had no issues. (As far as I know, neither of those claims are Wikipedia policy.) He once again reverted the tags. [278] I requested a third opinion. [279] User:Jclemens provided one. [280] He suggested (in part) using inline tags and providing a detailed explanation for each on the talk page. I used inline tags [281] and explained each on the talk page. [282] Alastair Haines removed the inline tags [283] without discussing them on the talk page.


Alastair Haines attacked me on my talk page [284], claiming that I was editing in bad faith and "astray" and "pushy". He also admitted to disregarding edits from Wikipedians whom he does not like. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by John Vandenberg

In the RfM: "Gender of God", the comments by Alastair were never intended to be a legal threat.

The initial post at 01:20, 9 July 2008 said "The way the dispute is expressed above is slanderous of me, and I use the term deliberately and legally." In this he is saying that he considers it to be slander in the legal sense, but does not indicate he intends to pursue a legal venue.

In that post he finishes with a request that "a volunteer moderator/mediator/chair, committed to taking no side in discussion, assist with helping us all to establish firstly what subject this article addresses, and secondly what is a suitable title for that subject. Additionally, this moderator would impartially uphold the Wiki principle of posts being required to address the subject rather than other editors (generously with the first, strictly with the second)." In this it is clear he intended to continue working with the wiki based dispute resolution system.

In his later post at 1:33 he indicates that he is has little option but to participate in the dispute resolution process in order to counter the perceived slander. "I have no choice but to hold the Wiki community (and ultimately the Foundation) responsible for what I allege is slanderous. This is a serious issue and a little reflection should allow people to realise that I genuinely have no choice in this. I'm in no rush about it, but obviously I can not leave this issue until it is settled."

His language in this second post is very unfortunate, as it is easy to see how Werdna (talk · contribs) interpreted this as a veiled legal threat. Many would have. I would not have, because I have talked to Alastair at length in the past, via email and on Wikisource, so I know he has a strong faith in the wiki process and has a vested interest in ensuring the Wiki process is shown to be a robust mechanism for dispute resolution. (I plan to present evidence on this soon) It is out of character for him to want to pursue legal action, and even if he was considering it, all that was required to dissuade him was for someone to comfort him that someone uninvolved was going to seriously consider what he was saying.

Anyway, Werdna blocked, and there was quite a bit of tense discussion that followed. At 3:46, Alastair clarified his position: "I have however never had any intention of pursuing legal resolution, nor stated such, nor will pursue such. ... I still have confidence in both the system and the Foundation, and expect that an advocate would not prove hard to find at all, however, it is clearly not in my individual power to find this person."

After much more tense discussion involving Werdna and others, with further claims that he was pursuing a legal avenue, at 10:09 Dougweller (talk · contribs) reiterated that Alastair had clearly said he had no intention of pursuing a legal approach, and at 10:31 Werdna replied Thanks, Doug. I didn't notice that comment, and I have therefore reversed the block", and unblocked almost immediately at 10:33.

Evidence presented by Cailil

This is case is a web of problematic behaviour. Although on the whole my experiences with Alastair have largely been positive I can see the problem that L'Aquatique points to - and at more than one article. I'm sorry to say that I have seen Alastair in difficulty (and I provided a WP:3O in one such case) on other articles related to gender and grammar: Masculine and Feminine. And certainly I can confirm that edit warring at Gender of God occurred.

I am of the position that Alastair has behaved in a manner incompatible with WP:EQ at Gender of God and at 3 other pages. I am also of the position that Ilkali and Alastair have both engaged in a flame war[285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295] (please note each user's edit summary).

This problem has been compounded by a long running issue between LisaLiel and Teclonz.

This evidence will be in 2 parts because I am exceptionally busy in real life at the moment. The first part will be on Alastair's behaviour. The second will be on other parties and will follow as soon as possible.

Part 1 User:Alastair Haines

Gender of God edit war

On August 3rd 2008 I blocked LisaLiel[296] for blatant edit warring [297]; but rather than leave it at that I found it necessary to open an ANI thread and warn all parties on the article talk page due to the behaviour of Teclontz and Alastair Haines [298][299][300][301][302][303]. On reflection I probably could have blocked all 3 editors but at that time I preferred the warning approach. Also having disagreed with Alastair in past content disputes I found myself in a difficult position re: blocking him. Hence my decision to go to ANI and ask the community for input on resolving the dispute. No community consensus was reached on what to do about the Gender of God situation and I shut the thread when L'Aquatique opened this RfAr.

Why Men Rule

Alastair and JCDenton2052 engaged in a content dispute about this article on the night of August 3rd 2008 (same time frame as the above Gender of God dispute). JCDenton is a relatively new editor and Alastair's responses to him border on biting[304][305]. While JCDenton's responses are also improper (calling Alastair's reverts "vandalism"[306][307] and giving Alastair a level 4im warning[308])

A record of the talk page discussion where JCDenton accurately points out site policy (WP:V and WP:PROVEIT) is here. Note Alastair's reply to JCDenton that:

One editor cannot unilaterally decide there are multiple issues. Additionally, there are about 1000 hits a month on this page, and no-one has tagged it in ages. Silence is presumed to imply consent. Finally, tagging is a last resort, when there is no-one around to discuss or address issues.

The removal of the tags in this case by Alastair is incorrect, because it contravenes WP:BURDEN and WP:V, it may also display an attitude of article ownership by Alastair. JCDenton has provided further evidence above, however I do not think Alastair was acting bad faith here but I do think he disregarded JCDenton's edits improperly.

I am also concerned that Alastair may have used WP:AN3 to gain the upper hand in this content dispute. See here for his report filled against JCDenton2052. These are the diffs of Alastair's own reverts of that same page in a 24 hour period: [309][310][311][312]

Other instances

At Masculine Alastair engaged in a slow revert war with Yamara: [313][314][315][316]. This is the article where I gave a WP:3O and where I supported the alterations to the page based on WP:DAB and WP:MOS. See here.

A similar issue arose at Feminine. Please note the edit summaries of the diffs of both Yamara and Alastair:[317][318][319][320][321] Here Alastair ignored consensus in favour of his version of the article. See here. Yamara opened a talk page discussion in which two other editors (myself and Olaf Davis) agreed with the compromise suggested by Yamara.

Legal threats(?)

Taking note of John Vandenberg posts above it is important to note that Alastair has clarified that he was not threatening legal action when using terms like "slander"[322] "defamation" and "hearsay"[323]. Quite honestly although I agree with John Vandenberg it needs to be said that, as mentioned in other evidence pieces and at the RfC/U, this "legal sounding language" contributed to a poisonous atmosphere between himself and other editors.

Sidenote:I would welcome an ArbCom clarification about WP:NLT & WP:CIVIL on the matter of any editor using terms like "defamation" and then saying they're not going to take legal action. This puts us sysops in the position of being "damned if we do and damned if we don't" as regards blocking. It would be helpful if the committee would also consider a clarification on whether terms such as "slander" & "defamation" are actionable under WP:CIVIL or not so that this confusion does not recur.

Summary of my understanding of this part of the issue
  • Alastair has, on a number of articles, used the revert function to maintain his desired versions of content
  • In these cases Alastair's behaviour has been matched by other users willing to revert just as often
  • Alastair's use of legal sounding language has contributed to a poisonous atmosphere with other editors
  • Alastair has responded to breaches of etiquette with breaches of etiquette
  • Alastair has on occasion rejected talk page consensus in favour of his preferred version of the article
  • Alastair dismisses the RfC/U findings as showing "no specific failings in [his] editing [and that] there is no criticism [in it] constructive or otherwise."[324]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines/Evidence&oldid=231083050"