Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaldari (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 11 June 2009 (adding Alastair Haines additional block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by L'Aquatique

Alastair Haines seems like a smart guy with a lot to contribute, but his people skills leave a whole bunch to be desired. He makes personal attacks [1], [2], [3], calls good faith editors trolls [4], [5], and continually claims that others are slandering his good name when they try to offer constructive criticism. [[6]]
He's gone through an RFC/U, which he refused to even look at. The admin that closed the RFC warned him that his behavior was poor,.
Around the same time, I opened a request for mediation to handle the content dispute issue between Alastair and a few other editors. Prior that, it had been a medcab case which I had mediated- which was how I became acquainted with him. He rejected the rfm and demanded that it focus on all the perceived wrongs against him by virtually everyone else. He was blocked temporarily because his message contained a legal threat, and then unblocked after he redacted that part. Here's his message: [7], and the legal threat: [8].
More recently, on a thread on AN/I, he wrote a good two paragraphs whining about how everyone has slandered, defamed him, how he's perfectly innocent and the rest of us are out to get him [9]. He challenged anyone to give even one example when his edits have been less than perfect [10], so I provided him with a long list of inappropriate and uncivil edits on his part [11]. His response was: [12].

I’m at my wits end, here. I’ve already had one editor burn out after dealing with Alastair. To be frank, I’m not sure arbcom even needs to take binding action… In the past, he’s constantly threatened various people with arbcom cases, so I’m guessing he puts a lot in stock by your opinions. I think it might stave off further bad behavior if you guys could just inform him that his editing is disruptive and he needs to stop making personal attacks. It would be a shame to see him get banned, because he does have a lot to contribute.

Note: Alastair has been encouraged to change his user name so that there would no longer be worries about slander against his real name. He declined. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: Just so I can't be seen as hypocritical here, I do have to admit that my handling of this case could have been slightly better. However, as a mediator, it was my job to find a solution that everyone could have lived with- whereas Alastair constantly demanded that Rushyo and I focus only on punishing Ilkali, and he seemed to believe that since he initiated the Medcab case that was somehow his right. So yes, I did tell him he was passive aggressive, I refused to apologize for so-called slander upon his good name, and I more recently told him exactly what was wrong with his behavior with no pulled punches. I'm not denying that. However, it's not my job to sugarcoat things, at least for experienced users that should know better. L'Aquatique[talk] 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ilkali's response to Tim: I'm not sure I agree. While I do not believe this is necessarily Tim's fault (it seems to me we all hold at least some responsibility) the fact that he was willing to step forward and be as bluntly honest as he did reflects very highly upon his character. I believe he knows that I happen to have a good deal of respect for him, just as I have respect for you, for Lisa, and yes, for Alastair. Unfortunately, respect aside there has been some very poor behavior displayed and I have to think about how this edit war is harming the editing environment of Wikipedia at large: which has not been good. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alastair Haines

L'Aquatique is "jumping the queue" here, and not disclosing her unsought and intemperate language. The antecedent of her request is that a then new user called Ilkali used a range of forceful editing approaches several months ago. These constituted inappropriate behaviour and words which became more and more focussed as personal attacks on me, because I was opposing both a minor content issue and his behaviour. His behaviour has improved a little, but still constitutes deliberate personal attacks, despite me seeking for it to be addressed: personally, at WikiEquette, by mediation, and by giving time for another user to help him see his error. He is currently on notice that ArbCom is the next step, though I'm still hopeful that it will not be necessary to take the Committee's time on what really ought to be able to be addressed in other forums.

Nonetheless, I am very happy for Ilkali's behaviour to be the subject of an ArbCom investigation, which will naturally also need to consider how I and others have sought to address it. However, until someone actually questions some feature of my so far uncriticised behaviour, dispute resolution hasn't even begun in my case. It seems to be inappropriate process to request an ArbCom decision regarding a user who has two years of unquestioned constructive editing, simply because a few people have asserted bad behaviour, without genuine discussion and ultimately without evidence, except citations of one another's interpretations of my motives in particular edits. Sadly, no one's even thought to ask for my rationale. Whatever I've volunteered anyway has been rudely dismissed.

I actually would appreciate ArbCom involvement in the case, despite the fact that the process will definitely be time consuming, since establishing Ilkali's inappropriate edits, comments and personal pursuit will clarify precisely where others should have been moving to support an experienced, knowledgable and good faith editor, against one who started by experimenting and quickly escalated to slandering.

The viciousness of the language of those who have criticised me is not an environment I've wanted to invite friends into. It has also not been conducive, I imagine, to passers by who would otherwise have endorsed my actions and comments. I am very grateful to TEKlontz, who stumbled across the debate by accident, and has done a sterling job of attempting to dissuade those masking their intemperate and unfounded comments by raising ever more accusations and citing one-another as evidence for the reasonableness of their conclusions.

It will be apparant to those reviewing this that I've never been officially accused of any bad behaviour, which is not surprising because there is none. Despite what I've said above, I am unwilling to support an arbitration request if the topic of that request is my behaviour, it is obviously against the DR policies I've read and been pursuing. Not only that, if this is indeed to be the topic of the arbitration, then I am unwilling to participate unless there is a respected editor who is willing to assert his (or her) confidence that my edits are entirely consistent with protecting Wikipedia's: content from error, community from divisive editors, policy from misunderstanding and processes from abuse. Without such an advocate, I will remain in the situation of having to defend myself, a feature of many previous discussions, imo ruthlessly exploited by the small group of people criticising me and represented by L'Aquatique.

As I see it, Ilkali's bad behaviour was originally minor, but the defamation he has achieved is a serious matter indeed. If one reflects on the current situation the only serious damage is to my reputation and to that of Wikipedia for failing to protect it so far. The longer it is left, the more time consuming it is to clear up. I support some kind of action now, just precisely what, I leave for those who are more experienced in such things to suggest. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Since people keep making much of legal threats, which I have never made, that particular accusation alone is hearsay regarding an unfriendly interpretation of a point I'm happy to repeat here. It is also defamatory, since even at this page alone, it forms part of presumed evidence of bad character or conduct. People who do not otherwise know me, my character or conduct are concerned about possible (and some have even asserted actual) failings in me on the basis of misinformation published in regard to this matter. The problem is that I am an editor using my real name. Were I anonymous, I would not be professionally at risk due to personal attacks on my character published on Wikipedia talk pages. In my opinion, this should indeed have a chilling effect on responsible Wikipedians—Ouch! I'm using my real name. People can slander me here. Would the processes here protect me. This point has not been lost on Cailil. I have several times made, and here repeat, that defamation is occurring. That is simply a fact. What have I done about it? I've appealed to the Wiki DR process to sort it out, I'm trusting the volunteers who administer that process. So far they've not done very well, which is a little disappointing, but I am still confident of a positive result. We all know this kind of thing takes time here. But the point is, how would you like false accusations about your character or behaviour published without accountability? Stand in my shoes for just a moment, and it's not just me, this can be anyone who entrusts their real name to the community. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 8-0, 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 8-0, 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 8-0, 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

4) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. See Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Legal threats. Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a non-threatening fashion.

Passed 8-0, 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

5) Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if an editor asserts that a second editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", the second editor will often interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, less charged wording, such as "you have misstated my position in this dispute" or "you have made a statement about me that is not true and I hope you will retract it for the following reasons" is far preferable to an allegation of defamation.

Passed 8-0, 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Locus of dispute

1) The conflict in this case revolves primarily around a series of heated content disputes among the parties on a number of articles, including but not limited to the Gender of God article.

Passed 8-0, 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alastair Haines

2) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including edit-warring ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]), and inappropriate removal of comments ([25], [26]).

Passed 8-0, 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali

3) Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including edit-warring ([27]), and inappropriate removal of comments ([28]).

Passed 8-0, 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel

4) LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including edit-warring ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]) and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ([35], [36]).

Passed 8-0, 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remedies

Alastair Haines restricted

1) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year:

  • Alastair is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
  • Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
  • Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 7-1, 17:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali restricted

2) Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year:

  • Ilkali is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
  • Should Ilkali make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 8-0, 09:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel restricted

3) LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a set of editing restrictions for one year:

  • LisaLiel is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should she exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
  • Should LisaLiel make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, she may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on her talk page by the administrator. Should she violate this ban, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
Passed 8-0, 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion re Abtract

There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

Abtract (talk · contribs) is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited. Should Abtract violate this restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to one month, by any uninvolved administrator. Alastair Haines is urged to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Passed 8-0, 16:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 8-0, 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines&oldid=295800082"