Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence

Alastair's position

I am presenting evidence because I perceive the comments and actions of various users to be personal attacks (in the Wiki sense), so often repeated they are misleading other editors and impairing my freedom to contribute and assist friends. My request is simple, could the Committee please uphold the WP:No personal attacks policy, by clarifying to those who have made them, why they are neither necessary nor helpful, and organize for them to be withdrawn.

I am providing detailed evidence in the case of User:Ilkali, because that is where personal attacks regarding me started. I am also providing evidence regarding User:L'Aquatique, because I invited her to the page to mediate, but she has stayed involved in order to confront my editing.

I am providing only a little evidence regarding User:Lisa since, in my opinion, she responded well quickly, after her removal of stable text was opposed. I haven't changed the opinion I shared with her some time ago, that I personally support her passion to defend what she believes in. Unfortunately she has, however, also believed what she has been told regarding me and repeated this (hearsay). I'm not aware of her having any particular personal disagreement with me, other than the one that she settled by a clever, creative edit. I think she has been inappropriate in interacting with Tim, but that's only my opinion and only my business as a friend of Tim.

Finally, I actually think Abtract tried to help at first, he certainly attempted some constructive edits. In a way he was ignored by both Ilkali and myself. He also ended up backing Ilkali with edits justified only by ad hominem and two against one.

The only other significantly involved party I think I should mention is Rushyo. I was impressed by his firm but fair approach to mediating. He was the only user, other than me, to actually express some reservations regarding Ilkali. That showed impartiality and courage from Rushyo at the time. He politely questioned and criticised me also. It was only when my request to have the mediation return to the topic I'd set for it was refused that I considered it necessary to ask Rushyo to "show cause" for continuing the process. I understand him being upset and feeling this personally (I'm used to feeling criticised). I don't hold his comments aftwards against him, and I admire him for the ironic gesture of giving me a "Barnstar of diligence".

In conclusion, I'm happy with the text of the article atm, others have recently added quality content, and my additions have also been stable. The issue imo is only that the process has involved personal attacks against me, that have not been proven, or alternatively removed, struck-out or otherwise withdrawn. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

statements as evidence

Buster7 (talk · contribs) and Miguel.mateo (talk · contribs) have presented 'statements' here as evidence. Both are relatively new users, and definitely new to rfar, so it is quite probably with a bit of assistance they can adapt what they have written to be suitable evidence. For example, Miguel.mateo could revise his section to be something along the lines of "Alastair has been a teacher", with diffs to back it up. I'll point them to the discussion here, but if the statements arnt adapted, a clerk should move them to the rfar talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

These users, along with John254 (talk · contribs) haven't been involved in the slightest in the proceedings... They are using past experiences with Alastair and ignoring the current evidence, not to mention derailing the whole thing to focus on punishing Ilkali. I hate to say this, but could we be looking at socks or meatpuppets here? L'Aquatique[talk] 20:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

These users' activity is a bit concerning, but I'm sure the Arbs will take that in to account--Cailil ^talk 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Alastair engages in edit wars"

LisaLiel has asserted that Alastair engages in edit wars, which is plural and suggests an ongoing problem. One one edit war is shown, with four reverts in a 24 hour period. If there are more edit wars, lets see them, otherwise it should be "Alastair engaged in a single edit war", and we should be worried about who is picking up stones. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah but he is mouch more subtle than that ... what we have here is an intelligent, well educated, knowledgible expert in his field who uses all 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 vesion he likes 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): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] ... this is so boring I am going to stop now but just note tha 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) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)