Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
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}
User:Ilkali is taking time to understand the processes
- Ilkali first arrived at the page and modified the lead:
- 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.
- 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.
Removal of talk page post of mine 4 times in 24 hours
- 01:13, 27 May 2008 Ilkali m (100,331 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Alastair Haines; You are misusing this talk page to conduct a personal conversation with a specific user. you are in the wrong here. (TW))
- 01:08, 27 May 2008 Ilkali m (100,331 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Alastair Haines; Wikipedia: Still not a forum. (TW))
- 17:34, 26 May 2008 Ilkali (100,331 bytes) (→Exploring a feminine Holy Spirit: Wikipedia isn't a forum. Take this to one another's talk pages)
- 03:06, 26 May 2008 Ilkali (106,303 bytes) (→Exploring a feminine Holy Spirit)
- In two years at Wiki I've never needed to 3RR or WQA anyone. 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.
User:Ilkali has a habit of arguing ad hominem
- Ilkali has actually defined his own view of ad hominem here
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 ([5]).
- Alastair considers his editing "flawless" ([6]).
- 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" ([7]).
Alastair insults/belittles other editors
- Alastair has called other editors "trolls" ([8]).
- Alastair calls criticisms of himself "poor reading" ([9]).
Alastair makes legal threats against editors and the Wikipedia Foundation
- "I have always and always will hold the Wiki community and foundation accountable for defamation regarding me published on its pages" ([10]).
Alastair makes baseless accusations against other editors
- Alastair accuses other editors of "misusing Wikipedia processes for your own ends" ([11]).
- Alastair accuses other editors of "defaming" him ([12]).
-LisaLiel (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Evidence presented by John254
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Ilkali has engaged in disruptive edit warring on Gender of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]
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 the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
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 the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.