Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Ilkali added as a party

1) Ilkali (talk · contribs) is added as a party to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Personally I think that Ilkali should be considered a party due to close involvement with the case; other arbitrators may have different views. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: I've only just realised this page is available. It is my understanding that the behaviour of Ilkali, of L'Aquatique and others are part of this case. It appears to me that the case is essentially a matter related to whether or not I have presumed too much in attempting to manage Ilkali's behaviour. That Ilkali has not behaved badly would be an excellent demonstration that I have been inappropriate. On the other hand, if I have managed Ilkali appropriately, then L'Aquatique has been inappropriate in presuming to manage my behaviour. I'm a novice at these Wiki CR process things. I'm just going with the flow, trusting those involved that it will all work out in the end. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on the statement by L'Aquatique, much of this case concerns Alastair Haines' dispute with Ilkali concerning Gender of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arbitration cases should consider the behavior of all involved parties; it would be grossly unfair to penalize Alastair Haines for his conduct in this dispute while Ilkali receives complete immunity from sanctions. Since Ilkali certified Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alastair Haines, there is prior dispute resolution with respect to Ilkali's conduct. John254 03:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair's RFC/U had nothing to do with Ilkali's conduct. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John254, please also note this section is for motions and requests by parties - not others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Surely you do not suggest that editors who are not parties to the case are not permitted to make motions, simply as an artifact of the manner in which this section happened to be named. John254 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, arbitrators have made this point on other occasions too - this section is for parties of this case - not others. Take from it what you will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this would make sense. Yes, this is an RFAR on Haines, but since the two have a lot of interaction that has to do with why this is taking place, I would support the addition. Wizardman 16:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As outlined in the parent page, I do not feel Ilkali's actions warrant ArbCom attention as no due process with regards to his actions have been taken before this point. Alastair has made it clear for a long time he wants to use ArbCom as a vehicle to punish Ilkali for, basically, just edit warring. If we are bringing that to the table then I wish to be made aware of it because Alastair is, imo, guilty of that as well but I do not currently perceive it as an issue discussed in the dispute resolution process leading up to this request for arbitration. The cases of edit warring (as opposed to gross personal misconduct towards other users) would be much better dealt with through the earlier stages of the dispute resolution process in my opinion. -Rushyo ^Talk 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To prevent the abuse of the RFC process by users who wish to subject other editors to sanctions while retaining immunity for their own misconduct, a request for comment is considered to constitute prior dispute resolution with respect to the actions of the users certifying it. To quote in relevant part from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users:

An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

Ilkali is simply not privileged to file an RFC against another user, then claim that his own conduct in relation to the dispute couldn't possibly be considered here due to a lack of a redundant "counter-RFC" against him. John254 16:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it'll change your opinion at all, but I didn't file the RfC. Ilkali (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By adding yourself to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute", you thereby included yourself amongst the users who filed the RFC. The fact that you didn't actually create the page is immaterial. John254 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason Ilkali took action against Alastair was because Alastair said he was CONSIDERING action against Ilkali. It was a preemptive strike. However, if you will look at that action you will notice two fundamental logical fallacies:

1. Alastair was accused of edit warring by himself.
2. Alastair was accused of considering administrative action.

May I please point out that it is logically impossible to edit war in isolation? You aren't undoing your own undos to your undos. Someone else is edit warring with you. That someone else was Ilkali. Further, may I please point out that taking an administrative action is more serious than considering administrative action? Summary: in both cases that Ilkali attempted to indict Alastair, he actually indicted himself even more. I therefore wholeheartedly support the inclusion of Ilkali in this consideration. Addendum: for the first accusation -- edit warring -- I further find myself and (even more) Lisaliel equally liable.Tim (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to Tim's contention, it is absolutely possible to edit war in isolation. What Alastair did on August 3 was edit warring even before I reverted his revert. I made an edit, and Alastair simply reverted it because he didn't like it. That's edit warring. It doesn't take a violation of 3RR for it to be edit warring. I, unfortunately, responded in kind. Tim saw someone fighting with me, and he's obsessed with me, so he joined in. As such, he also engaged in edit warring by himself at first. Had I not reverted his revert, he still would have been guilty of edit warring and deliberate suppression of content changes. The difference is that Alastair did it because he wanted to preserve content he felt ownership over. Tim did it because it was an opportunity to gang up on me. Between the two, while I think both behaved abhorrently, I think Tim's motives, and therefore his actions, were far more odious. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"The reason Ilkali took action against Alastair was because Alastair said he was CONSIDERING action against Ilkali. It was a preemptive strike". I didn't file the RfC. I wasn't the only person to revert Alastair's edits or to declare them inappropriate. Tim, if you had been involved in this dispute from the start rather than jumping in at the eleventh hour, just as John254 and Miguel.mateo and Buster7 have done, you would know these things. Ilkali (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To add yourself to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section in an RFC, then claim that "I didn't file the RfC" [1] is outright obstructionism and irrelevant quibbling. John254 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm being accused of initiating an action against Alastair as "personal targeting", with the implication that I am harassing him, I don't think it's quibbling to point out that no such thing occured. Ilkali (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, I've observed your behavior and I have to say that it's inspired me in a negative way. You're too willing to edit war over trivia. I've not observed this behavior in Alastair. In fact, I've observed him to be the first to disengage when an edit war erupts, and I've observed you to be as unable to disengage as Lisaliel. The only way I was able to stay out of an edit war with you was by putting your syntax back in the intro and hoping some native English speaker would fix it. Ironically, Lisaliel actually came to the rescue there. If Alastair was in an edit war with you, my suspicion is that it was because he has learned how to spell.Tim (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to be discussing this, Teclontz. It's certainly not the place to be flinging insults. Ilkali (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Although John254 shouldn't have made this proposal (as he is not party) I'd like to point out that when the case was accepted by arbcom it was accepted like this: "Accept to consider behaviour of all editors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)" with 2 other Arbs supported opening this case based on Sam's comment.
  So, yes, Ilkali should be added as a party, and so should LisaLiel and Teclontz. I'd even border on including L'Aquatique & Rushyo. If this case is going to have any effect it has to consider Alastair's behaviour in context & every one needs to be honest to themselves about their level of involvement.
  Being an involved party in a case doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of anything BTW.
  And frankly it would be absurd to list anyone alone when there is an interpersonal behavioural issue being considered as it's necessary for there to be more than one user involved in an interpersonal issue--Cailil ^talk 22:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with adding Lisa, Tim, and Ilkali as parties. The thing for me is, I didn't open this RFAr because of Alastair's edit warring- hell, lots of people edit war. I opened it because his incivility problems are driving other people away, and that's simply not okay. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do understand L'Aquatique but I don't think ArbCom should consider only part of this issue. And in fairness I think Alastair, Ilkali, Lisa & Tim have all indulged in flame-baiting--Cailil ^talk 12:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

@L'Aquatique...I would consider it a favor if you would refrain from cursing, here and elsewhere. Manners are the lubricant between people. Cursing is inflammatory. Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see it...?? L'Aquatique[talk] 07:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this relates to "Hell-..."; but a little flavour doesnt hurt - all things in moderation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Add Ilkali, Teclontz and LisaLiel to list of involved parties

2) I think it's fairly clear that we're all involved, and at the moment I'm not sure what sections I'm supposed to comment in below. I'm not listed as a party, but I don't exactly feel like an 'other'. Ilkali (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

When we accept a case saying that we are looking at all editors then we look at all editors, whether an editor is listed as a party or not. If the case ruling is going to be specific to an editor then they need to be notified and give time to see the evidence and the ruling before we finish voting on the case. Also, it is not unusual for ongoing events to modify the initial focus of a case. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Absolutely agreed.Tim (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. L'Aquatique and Ryusho are also parties. I will provide evidence regarding both. How ArbCom choose to account for that, including dismissing it, whether according to some proceedure or not, I entrust to their judgement. Since I am not guilty by being charged, neither are any other parties listed. To my knowledge none of us are guilty under any other Wiki process either. It is very kind of ArbCom to even consider the case. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, I think this is appropriate. Thank you for requesting that the scope is broadened so that a well-rounded solution can be found. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Parties can add themselves to the list at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines, by the way - that does not (normally) require a motion. Daniel (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that. Thanks. Ilkali (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A United States Senate Sub-committee, once convened, can investigate any and all. I'm glad arbCom seems to be able to do the same...--Buster7 (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by John254

Proposed principles

Edit warring

1) Edit warring is considered to be disruptive, and may be prevented, where necessary, by appropriate sanctions against offending editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alastair Haines, editing waring is an absolute no-no on Wikipedia English. With the exception of removing a) BLP violations, b)copyright violations, c)legal threats, d) possible pedophilia related edits or e)pure vandalism; no editor on Wikipedia is permitted to make repeated reverts. The only exception is edits to an editors own user space. Good faith additions by another editor can not be repeatedly removed. In order to edit on Wikipedia, an editor must follow this rule, okay? We do not solve the user conduct problem of adding low quality text by edit warring. It there is a problem with an editors addition to Wikipedia, then that needs to be addressed through the steps in the dispute resolution process. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I wholeheartedly agree. I would further add, however, that no editor should be slapped in isolation. Accusing Alastair of edit warring in isolation should be seen in it's face to be a biased tactic for the simple reason that it is logically impossible. I accepted the same principle on myself when Lisaliel was blocked for edit warring for 24 hours. When that occurred, I also stopped editing the article because I was the other side of the edit war. Can we please accept in principle that citing Alastair and Lisaliel in isolation in each case is logically invalid? Ilkali and myself are equally guilty in the two examples.Tim (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair did this as well... see Lisa's evidence. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of edit warring needs clarification. I also dislike the idea of sanctions. I don't understand sanctions so I won't comment on them further here. Regarding edit warring, I think it is a defence to a charge of edit warring that one was restoring stable or sourced text (both are objective descriptions), especially when it can be demonstrated both that one has attempted meaningful discussion in talk (objective) and that the opposing party has not accepted the burden of proof in talk (often easy sometimes hard to decide). The burden of proof with regard to unsourced text is clearly much lower than that of sourced text, the two policies are simply in conflict on this point. But irrespective of my personal perspective on edit warring, I think disruption is a more important issue. 3RR exists to safeguard against disruption. Disruption involves making improvements to an article difficult. For example, posting text and holding it against all comers, or recruiting assistance to sway consensus and "lock out" specific editors. One retrospective measure of disruption is text that ends up in article, but only after an unreasonably long period. Use of edits in disruptive ways has happened at Gender of God, I have provided evidence elsewhere regarding that. How users and the article can be protected from such things in future is not mine to judge here. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand and accept this policy, Florence (if I may call you that). In two years at Wiki I can remember allowing edits contrary to my perception of other policy to stand, especially when it is clear that editors are either willing to talk or alternatively "difficult". I frequently operate at 0RR, I enjoy talking things through with people. If you will be so kind to remind me should I forget, I am sure I can find examples, it's just that I don't get in fights very often, I start new articles, stubs and lists and compile bibliographies. I find controversial articles stressful. Again, if you'd be so kind, statistics on that could be obtained and presented. I'm sure you're mindful that not all statements made about me are in line with the evidence provided; and the evidence is not representative of my pattern of editing. I understand that multiple reversions are an exception not a right, which is precisely what my edit history will show.

Thank you for the gentleness (but firmness) of your point, Florence. I trust you will feel free to rebuke me sharply should things clarify over time. Despite what has been alleged about me, I am quite happy to hear criticism, especially when I am offered an opportunity interact politely with it. I am often wrong on matters of fact, my spelling's hopeless, and I am no saint. Though I like to think Wiki normally gives me the time to manage relationships better than in real life. Sorry for all the personal stuff, it's scary being where I am, and we've only just met. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: A fair warning should be given but consideration of the topic of the article is important. Some topics (religion is one) will bring unavoidable POV to the table.--Buster7 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

2) Edit warring on talk pages is considered to be extremely disruptive, since it often precludes the discussion of the matter in dispute. Except in the case of WP:BLP violations, copyright violations, severe personal attacks, or other extreme abuse or trolling, users should refrain from starting edit wars on talk pages by removing other users' comments. Since the discussion of improvements to an article, and the general discussion of an article's subject matter are often distinguished only by a dim and uncertain line, editors should not unilaterally undertake the removal of comments solely on the grounds that they are deemed constitute general subject matter discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would like to add that edit warring on another person's user talk page is also bad form. When I deleted a threatening communication by Lisaliel from my user talk page she restored it, threatening to have me banned for cleaning up my own user talk page!Tim (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair also did this... as well. See: [2] Wrong diff. See: [3] instead, and notice that this change was reverted repeatedly with edit summaries requesting Alastair to not remove talk page comments, yet he continued to do it. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for irrelevant or misplaced comments to be removed. The appropriate step for Alastair to take, especially when the consensus became so clearly against him, was to take the discussion to user talk. Ilkali (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be common in your interaction with Wikipedia, Ilkali, but you are the only editor I've seen who has done it (with the exception of a couple of cases of administrative action regarding posts related to banned users). Alastair Haines (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to L'Aquatique: the diff you currently cite does not show the removal of any talk page comments. John254 00:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the entire diff, which still does not indicate any removal of comments. John254 01:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree...The door to a user's talk page may be wide open but it is extremely aggresive and power-based to "re-arrange the furniture"--Buster7 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You are demonstrating exactly why you should not be a part of this: You weren't involved and have no idea what happened. Nothing was removed from any user talk page. Ilkali (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I plead guilty to removing talk page comments I believed to be personal attacks, and to edit warring regarding that. It was a move of desparation. I simply haven't been personally attacked before and I didn't know what else to do. I knew at the time I was putting myself at the mercy of others' judgment regarding it. It appears I wrongly thought the whole matter would be investigated. The above comment was posted by me without signing it. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Ilkali...I said you rearranged Tim's furniture, not that you sold it at a yard sale. I have every right to be an active participant in the defense of a quality editor, Alastair. I may not know all the steps and quite frankly I may not be willing to take the time to learn them. But, I've been taught to trust my intuition. It seems there is more afoot here than mere accusations against an editor.--Buster7 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Ilkali has edit warred

1) Ilkali (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive edit warring on Gender of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. The very fact that Alastair was indicted on that charge equally indicts the other party; just as Lisa's edit warring on that page equally indicts myself.Tim (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed..--Buster7 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali has disruptively removed other users' comments

2) Ilkali (talk · contribs) has disruptively removed other users' comments which might be regarded as reasonably related to improvement of article content from talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

5v1 consensus for removal. Ilkali (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as per evidence, Ilkali removed my proposals to User:Andowney called "Towards a feminine Holy Spirit".

The comment above was made by me, but unsigned. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --Buster7 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ilkali banned from editing Gender of God

1) Ilkali (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for a period of one year. He is forbidden to edit Gender of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or the talk page thereof, for any purpose whatsoever.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. The purpose is to get Ilkali and Lisa from using the system to silence others -- not to silence them. Wikipedia is about cooperating, not banning wars. However, I do propose that any action taken against Alastair be applied equally to all parties involved -- to include Ilkali, myself, and Lisaliel.Tim (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagreement. Why does every single one of your remedies focus on punishing Ilkali only? The subject of this case is Alastair Haines. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Ilkali is new. If he is told by someone, that he hasn't already disagreed with, that his methods of disagreeing are inappropriate, he will listen. I have seen Ilkali learn many things quickly. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the oft-repeated "Ilkali is new" claim: Firstly, the only evidence you have is the creation date of this account. That does not necessarily tell you when I started editing. Secondly, even if it did, roughly eighteen months and ~1600 edits is not "new". Please stop making this assertion. Ilkali (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 18 months and 1,500 edits is not new (I previously misunderstood Ilkali's apparently blank talk page to indicate he was new). I still, however, offer no opinion on sanctions regarding Ilkali. I suspect there are more positive ways of encouraging more constructive editing from Ilkali. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to L'Aquatique: I'm sure that plenty of editors will introduce proposed remedies against Alastair Haines, as you have in fact done already [4]. There is little danger that the allegations made against Alastair Haines will be ignored. John254 00:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. In fact, based on what I've seen in the past, I expect that Alastair will walk out of this with nothing but (maybe) a slap on the wrist, and will be crowing about his vindication. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not supported by evidence. Banning Ilkali from a page he has edited only 27 times since April 08 and doing so in the context of a content dispute does not wash with me. And to correct Tim: action taken against any party does not have to be applied equally to all involved. There may be some similar sanctions for all involved but there may be individual measures taken also--Cailil ^talk 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Cailil. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Ilkali has used almost all his 27 edits at the page to obstruct Alastair's contribution of content to the article, and without meaningfully addressing content issues on the talk page. Additionally, he has attempted to remove talk page comments by Alastair related to content.

However, I agree entirely, that two users revert one another does not of itself imply that both are guilty edit warring. It is essential to examine both the talk page beforehand and the disputed content. Very frequently only one is avoiding discussion. In this case it is obvious what would motivate avoiding discussion—Ilkali could not (and did not) address sources, so used edits and ad hominem instead. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali forbidden to revert Gender of God

1.1) Ilkali (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for a period of one year. He is forbidden to perform any edit which substantially amounts to a reversion, either in whole or in part, or a removal of content, on Gender of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or the talk page thereof, except under the circumstances described in Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions, to be construed narrowly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. I've been in disagreements with Ilkali on that page, but that's not the problem. The problem is escalation as an attempt to win a content dispute: RfCs, Mediation Cabals, Arbcoms, etc. Banning someone from editing is just another form of escalation. Trying to trump coooperative editing is not the way to accomplish cooperative editing.Tim (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Per my above. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a less severe alternative to remedy 1. John254 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not borne out by the evidence. A 0RR is IMHO not a constructive option - even when an editor is being highly disruptive. I would not support a 0RR for any party in this case, and specifically I do not believe that any of Ilkali's actions would warrant such a measure--Cailil ^talk 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As per above. I agree with Cailil regarding the inappropriateness of sanctions (or at least this one). Ilkali is quite capable of modifying his own editing if it is explained to him where he needs to do this. However, Cailil's assertion regarding evidence only shows his limited investigation of it. (No slight intended, I still haven't been thorough myself.) Evidence, however, is a matter, I believe, for "findings of fact". Alastair Haines (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali banned from the removal of talk page comments

2) Ilkali (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for a period of one year. He is forbidden to remove talk page comments placed by other users for any reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed to that. Other than generic archiving, removing other people's discussion (except for abusive or indecent remarks) is bad form. Because of Ilkali's actions, he should not participate in archival maintenance on the talk page. That should be left to responsible editors.Tim (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I reject this on the grounds that the findings on which it is predicated are invalid. I have not misused the ability to remove talk page comments. Ilkali (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be "excluding his own talk page", in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:L'Aquatique

Proposed remedies

Alastair on Civility Probation

1) Alastair Haines is placed on Civility Probation, and warned that further incivility will result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence posted by myself, et al on the evidence page L'Aquatique[talk] 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong disagreement. Alastair should be put on Civility Example for the rest of us to follow. He has continually attempted to keep things focused on the subject matter rather than personalities, continually sought middle ground, and continually encouraged all parties. The fact that some consider good will mentoring as condesention speaks about the civility of the "offended" not by Alastair. He's basically treated me the same as everyone else here based on similarity of interaction, and he's the reason I've lasted this long on Wikipedia. Further, he has been the last to escalate -- which is precisely the civility problem. This arbcom is an uncivil action. The RfC was an uncivil action. The mediation cabal was an uncivil action. Threats to have me banned on my talk page is an uncivil action. Alastair's behavior is the solution, not the problem.Tim (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Politeness is my character. It is widely known. Such a result would bring discredit to ArbCom and Wikipedia. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the event that Alastair is found to have been incivil, I think the appropriate action will depend on how he reacts to that judgement. If he refuses to acknowledge incivility then I think civility probation would a necessity, if not something stronger. Ilkali (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Insufficient to deal with his misconduct - more is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient. --Buster7 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All parties 1RR

2) Ilkali, Alastair Haines, Teclontz, and LisaLiel are placed on 1RR at Gender of God and warned that more than one revert a day will result in blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems only fair... L'Aquatique[talk] 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't object to it personally, since I don't intend to edit war, but it strikes me as the kind of measure that only needs to be taken if the core problem hasn't been dealt with. Proposing it at this stage seems like planning to fail. Ilkali (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither in favor nor against, since this is not the problem. Whether the limit is 1RR or 10RR, the problem is a willingness to edit war and an administrator who looks the other way because he agrees with the POV being pushed by the edit war initiator. Further, the problem is escalation, to RfC, Mediation Cabal, AfD, and Arbcom. The solution is to follow Alastair Haines continued example to encourage all parties equally, to be willing to mentor, and to NOT escalate.Tim (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I normally operate at 1RR anyway. If it makes anyone else happier. I'm happy to oblige. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Alastair Haines behavior

1) Alastair Haines' behavior is inappropriate. He continues to wholly ignore the multitudes of people who have told him that his behavior is poor, and continues to claim that his behavior is "uncriticized" and "flawless," and calls people who tell him otherwise "trolls."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm really hoping that hearing it from arbitrators might bring the point home... L'Aquatique[talk] 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's completely founded. Have you actually read some of the stuff he's written? L'Aquatique[talk] 20:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice the difference here -- one "side" is pointing out that it is uncivil to say bad things about another. The other "side" is saying that it is uncivil to say good things about yourself. So Alastair said good things about himself. Okay. I have a sexy wife. Are people offended now? I didn't say something bad about their spouses. Just something good about mine. Really, this is a bit bizarre. Let's get some perspective.Tim (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's uncivil when one person refuses to accept that they have made mistakes and instead tries to pin the blame on everyone else. Seriously, who else here thinks that in all the time they've been here, they've never made a mistake, said something they regret, been anything less that perfectly, utterly, "flawless." There's only one "person" who can claim that, and He sure as hell isn't Alastair. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposed fact has never been established on anything except opinion and hearsay of parties who have a vested interest in it being found to be so. It is a gross overstatement and discredits my character. The very fact that my supposed bad behaviour is behaviour in regard to self defence with Ilkali, and yet Ilkali's behaviour has been explicitly excluded from consideration renders suspect all discussion supposed to support the proposed fact. Obviously I don't agree. Indeed, I consider this ArbCom case precisely a matter of ending the circulation of such unfounded allegations, injurious to my reputation at Wiki and potentially beyond. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unfounded. --Buster7 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a founded statement - Alastair Haines has engaged in forcibly blocked communication (which he has at times used as a vehicle for further incivility, accusations of bad faith, smearing, plain dismissal of legitimate concerns by uninvolved users and admins, and the like) in the attempt to remain unaffected by communal responses - gaming the system in this way was a major problem, and one of the reasons that this case has escalated here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed.Tim (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Read, understood and agreed. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard. Yamara ✉ 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Buster7 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed.Tim (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I appeal to ArbCom to uphold No personal attacks, and ask their patience in evaluating what is fair expression of dissent and disapproval, and that which is disproportionate, careless of consequences, and negligent of due diligence of investigation. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard. Most notably, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and assumptions of bad faith are prohibited conduct. Yamara ✉ 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these decorum issues strike me as especially relevant to the relationships here. HG | Talk 18:31, 22 August 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed.Tim (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard. Yamara ✉ 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Deletion and reversion, without discussion or edit summary notification, are often interpreted as mild forms of aggression...and so offense/defense begins.--Buster7 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues

4) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. Those editors who wish to utilize a court of law to resolve disputes with other editors may not use Wikipedia pages for communications preparatory to such actions.

Editors encountering content which may be a copyright violation or which may be libelous are encouraged to follow established procedures for dealing with such matters. Editors encountering unencyclopedic content are encouraged to improve it or remove it using the customary means. In those rare cases where legitimate encyclopedic content appears to create legal exposure for the Wikimedia Foundation, a volunteer for the foundation should be contacted for guidance.

Editors who become aware of third parties who are actively considering litigation against the Foundation are encouraged to inform the Foundation privately of the facts of the matter. Similarly, editors who become aware of third parties who are actively considering litigation against another editor are encouraged to contact the affected editor privately.

Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a respectful, non-threatening fashion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey case; likely needs some reworking to be more focused on the present matter. Kirill ^(prof) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll offer a version more focused on this specific case in my section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yeah, the focus is needed for this principle - but it might be tricky to come up with either a reworked version, or even additional principles/findings that work just as well. Excepting that focus issue, it's ideal in substance and form. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmvocalist. Now this is just a thought but the addition of something like: "using legal terminology to gain the upper hand in a dispute is incompatible with dispute resolution processes and wikipedia's civility policies" might help focus the above to needs of this case--Cailil ^talk 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The conflict in this case revolves primarily around a series of heated content disputes on the Gender of God article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As background. Kirill ^(prof) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the diffs on the evidence page are examples of problems on other pages, similar to but beyond Gender of God. One of the most frequent requests we get after a case closes is for clarification on the extent of our sanctions. If we give sanctions in this case, I want them to be broad enough to cover all venues on site where the named users are likely to run into conflicts. I'm going to look into this closer to see how broadly a topic ban might need to be if we decide to use one. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure whether we really need a background finding here at all, for that matter. Kirill ^(prof) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the background or "locus" findings are helpful. We could say "including but not limited to" the specified article or something of that nature. Also, the wording might better emphasize the user-conduct problems rather than the content disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alastair Haines

2) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), and inappropriate removal of comments ([17], [18]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill ^(prof) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kirill, do your diffs include comments about defamation and, if so, would you want to name this as a relevant issue? HG | Talk 18:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that we need to treat it as anything unique, since it can be adequately covered under more general civility principles in the current case. Kirill ^(prof) 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali

3) Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([19]), and inappropriate removal of comments ([20]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill ^(prof) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The only comments I have deleted are those that are clearly not related to improvement of articles. This is common and supported by WP:TALK ("Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal"). In the case of Alastair's comments, there was a 5:1 majority opinion that the material in question was inappropriate, including three uninvolved editors (dougweller, Jaysweet and Toddst1).

It's possible that I have erred in identifying certain comments as inappropriate and I am open to being told as much, but I strenuously object to use of the word "unseemly". It is not at all difficult to assume that my only objective here was to keep talk pages clean and useful. Ilkali (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the term "unseemly" as necessarily ascribing an improper motive to your actions; I'm merely commenting on the actions themselves. (And edit-warring over another editor's talk page comments—particularly when you're already edit-warring with that same editor over the article itself—is certainly unseemly under our expected standards of behavior.) Kirill ^(prof) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

LisaLiel

4) LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ([27], [28]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill ^(prof) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the more pejorative adjective "unseemly" probably should be reserved for gross misconduct, while "disruptive" would be more applicable to more ordinary, albeit still unacceptable, misconduct such as revert-warring. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree with all 3 findings, but I think a stronger word (like 'disruptive') should also be used in each of the three findings, as with previous cases. It's not just unseemly in terms of accepted standards of behavior (like NPA), but the warring had a directly disruptive effect on the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate for voting by the Committee and avoids my concern about remedies about a specific topic that might be too limiting. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Strongly oppose. That's a little like "I then fired one warning shot into the suspect's head". You don't ban anyone without a warning first, because there can be reasonable disagreement on whether something is "disruptive". -LisaLiel (talk) 14:36, 24 August 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate for voting by the Committee. This remedy is not an immediate ban, either site or topic, so it is more lenient than has been given in similar situations. This case sanction should put the named parties on notice that further disruptive conduct will not be tolerated any longer. If the named parties follow Wikipedia policy and the minor restrictions on their actions then there is no reason that the sanction will be used. Let's think positive and be optimistic that no blocks will be needed. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Strongly oppose. That's a little like "I then fired one warning shot into the suspect's head". You don't ban anyone without a warning first, because there can be reasonable disagreement on whether something is "disruptive". -LisaLiel (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Lisa this is the lighter sanction. This is not a topic ban, this is basically probation. And FYI the ArbCom can decide to topic ban or site ban editors if their behaviour has been and is likely to continue to be disruptive--Cailil ^talk 19:49, 24 August 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate for voting by the Committee. Agree with Kirill that you need to make your case for sanctions for other parties with diffs. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sanctions against anyone. But I object to sanctions against myself just as much. None of the so-called "evidence" produced by Tim amounts to anything. He has provided diffs, but they don't bear out his claims. I object strongly to the idea that presenting evidence against a person is sufficient reason to warrant sanctions when the evidence is nothing but a personal grudge. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strongly oppose. That's a little like "I then fired one warning shot into the suspect's head". You don't ban anyone without a warning first, because there can be reasonable disagreement on whether something is "disruptive".

For the record, I intend to discuss any content reversions on the talk page, so that's a dead issue. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The sanction refers to individual page bans, not bans from the project. It is, in fact, quite standard for those to be imposed without any prior warning; if you feel that they are unjustified, you remain free to appeal them, since a page ban does not actually prevent you from editing elsewhere. Kirill ^(prof) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I most strongly object to your proposing sanctions against Alastair and Ilkali and myself, and proposing no sanctions whatsoever against Tim (SkyWriter). This demonstrates a bias that should be taken into account by all admins. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- it's okay with me to get the same restrictions as everyone else (or anyone else, if they are not evenly applied). Of course, since I'm going underground and hiding, I'll have to let all the admins know my new screen name. But I'm happy to do so. I'd like to add that this might be a little healthy for all of us. It forces us to spread our energies out into multiple pages and finding less contentious avenues for editing (which is actually the strategy I'm planning).Tim (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't trying to punish you, Tim. I know you'll never believe it, but I honestly don't care about you in the least. The point is Kirill's bias here. You got into an edit war with Ilkali, then you saw one going on between me and Alastair (that didn't even involve you) and you decided to dogpile me. All because of a pathetic grudge you're holding against me. You run around Wikipedia declaring your own "rules" that run counter to actual Wikipedia rules, you've been talked to about your OR/POV/SYNTH issues by many editors besides me, and Kirill doesn't deem you to be at fault in the least here. That's troubling, and in my opinion, it places his objectivity in doubt. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- it could simply be that I was already voluntarily going underground to get away from this incessant warring (and so it's a bit moot on my part). I'm sure that choosing to write in English won't be a problem once I change names and hide.Tim (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe Tim to be deserving of sanctions, then you should present some evidence to justify them. At the moment, no substantive points regarding his conduct has been made by you or anyone else. Kirill ^(prof) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean that I have to engage in personal attacks the way Tim did in order to have things viewed in a balanced way? I've been trying my best to take a higher road. I didn't even make any attempt to defend myself when Tim made his initial attack against me here. It wasn't until I saw that people were actually taking his vitriol seriously that I did so.

Are you seriously going to punish everyone who has been accused here, whether the accusations are valid or not? That's... unbelievable.

I'll tell you what. This is an ArbCom that was created to deal with misbehavior by one person. Alastair Haines. I don't think anything needs to be done to him other than a public determination of fact that he has, in fact, misbehaved. And that, only because he refuses to acknowledge any of his behavior to have been problematic. I disagree with other issues being dragged in here. The conflict between me and Tim should be dealt with elsewhere. There's an open RfC on the subject, and Wikipedia dispute resolution should not bypass an open RfC just because a neighboring ArbCom has been opened.

My rebuttal to Tim's attacks on this page includes evidence against Tim, if you need it that badly. I would think that his attacks themselves should constitute their own evidence, but apparently that isn't the case.

But Tim claims that he's going to "hide". He's planning on changing names entirely. Fine. If he continues to edit under his new identity the way he has under his current one, the conflict will continue. If that happens, then I'll go on the offensive. But right now, all I want for Tim is the same thing I want for Alastair. A public finding that he's behaved inappropriately, and that his OR/SYNTH/POV edits are unaccepable on Wikipedia. I'm not looking for sanctions beyond that. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to find me first, Lisa. And if you do I'll change names and subjects and disappear again. I refuse to continue this ridiculous war. There are plenty of people and subjects on Wikipedia quite capable of cooperative editing in intelligible English. And those same people won't get rid of notable and verifiable citations just because they disagree with the POV being presented. Go fight other people, or wear yourself out trying to track me down and "go on the offensive."Tim (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I wouldn't even bother looking for you. You think this is personal, and it just isn't. Not from my side (though it clearly is from yours). I don't care who tries to do the things you've been doing. If someone comes along with the name Obsessive (or whatever) and does the same things you were doing, I'll react the same way I did when you did it. If Obsessive turns out to be you, I don't care. If Obsessive turns out to be someone else, I don't care. But given your behavior, I imagine that if Obsessive turns out to be you, you'll pitch the same kind of fit and start accusing everyone who knows who you are of telling me. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Although Ilkali and I have argued over what intelligible English is, you are the only editor I've ever seen on a bandwagon to save Wikipedia from the language. You're a fantastic writer in Jewspeak, but only us Jews know what the heck you are talking about. Is English an obsession with me? Only on en.Wikipedia.Tim (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a fairly standard probation and a warranted one--Cailil ^talk 19:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 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 week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

1.1) 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 and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the standard might be too steep for these named parties. I think that these users are more likely than most to respond to the sanctions in this case by modifying their conduct. I'm not seeing any conduct that comes close to needing a year long ban and don't want to give the impression to administrators that a year long ban would likely be needed for any of these users. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought long and hard before I offered the alternative proposal because I do not like to limit admins and stop them from taking the most appropriate action. In the past, I've voted against limiting sanctions if they give less power to admins to deal with problem users than they would normally have in a given situation. But unfortunately, in the not to distant past, I've seen that admins have used what I consider draconian measures when lesser sanctions worked with a particular user. I think that we need to craft our sanctions in a way that reminds admins to use the least restrictive approach with an user when that user makes a significant number of good contributions. For example, I would not be happy if the 6th block was a one year block if it happened many months after the first five blocks and the editor had been editing without difficulty during the time. My preference is that if we get to the point that monthly blocks are happening then we should modify the sanction completely. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ideally, neither of these two proposals will need to be enforced, but life isn't (always) ideal. One thing that disturbed me in this case (and I think I was vocal about it in another venue) was that fact that one user in particular was adamantly non-responsive to other forms of dispute resolution, and stated that this would continue until/unless it goes to ArbCom. If every user was to follow that standard, it would not just be unmanageable for ArbCom, but it would be detrimental for the entire project. While I agree 1 year is too steep, should things go to that level, I wouldn't want to see a monthly cycle happen either (not saying that they will, but I'd prefer a precautionary measure). I'd support either Kirill's or this proposal, with the variant/addition of "After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to 3 months." Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, I too prefer for the remedy to be modified completely should it go to that stage, but the time the entire process can be quite discouraging. Certainly, that example would be alarming on-wiki, but I don't think the community would usually sit quietly and nod their heads if a draconian measure of that sort was imposed without due cause. The community, even amidst heated discussion, spends a lot of time reviewing blocks and making the extra effort to have those actions modified to a more appropriate length, whereby less-restrictive measures are enforced where possible. While I do agree that the need for using the least restrictive approach on a vested contributor is indeed important (and crafting sanctions accordingly is an idea worth considering), I'm not sure this sort of limit is necessarily the best, or only way to effectively convey that message/reminder to admins. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Daniel

Proposed principles

Legal threats

1) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. Those editors who wish to utilize a court of law to resolve disputes with other editors may not use Wikipedia pages for communications preparatory to such actions, or edit until proceedings have concluded. Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a non-threatening fashion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good editing not only means that you should be clear with what you mean, but to be aware of the reception of others. Alastair has clarified his statements to not be legal in intention; however, once the clarification became necessary, continuation of language that needs clarification should be modified. In the future, we should all pay attention to this whether it pertains to legal sounding language or other language that people say they are understanding differently than the way it is meant. Alastair has been clear that he did not mean this, but since he does not mean this, he should be more careful that he intends no escalation -- precisely because others are using it as an excuse for escalation here -- and precisely because such escalation is the problem that is consuming all of our time now.Tim (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Legal threats are completely irrelevant to any discussion, if legal warnings are in order, there are appropriate forums outside Wikipedia pages. Legal threats should be terminated with extreme prejudice, just like any other threats in fact.

Since it has been raised several times in this case, I will also note that this rule wisely does not mention "anything that could possibly be interpreted as a legal threat". People should be careful how they interpret words, especially if their interpretations are incompatible with good faith. As will be evident to many, I have never made a legal threat, yet several editors have published posts alleging that I have. A clear case of defamation that undoubtedly ArbCom will address appropriately.

Please note, the defamatory allegations against me currently on the evidence page are expressly there by my permission. I welcome every allegation at this point, in order to assist with keeping such unseemly behaviour within the community. ArbCom are welcome to uphold and in a Wiki sense endorse any allegation. I cannot be cleared without ArbCom having this privelege to evaluate without fear or favour. On the other hand, should ArbCom agree with me that the accusations are largely disproportionate and unfounded or both, I will seek no redress within Wiki let alone outside it. I don't expect civility from Wiki editors, I trust the system to teach civility.

My religion teaches forgiveness. It is easy to forgive editors who are not professionals, but rather volunteers.

There is a better word, derived from the Latin for love, but I can't use it, some one will interpret it as an insult! Alastair Haines (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed; a hack-job from JVM. Daniel (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For context, as I think it will probably help the parties, Daniel is referring to this case. See here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of this response but I'm not sure the context or content of Alastair's remarks matches Merkey's. The problem is that when Alastair feels he was personally attacked he used the terms "slander" etc. IMHO the issue revolves somewhat around his use of his real name as his user-name.
There is also the problem that Alastair twice made clear that the use of these terms was not a threat of legal action. So either we as a community need to see "legal sounding language" as a) incivil and the editor warned/blocked for using it; b) as "alway already" a legal threat and the editor making such threats blocked until they commit to withdrawing them; or c) usable when its clear no legal action will be taken. C is the de facto position we are in here and one way or the other it is untenable.
I asked Alastair during the ANI proceeding to refactor his use of legal sounding language there, I advised him of WP:NLT, and of the name change option[29] - he declined all three[30]. Where does that leave us? What can we do to prevent escalation when 1) a user like Alastair feels wronged and 2) the use of legal sounding language is stated not to imply legal action. We need a clarification on whether using "legal sounding language" in relation to perceived (or real) incivility/personal attacks is ever acceptable or if it is always a breach of WP:EQ and thus itself sanctionable--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, these aren't your stock standard legal threats. I tried to address the issue in the proposal below. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the boffins to work out how to deal with policy issues.

The bottom line is that we have a bunch of people screaming they have the right to say bad things about me on the basis of the support of one anothers' opinions (hersay) in this matter. That is not Wiki process. It is not part of a civil process of establishing facts based on evidence.

That there is something uncivil about my critics in their conduct in this matter is evident from the untempered way they seized (and still do) the potential debating advantage of discrediting me by reference to a debatable interpretation of my words, clearly at odds with its context. Both things are characteristic of their conduct at many other points in the matter at hand.

The problem here is not merely one of how do we stop people intimidating others by making legal threats.

There is a major issue in stopping people from attempting to discredit the reputation of other users. This is precisely the issue that defamation law in civil society is designed to prevent.

The most serious question is, does Wiki currently have simple, easy method to ensure its editors do not Wiki-defame each other? If it did, then Wiki would consequently have provided due care for its volunteer editors. If it doesn't, it will always be at risk of some named editor with means and motive holding it accountable in a civil court for damages to his reputation consequent upon some case of Wiki-defamation.

For goodness sake, train volunteer mediators and admins to take No personal attacks very seriously, especially if they're being made against users who might be able to prove they are using their real name.

You're safe with me, but now I've been in this position, I can assure you it's not nice, and some may experience fallout that almost obliges them to seek civil remedy. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Chilling effect

2) The use of the term "defamation" in rebutting a user's criticism results in the creation of a chilling effect for future unrestricted discussion about editor conduct. One of the rationales of Wikipedia's no legal threats policy explicitly listed on the policy page is to prevent such situations, which result in intimidation and suppression of discussion. Whether or not an explicit "threat" of litigation, frequent and constant accusations of defamation in general discussion directed at other contributors amounts to behaviour which falls within the scope of the rationale of Wikipedia's 'No legal threats' policy, especially where the editor using the term has a vested interest in restricting discussion on the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Alastair did not intend such a chilling effect, and and has stated so explicitly. That said, can we also agree that defamation itself has a chilling effect?Tim (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made some comments above. My answer is NO.

I'm happy to work through the wording, but this is targetted at me.

The evidence shows people trying to silence me, not the opposite.

When people have a vested interest in gathering numbers to prove their point rather than gathering arguments, discrediting people is a very effective strategy. How's the presidential election going by the way?

Wiki editing is not about achieving edits by political means.

The problem is the statement gives far too much weight to let people express their opinion, and too little weight to civility.

When unproven matters of opinion, however numerous, are directed at an editor, that is chilling and an attempt to silence him.

Freedom of speech requires that the editor is honest, despite such pressure, at least when it's not cold you know where.

If the statement above is modified so that it includes the chilling effect of a small cabal reproducing hersay against a lone editor's character, I'll sign up on this one.

Otherwise, its quite simply anti freedom of speech and honest, fair criticism.

In fact, this is precisely the subject of this very ArbCom hearing—please uphold the No personal attacks policy. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Threatening undertones, whether deliberate or not, must be treated seriously. Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--Cailil ^talk 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Implications of liability

3) Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the Arbitration Committee, can issue a judgment on whether a statement is defamatory, nor can failing to acknowledge a defamatory statement in any decision-making processes be construed as a rejection of the notion that the statement is indeed defamatory by the Foundation or the Committee. Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer states that "[n]othing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Gentlemen and Ladies, Wikipedia has an informal process that calls for defamation not occurring (that is, we encourage people to stop). Alastairs complaint of defamation cannot possibly be worse than the defamation itself if that were occurring. Responsible editing and community affairs does not end with slapping Alastair for complaining. We should also take a look at what he is complaining about. Let me be clear: Alastair said that defamation was occurring and ALSO said that he planned no legal action. Let me be clear: to my knowledge everyone has been so concerned about the word "defamation" that they have ignored the action of defamation. In other words, it cannot possibly be less civil to complain of defamation than it is to defame. Are we legally accountable? Alastair insists that we are not. But are we responsible to Wikipedia and to ourselves? Absolutely.Tim (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly fair and agreed. Wiki renders judgements on No personal attacks, it does not stand in for legal wrangles between editors, regarding defamation or anything else. If No personal attacks is upheld, defamation should not be an issue. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to go into this territory.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was an afterthought to combat the predictable response by Haines to the above two proposals. Maybe it's better simply as a comment on the above rather than a separate proposal altogether. Daniel (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Alastair Haines prohibited

1) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) is prohibited from using the term "defamation", including any variation or implication, where directed at another contributors' comments, for a period of one year. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Notice, again, that no one has yet said anything about defamation. Which is worse, to say "ouch" or to hit someone on the head? Defamation is worse than the word defamation. Has ANYONE shown a concern whether this has occurred? How about this: administrators are banned from getting upset about the word "defamation" until they've spent five minutes trying to find out if defamation is occurring. Or even better -- ALL OF US are banned for life from defaming someone. Feel better?Tim (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're proving my point. We aren't here to judge whether something is or isn't defamation. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, but "defamation" is uncivil, no? The bizarre thing is that no one has yet seemed to care about whether this "incivility" ever occurred. And as for judging... I think that a LOT of people here are trying to be judge, jury, and executioner.Tim (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we add the word slander to the above? L'Aquatique[talk] 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

""defamation", including any variation or implication," (the intent was to prevent the use of "libel" etc.). Daniel (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right-o then, carry on. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. I don't think restricting him to non-legal-sounding language would inhibit Alastair's ability to communicate. Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable and well measured, but the wording probably needs some drafting. It cant hurt, but it will go a long way to ensure that Alastair Haines takes a different route next time when things escalate. The important take away message here is that there are other routes to deal with defamation instead of calling it out which usually escalates things further. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John this is a reasonable suggestion but, there was other language used "hearsay" etc. My only issue with this suggestion is that at present there seems to be a loop-hole in WP:NLT - restricting Alastair like this cures the symptom not the disease. But I think this is a step forward in preventing future escalation.
To reply somewhat to Tim: it can't be emphasized enough that we already have policy against personal attacks & ad hominem remarks should be referred to and dealt with as such--Cailil ^talk 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that for the duration of his time at Wiki, Alastair reports any perceived personal attacks directly to AN/I (did I get that right).

And I trust I'll get prompt and helpful involvement. Cailil has actually been outstanding in deflecting things with JCDenton, even when I did make precisely the mistakes JCD identified. He actually went beyond it, but he included comments directly addressing the fact that JCD had said things beyond what my errors called for.

Interestingly JCD's comments cited Ilkali as authority that I'm a known bad user. Proof of Wiki-defaming of me by Ilkali.

I think JCD and I are OK now, he accepted a comment I made regarding a change he made at an article I used to watch, and self-corrected it. I have no bad will towards JCD.

But regarding the proposal, I cannot accept it, because it is based on the assumption that I have used the word inappropriately or unhelpfully, which is not something that has been proven.

In two years Alastair has only joined fights to mediate in them, usually successfully, and only personally been involved in three robust discussions, only the current one requiring him to take action to defend himself against uncivil opposition.

If this is expressed as a request that Alastair consider contacting AN/I if ever he gets to the point he would consider using the word defamation to describe the words of a correspondant, I would promise not only to consider, but to embrace the offer with open arms.

Expressed the right way, something addressing this issue could be very positive, along the lines of: "Alastair is a known good faith editor of impeccable politeness and patience, his dedication to upholding the integrity of Wiki text occasionally frustrates people who use language about him that is unfair. He can be trusted not to be pushing a POV or trying to 'own' articles. Please render this man every support, and spare him having to defend himself." Alastair Haines (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Honestly, Alastair, I've wronged you. I would have sworn that you had no sense of humor. I admit my error now. You're hilarious. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Maybe it's the sake -- but I can't even follow the syntax, let alone abide by this. Time to crash. Night.Tim (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Abtract

Proposed principles

Editing environment condusive to a great encyclopedia

1) WP has to be enjoyable for editors working in co-operation in order to be helpful to readers

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed.Tim (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is not a clear causality here. Wikipedia does not need to be enjoyable for anyone. It needs to be an encyclopedia. Good quality content causes the latter, and good practise leads us to promote the former, where possible. Some editors end up topic banned, and some wonderful collaborative editing produces crap articles that are not encyclopedic nor helpful to anyone other than the creators. We are left with a complex interaction of the two, and many people have different modes of operation and different focuses - provided they fit within our liberal expectations, we end up with a good product by keeping them plugged into the project. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Echoing John wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a game. Editors should conduct themselves properly (according to WP:EQ and WP:consensus) but this project does not have "to be enjoyable for editors working in co-operation in order to be helpful to readers" - that's a logical fallacy--Cailil ^talk 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Bullying behaviour leads to a bad encyclopedia

1) Haines uses his skills to promote his own hierarchy of teacher-pupil to the exclusion of those outside his circle and those who disagree with him, resulting in many editors leaving the articles he edits, or "owns" as he sees it. Sadly he is so clever, and seems to have seduced others with his winning ways, that I fear he may escape ... please don't let that happen, he is a bully of the worst kind (a clever one)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Alastair's crime here has been to defend himself, without escalation. He's frequently said that a simple apology is best, or at least stopping the attack is sufficient. So -- stop attacking him and he'll stop saying ouch. It's that simple. Is Alastair clever here? Obviously not. But if you don't believe me: try it. Just stop attacking.Tim (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

He must go

1) There is only one possible remedy: Haines must be banned for life. If minor penalties are deemed necessary for the others then so be it but Haines must go.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To my knowledge, Alastair has not escalated or asked for anyone to be banned. In my defense of him I am not even asking for you to be banned. My only request to the committee is that they encourage attacks to stop so that we can do some constructive editing.Tim (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think Alastair should be banned for life. I think he should be censured, and in such a way that he can't pretend (as he did after the RfC was closed) that he's never been accused of misbehavior here, let alone found to have misbehaved. I think it's critical that he be forced to recognize that his behavior here has been inappropriate. They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to changing. I can guarantee that if Alastair isn't forced to recognize the problem it will not be changed. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] No way. I cannot in good conscience support the lifetime banning of a good faith editor. Getting anyone banned for even a short amount of time was NOT my intention opening this case. I have faith that there is a better solution, and we don't have to stoop to this. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is ridiculous. Thus far there has only been a few incidents on a narrow topical area, and he has been primarily reacting. You are being very unimaginative if you think that there is not a more targeted remedy that would ensure the editors involve do not continue the problematic editing that led to this rapid escalation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First off we don't do life-time bans. Second this is not borne out by the evidence. Third the editor making this proposal borders on being pointy by making a proposal like this considering their involvement in content disputes at Gender of God with Alastair Haines--Cailil ^talk 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree, this is ridiculous as we don't do life-time bans - but a standard remedy needs to be considered. Also, I don't agree that it is a narrow topical area - rather, it's a wide gaming of the system (I've described it in a bit more detail, under the "Alastair Haines behavior" proposal). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Just get rid of him or he will eventually get rid of all those who cross him

1) Your call

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Teclontz

Proposed principles

When People Revert, They Normally Revert to their Preferred Version

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've recently seen accusations that Alastair reverts to his preferred version. Can we all grant that (other than vandals) almost everyone goes to a preferred version when they revert? I think one time I reverted my own version to one Ilkali preferred just to get him to stop arguing with me. But that's a highly unusual act. Can we have a show of hands here of people who routinely revert to a version they don't like? And no -- I'm not being ironic here. I'm serious. The entire accusation that someone reverts to their approved version is simply calling the accused "normal". Please, seriously, a show of hands for anyone this is NOT true of.Tim (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Those Who Are Not Abusing The System Are The Least Inconvenienced By Remedial Sanctions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This should go without saying. And indeed, most of my points are simple truisms. But truisms generally get missed in the muddle of remediation. In this case we have four parties. At least one or two of them are gaming the system, and at least two or three of them are falling victim to the vortex of association. Regardless, it should go without saying that sanctions only truly cramp the style of those who are abusive; they do not in the least cramp the style of those who are not abusive. The corrolary remediation, therefore, should simply be across the board. Slam all four of us with sanctions and only the true abusers will have a need to complain (and they will show their true colors by doing so). Although I will be changing screen names when this is completed, I will freely give my new identity offline to arbcom administrators so that I can be held to the same accountability as the worst offender here. My proposal is to simply slam all of us and let the offenders squeal. The innocent can proceed without any inconvenience in the least from sanctions only meant to control the uncontrollable.Tim (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is patently false. If an editor is limited to 1RR, it can inconvenience them even if their actions are 100% appropriate. Cailil has proposed setting a limit of 3 talk page posts a day for me. Are you claiming that it is against Wikipedia policy to make more than 3 talk page posts a day? If so, I'd like to see you back that up. Right here, right now. If you can't, I expect you to withdraw this ridiculous claim, since it's demonstrably false. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't care two hoots if I have the ability to revert or not, it won't change my editing a jot. I've never edit warred. All I care about is any public statement that I've done anything wrong—that is contrary to full presentation of facts. No limitation of editing hurts me at all. The only thing that would harm me is any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour. That, is obviously unacceptable. It aggravates harm. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The word “Defamation” is not as uncivil as the action of Defamation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm very concerned that everyone so far has discussed that the word "defamtion" is the issue. It is not. The action of defamation is the issue. First, have those complaining about the word "defamation" shown any evidence at all that they have taken the time to investigate if the action itself occurred? Certainly the first step should have been to have counselled Alastair that someone cared, and that he could be quietly assured that you would investigate the claim. Then it was a simple matter of either counselling the possible defamer to be civil and to encourage an apology. I'm very concerned here that Wikipedia administrators may have jumped the gun and gone into "damage control" mode. It's like what HR does in a corporation when someone alleges harassment -- they are more concerned to deny that harassment has occurred than they are to stop the harassment. When Alastair made a point of stating that he was NOT seeking action and would never consider it, then (at the very latest) the administrators involved should have spoken to the person actually attacking Alastair and asked him to be civil. And at the extreme latest, the committee should be considering the tone and intensity of the attacks against Alastair here and the relative harmlessness of his defense. What you are seeing on this arbcom page is the same as you will see in the diffs -- Alastair has been attacked, and attacked for claiming to be attacked, and attacked for claiming to be innocent, while only asking for the other parties to stop, or for the administrators to ask them to stop. Had this occurred at any time, we wouldn't be here now. Therefore, NOW is the opportunity for the arbcom to tell the attacking parties to take a chill pill so Alastair's panic levels can go down.Tim (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair was not "defamed". He was criticized. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know whether he was defamed, criticized, or neither. I'm as guilty as everyone else of not taking the time to look. My only point is that the act of defamation is more serious than the use of the word "defamation." Has Alastair used that word? Absolutely. Was he actually defamed? I don't know. If you've looked, great. Which diffs of the alleged defamation do you feel were merely criticism, and why? Which diffs specifically did you check?Tim (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether Alastair was defamed and whether he is guilty of implying legal threats are two separate issues that must be dealt with individually. I can see no benefit to debating which is "worse". Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair has explicitly stated that he intends no legal action. You cannot "imply" something contrary to an explicit statement; neither can anyone rationally infer something contrary to an explicit statement. The fact that people continue to insist Alastair has done so is absurd to its face. The fact that he has explicitly stated that he makes no legal threats settles the question -- but it does not settle whether he was actually defamed. Alastair has been quite public in favor of Wikipedia, and has represented Wikipedia favorably in Newsweek. Defaming Alastair defames Wikipedia, and that is precisely what has been so conspicuously ignored here. If Alastair, a spokesman for Wikipedia, has been defamed -- then Wikipedia by association has been defamed. Responsible administrators should make sure that defamation does not occur in general because it is uncivil, but responsible administrators should really make sure it doesn't happen to spokespeople for Wikipedia and its spinoff projects. Now, even after pointing this out, I still see no evidence from anyone, by any diff or statement, that any administrator anywhere has shown the slightest activity toward determining if defamation of one of their own spokespeople has occurred. That, at the very least, calls into question those administrators who have initiated this investigation. In other words, there was no balance, there was no investigation of fact regarding incivility, and there was an arbcom initiated accusing Alastair of (among other things) 1) saying nice things about himself, and 2) asking administrators to pay attention to incivility so severe that it has crossed over into something else entirely. I'm still waiting for an administrator to show that they took this absolutely first step. Without that first step, investigation of fact regarding defamation, the entire basis for this arbcom is removed. And, in fact, the existence of this arbcom, without investigation of fact, is itself evidence of gross negligence on the part of the administrators who both initiated and supported it.Tim (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom are looking after it. I trust them to get it right. Thanks for your words Tim, I agree with you about the top bit, but not about the bottom. Wiki will not fail. Or at least I hope not. There's no rush. In the nice interpretation of the word, Chill! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastiar, you've consistently defended the Wikipedia processes and your faith in them to me -- and you're the reason I've been here this long. I have to admit that my skepticism is turning to cynicism. But, for you, one last time, I'll suspend disbelief and adopt your faith in Wikipedia. Administrators -- I apologize. Everyone's human. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. But I would suggest something: if you didn't do it before, how about catch up and try to find out if your most vocal and public defender... and even your defender HERE... was [treated uncivilly]. I put those words in brackets as a synonym for "defamed." Please do so.Tim (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consideration of Internal Escalation is not as uncivil as the Action of Internal Escalation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In the previous action against Alastair, he was attacked for having considered Arbcom as a means of getting someone to stop attacking him. As a lesson to him, an arbcom is now in effect with his name on it. Fine -- he's been taught a lesson not to even consider asking for help when he's attacked. But I need to point out that consideration of an action is not as serious as the action itself. When I was in law enforcement a number of people considered bodily harm against me. No one actually inflicted bodily harm on me, thank God. I simply encourage everyone here to thank God for their same good fortune and to pass that goodness onto all parties here. If consideration of arbcom is the problem, then the initiation of an arbcom is even more of the problem, not the solution.Tim (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"In the previous action against Alastair, he was attacked for having considered Arbcom". He wasn't attacked for considering a case, he was criticised for threatening one. The impression was that he was attempting to bully individuals. Ilkali (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you taught HIM a lesson, didn't you?Tim (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a playground, Tim. The case was raised because numerous people honestly felt there were serious problems with Alastair's behaviour. You may not agree, but please do not accuse those editors of bad faith. Ilkali (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, I haven't assumed bad faith on your part, yet. But this is a statement of principle. On this principle, do you feel that an action is more or less serious than the consideration of an action? To use an analogy, is thinking about stealing more or less serious than actually stealing? Is thinking about an arbcom more or less serious than actually initiating an arbcom? That's all. It's a simple principle that seems to be getting lost here. People jumping on the arbcom bandwagon are doing so because Alastair thought about it? That's a little backwards, don't you think? I would much rather my wife admire Andy Garcia than go on a date with him (though for the life of me I can't understand the attraction). But a little drooling is not nearly as bad as a good french kiss.Tim (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You've made accusations of incivility against those who've supported the case against Alastair. To me, that seems like assuming bad faith. There is nothing incivil about testifying against someone that you honestly believe to be problematic. And I'll reiterate my comments above: Whether the case against Alastair constitutes incivility is a completely separate issue to whether Alastair's highly vocal 'consideration' of cases against others constitutes incivility. One cannot negate the other. Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, the next time any of us walks down the street, someone, somewhere, may consider something against us. As long as they merely consider it, no harm is done. There are plenty of women who are ogled, but not attacked. Between the two, I'm sure they would all rather be ogled. Are they two separate issues? Of course. One issue has caused harm (taking action against Alastair) and one action has not caused harm (consideration of action against you). Yes, these are two separate issues -- and they indict the people who took the action and supported it, while aquitting Alastair.Tim (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruptive Editing of a Page you have an active AfD on is Gaming the System

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This doesn't have to do with Alastair, of course. This has to do with Lisa's two AfDs on the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms article. Actively editing an article you want to destroy is highly disruptive, especially if you are trying to get a consensus to destroy your own edits!Tim (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course this ArbCom has to do with Alastair. It was created because other attempts at dispute resolution failed. Alastair ignored the RfC brought against him. Hell, look at the evidence I listed on the Evidence page. Look at the evidence listed by others. Others who were willing to respect the process and not use it as a forum for their own obsessions about other editors, I mean.

Tim may think that not using my name in these spurious accusations somehow makes them less odious. He's mistaken. As I've pointed out before, I thought (and have not changed my mind) that the article Tim refers to was one big pile of WP:OR and WP:POV and WP:SYNTH all wrapped together. Other editors (and admins) agreed, which is why the article no longer exists. But not every AfD succeeds. So I chose to try and at least prevent misrepresentations and bad content on the article in question pending the AfD. I see nothing wrong with having done that, whatever Tim may claim. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that to Tim, it seems that any editing he disagrees with is "disruptive editing". Given the cooperative nature of Wikipedia, this speaks volumes about Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, disagreement is the engine that drives NPOV content. Disruptive editing is editing a page you've created an AfD on and then demanding the AfD delete your own edits after you take over the page. That's like betting against your own team in professional sports. It's disruptive.Tim (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@LisaLiel...once again, I request that the editors involved in this mattter refrain from cursing. I was taught that Hell has the same impact as "God dammit"...it's really not necessary...is it?--Buster7 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to Ban someone on their talk page is Uncivil

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd like to add that this entire escalation experience is uncivil.Tim (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Tim says that the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is "uncivil". -LisaLiel (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, threatening someone on their user talk page is uncivil. That's not dispute resolution. That's just bullying. And I think that should be clear to most people here. Do we sometimes need to warn someone? Sure. But we should at least consider this as something we don't want to do.Tim (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Repeated Edit Warring is Uncivil

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Except for vulgarity, nothing is in such urgency that edit warring is required. We should take our time on these pages and let information, citations, and POV balancing occur through a natural process. The world will not end and lives will not be destroyed because of a single edit. Wikipedia is cool, folks, but the fate of the free world does not hang in the balance.Tim (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A Mediation Cabal to Have an Editor blocked from contributing to a subject is uncivil

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The entire point of Wikipedia is to have a consensus process between opposing points of view, rather than at the expense of them. The other points of view keep us honest. To wax political, the Republicans need the Democrats and the Democrats need the Republicans. The only thing worse than losing an election is not having anyone else to lose to.Tim (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no such thing has happened ([31]), Tim should be required to withdraw his false accusation. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- everyone can see your wording on the mediation cabal.Tim (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That was my point. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No “side” to this dispute should suffer a penalty more serious than what they are demanding the other “side” suffer

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The arbcom process is not a game where the sky is the limit. It's insulting to all involved, and especially the committee to make claims of "ban him for life" and feel like you are exempt. The committee should ensure the integrity of this venue by aggressively slapping such frivolity for a limited period of time.Tim (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No one engages in edit wars in isolation; the accusation of an edit war on a single party is illogical and betrays a bias

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm very concerned that Lisa was slapped in isolation for edit warring, when it's an obvious check to see that I was the other party. But she was banned and I was not. At the same time, it's highly disturbing that people are accusing Alastair for edit warring and not listing themselves as the other party. I find it highly irrational, and I really hope that the arbcom will smack all sides on the wrist with the proverbial ruler. Where are those Catholic Nuns when you need them?Tim (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have enough trouble here without bringing in Catholic Nuns, Tim... :P But in all seriousness, can you please remove the "and betrays a (not so well) hidden agenda" from the title- it's disruptive. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misdirected. We talk about hidden agendas in Engineering all the time. When someone rejects an engineering proposal for some inexplicable reason, then he has a hidden agenda -- he has some kind of bias instead of a real engineering concern. That's what I mean here, not some kind of cabal. I do, however, note that several people are demonstrating a bias, but not in colusion.Tim (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't true that it's impossible to edit war in isolation. Someone who reverts the edits of other editors arbitrarily (without giving any reason) is engaging in edit warring, even if the victim doesn't respond in kind. Alastair has done this. So has Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I've freely admitted edit warring with you. That is with you -- you and me together.Tim (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat, had I not responded when you reverted my edit, you still would have been guilty of edit warring. You were edit warring before I responded. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

At Least One or Two of Us Are Gaming the System

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are reasons to complain all around.

• Alastair ticked off an admin by exercising ownership of his own talk page. BTW, a "troll" on your talk page is anyone you don't want to talk to, period. If any user decides he doesn't want to talk to an admin, that admin is by definition a troll on his talk page. The admin can still take action elsewhere, but a user should have some authority over his own talk page, short of obscenity or hate speech.
• Lisa takes over pages (as even L'Aquatique has granted) and edit wars (as even Slrubenstein has granted). And she uses inappropriate Wiki forums for content disputes -- AfDs, even Arbcoms (as even Calil has granted).

This is untrue. When I first posted that Alastair has gotten into edit wars, I was asked to either change that to a singular (since I'd only posted about one instance) or add evidence for it. I changed L'Aquatique's sandbox version of the shituf article. I did that before I understood how to make one myself, and I regret having done so. I have never taken over an article page or an article talk page. This was one incident, and you're misrepresenting it. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've been guilty of yammering endlessly with Lisa, when I should have just walked away and edited in subjects not obsessively controlled by another use (as even I have granted).
• Ilkali has decided to keep throwing mud on a more experienced user until something sticks (which may or may not happen here).

Although any given user may disagree with his own role -- they will at least agree that SOMEONE is guilty here! And that's my only point: someone or some two are guilty. It doesn't matter who. My only point is that someone or some two are.Tim (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a pointless point. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit Wars have occurred

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not "Alastiar has edit warred" but "Alastair and such and such have edit warred" (if that occurred). I'll freely shout that several edit wars have occurred -- between Lisa and myself, and in fact this arbcom is the immediate result of that edit war... with the wrong person's name on it.Tim (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim may think that including himself makes him noble, but when he does so for the purpose of attacking another editor (me), it's anything but. This ArbCom is about Alastair. No amount of wikilawyering on Tim's part is going to change that. It came into being because of Alastair's behavior, and I'm honestly tired of Tim's red herrings. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. This came about because of other editors repeatedly saying bad things about Alastair and Alastair having the bad sense of saying something good about himself. I think it's that third person Bob Dole kind of wording that ticked some people off. But saying good things about yourself in the third person, as annoying as that can be for someone who dislikes you, isn't really bad behavior.Tim (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed: this is a fair finding of fact. It can be objectively decided that an edit war occurred. Responsibility for the edit war is a complex matter and findings of fact in regard to responsibility must be considered and decided separately, they are a more complex and subtle matter to discern fairly. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Threats of Escalation have occurred

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Would arbcom help?" (Alastair, someone claimed); "I'll have you banned" (Lisa, on my talk page). All of this just needs to stop. Arbcom is unpleasant for all involved, as are the other actions, and in the end only delay the inevitable -- the need for rational discussion of the facts and issues of some article or another.Tim (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actions of Escalation have occurred

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

AfD, Mediation Cabal, RfC, Edit War, Arbcom -- where will it end?Tim (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Escalation of dispute resolution is a positive thing, and supported by Wikipedia. For Tim to lump edit wars in with legitimate dispute resolution such as MedCab, RfC and RfA shows Tim's utter disrespect for Wikipedia processes. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the Wikipedia process -- which is precisely why I disapprove of your misuse of that process. It's disrespectful to everyone involved. In legal terminology, its called vexatious litigation.Tim (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alastair has been attacked far more seriously than he has acted in response

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One need only look at the postings on this arbcom to validate my point.Tim (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To take this case as an attack is to assume bad faith in every editor who has supported it. Why do you prefer that to believing that they honestly think Alastair's behaviour is a problem? Ilkali (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Ilkali -- in this single instance I'm not talking about the fact of the arbcom (which I do decry), but rather the content of it. Just look at the invectives being hurled and the penalties being called for. It's astonishingly easy to see which "side" is uncivil just by looking at what people say here and how they say it. Of all involved, Alastair appears to be the most civil person writing HERE. That fact shouldn't be lost on the committee.Tim (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether he has been attacked by some parties is irrelevant to whether he has acted poorly. Other than those by Abtract, which I will agree are excessive, what comments here have been incivil? Ilkali (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see people mad at him for... saying something nice about himself. Check. Real bad there. I think the intensity of the attacks here and the tameness of the defense speak volumes.Tim (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's been said that's as harsh about Alastair as the things that Tim and Jerry have said about me. Furthermore, the majority of the proposals for harsh penalties here have been against Ilkali, and not against Alastair.

I think Tim's claim here is not only patently false, but is a clear attempt to mislead. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot attempt to mislead someone about something I honestly believe. Here, again, you show a deliberate misrepresentation of other people's motives. The fact is that I'm attemping to state the obvious here, and I see that I am getting the most forceful arguments against simple truisms. I find that rather telling.Tim (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Tim has hit the nail on the head. The sublety of the varied conversations will not be lost by the arbitrators. I will not speculate which bias would be the first to over react if the arbitrators were not watching. The History is there for all to see, even those that were not present in the moment or have recently come upon the scene...meaning me!--Buster7 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit Wars, AfDs, Mediation Cabals, Banning threats on User talk pages, RfCs, and this Arbcom have all distracted from cooperative editing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see us doing a whole lot of editing. Guys -- if you want to pull the trigger to win an edit dispute, just remember, you can't edit while you're spinning your wheels here. And even if you "win" and have someone "banned for life" it still doesn't fix the issue or the logic or the POV that someone else raised. It will just come back through someone else, because we don't change reality by shutting up the person pointing to it.Tim (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. AfDs, MedCabs, RfCs and ArbComs are legitimate Wikipedia processes, and have occurred precisely because there's been a problem with cooperative editing. These things are meant as palliative measures. The alternative to them is edit warring. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, I completely agree that these are legitimate Wikipedia processes, which is precisely what makes your misuse of them so disruptive. As I mentioned above, this is vexatious litigation. It's disrespectful to Wikipedia processes to misuse them in this way.Tim (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Put A Muzzle On All Four Of Us and call it a day

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I said above, sanctions only inconvenience the guilty. They do not inconvenience the innocent. I therefore propose that the arbcom puts a muzzle on all four of us and let the guilty complain. And do it for a full year on all possible screen names from our IP addresses to force the guilty to create better habits. The innocent here are able to play within rules -- regardless of what those rules are. Just lay down some rules. The self controlled will function just fine. The uncontrollable will have some limits. And then we can walk away and call it a day.Tim (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish Tim would stick to speaking for himself only. This is the umpteenth time in this ArbCom where he has recommended ridiculous sanctions against other people, apparently under the misapprehension that including himself among the victims makes it all right.

It doesn't.

And sanctions do not only inconvenience the guilty. That's absurd on the face of it. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "muzzle"? Any sanction has a cost to the system, in that it obligates volunteers to enforce it. Your suggestion that they be placed on all four editors, irrespective of how their behaviour is judged by the committee, is ridiculous. Ilkali (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We stick to the subject matter rather than escalation as a diversionary tactic

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe this is what Alastair keeps saying -- and what everyone is so offended about. It's not Alastair you are mad at, but the act of cooperative editing. Are you really getting the article you want this way?Tim (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You've just accused everyone involved in this ArbCom of being "mad at the act of cooperative editing". So much for good faith and a respect for Wikipedia processes.

Whether you are willing (or able, really) to accept the reality, Tim, there are a number of people here who have found Alastair's behavior to be heavy handed and highly problematic. Quite frankly, if you aren't willing to participate in the current RfA, you should stop posting here at all. All you've done here is attack me and attempt to misdirect everyone involved here by pretending that this ArbCom was created for any purpose other than Alastair's misbehavior. It's incredibly disrespectful to everyone involved here (yes, even Alastair), and says much more about you than it does about anything else.

I find it quite ironic that you call a Request for Arbitration a "diversionary tactic" (rather than a basic piece of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process), but insist on using your own diversionary tactics to undermine the ArbCom itself. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, these people have better things to do than to be misused as a diversionary tactic. Misuse of the legitimate Wikipedia process is very serious and shows extreme disrespect to all involved. Note that I do NOT charge L'Aquatique for misusing the processes. I said initially and will repeat that I would have done precisely what she did given the same circumstances. But that does not absolve those who have perpetuated these attacks and misuse of the system. Again, it is vexatious litigation -- which is disrespectful to the entire process and all involved.Tim (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We only ask penalties on others that we are willing to suffer ourselves

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Folks, this is not a game. Take it seriously. "Ban him for life" is just insulting to all involved, especially the arbitration committee.Tim (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already posted my opposition to the "ban him for life" comment. But I find this suggestion to be remarkable, and bizarre. To only ask penalties on others that we are willing to suffer ourselves means accepting that we are equally guilty of misbehavior. I think this idea should be ignored. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't stop arguing, even here, can we? Even when you agree with me it's an argument? What I am asking is that we respect the process enough to not play games with it. This is the mirror test: if you cannot endure something, don't demand it. To do otherwise is to play games with the committee and to insult all involved.Tim (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not banning him for life would be an insult to the community. Abtract (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee -- how about give Abtract and myself a vacation for that month? We both could use it.Tim (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about speaking for yourself, Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I just did. Reread that line "we could both use it".Tim (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about speaking only for yourself, Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We stop attacking individuals and attack holes in the Wikipedia knowledge base instead

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe the subject was the Gender of God. Attacking Alastair isn't a way to pull God's pants down.Tim (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is frivolous in the extreme, and demonstrates Tim's level of respect for Wikipedia processes. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No Lisa; between the two of us, I am the one who does respect the process -- so much that I find it highly disrespectful to misuse it as a means of getting around the natural editing process. Instead of dealing with content, people have pulled the trigger in escalations that are trivial. I believe, in fact, that the mediator of your Gender of God cabal herself called it "trivial." This is a distraction, and a misuse of the system.Tim (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We first do no harm

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Look, this is supposed to be a cooperative effort. Attacking someone is not the way to get them to cooperate.Tim (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look in a mirror, Tim. You've done nothing but attack me since this RfA began. And you brought in Jerry, who accused me of perpetrating a holocaust. According to your own standards, then, you must not be interested in cooperation. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'll recall I told L'Aquatique (and I know you looked) that I disagreed with Jerry's terms there. And I've been rather tame in my "attack". Do you really want me to continue researching the diffs to the point that they become an affirmative case against you? I specifically stated that they were NOT meant to be an affirmative case against you, but rather a defense of Alastair to point out that he was a victim of circumstance, at least in the timing of this arbcom. I would rather we all walk away from this, and that you continue your ownership of a few pages while I hid in some new screen name and found some subjects I wouldn't encounter you in. Wikipedia is a big place. You can only own so many pages.Tim (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Once again you throw out the "ownership" accusation, which is ludicrous. Alastair was not a victim of circumstance. He behaved badly, and I hope I'm not the only person here who is sick and tired of you trying to claim otherwise with absolutely no evidence, and no attempt to discuss the many issues that have been raised here. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We treat others as we expect to be treated ourselves

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe a number of religions use this line. Besides, what we dish out only wastes our own time as much as the other person's (hint, how much free time has this process given you?).Tim (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Lisa and I avoid each other

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The strangest thing about this is that Lisa and I are both committed to Orthodox Judaism. She wants to express it with integrity to the terms most natural to its native context. I want to express it with intelligibility to other contexts. But what we want to express is essentially the same thing. However, this is ultimately an editorial difference, rather than a substantive one. We cancel each other out fighting tooth and nail to get to the same place -- which does no service to either of us and wastes what we have to offer. But going our separate ways is not enforcable. I am therefore going to attempt to accomplish it by moving to other subjects in another name, and just starting fresh. Lisa gets to edit. I get to edit. Wikipedia admins get to sleep at night.Tim (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

L'Aquatique becomes Ilkali's mentor

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think that this is the remedy to the core issue. Alastair attempted to mentor Ilkali, Ilkali felt insulted being mentored by a peer who wasn't an admin, and L'Aquatique pulled the trigger on Alastair. So, I propose poetic justice all around. We all agree that Alastair has failed to mentor Ilkali, and we turn that task over to L'Aquatique. I think L'Aquatique can agree to this because she probably doesn't think Ilkali is the problem. Ilkali, for his part, will have to be on his best behavior to keep L'Aquatique from being disabused of her initial assessment that Ilkali was the wronged party. NOTE: regardless of which side you agree with, you'll agree that this solution will work. Alastair and I should agree that Ilkali will have to behave around his new mentor. L'Aquatique and Calil will have to agree that this is harmless to L'Aquatique and gets Alastair and Ilkali off of each other. It's a win win situation.Tim (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"I think that this is the remedy to the core issue". A significant number of people think that at least one of the core issues is Alastair's poor behaviour.

"Alastair attempted to mentor Ilkali, Ilkali felt insulted being mentored by a peer who wasn't an admin". This is pure fiction. You are shamelessly inventing events and attitudes to fit your preferred view of the world. Ilkali (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the beauty of my proposal. If you are the problem, you have an admin who is a mentor to guide you. If Alastair is the problem, you have an admin who is a buddy to smack him around. It's win win -- no matter who is "inventing...attitudes." In fact, I proposed this because the only way anyone could argue with it is if they intended to be a problem... and I don't see anyone here who would admit to that.Tim (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you support a proposal to find a mentor for Alastair? Ilkali (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That's the spirit! Honestly, I'd be okay with us ALL having mentors:

• You first, to be able to add content and substance.
• Me second, to be able to keep from alienating people with my own POV when trying to help them communicate the same information to an audience with a different POV (I still have no idea how to do this and may have to stop trying -- I end up arguing with people who agree with me instead of people who disagree).
• Lisa third, to be able to communicate the exact same splendid and well researched content to a generic audience.
• Alastair fourth, to be able to leave orphaned young editors alone (i.e. not insult them) unless they appreciate the help.

There isn't a soul on Wikipedia who couldn't use a helping hand. And these are only the blind spots I've been able to see (which means there are blind spots I'm still blind to that a mentor could help with, natch).Tim (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mentor is a formal arrangement Tim. I was unaware that Alastair undertook to "adopt" anyone on wikipedia.
Also I think waiting for L'Aquatique to reply to your suggestion[32] before proposing this here might have been a good idea - being a mentor is not for everyone. I certainly am not interesting in adopting new users (for a variety of reasons) at this time and I wouldn't presume that L'Aquatique is willing or open to such an arrangement without hearing from her first.
That said somebody mentoring Ilkali might not be a bad idea if he was open to it, or if they ArbCom decide he needs it--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Calil -- agreed on all counts, and if L'Aquatique doesn't agree I'll withdraw the proposal. Also agreed that there was no formal arrangement between Alastair and Ilkali -- as there was none between Alastair and myself. In my case he was a consistent example and encouragement as a more experienced editor. He even told me on occasion that others were right and I was wrong by Wikipedia standards, even though he agreed with me in other respects. That's the kind of informal mentoring I accepted as it came. But that can be insulting to people when it comes from a "peer" -- especially when you haven't asked for it.Tim (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Immediate imposition for one month’s duration the worst penalty we’ve demanded arbcom impose on any other editor, as a means to stop this escalation gaming habit

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just a month. This isn't for Alastair. This is for the integrity of the committee. And for suggesting this I ask the committee to do the same to me. If you take the "ban him for life" person and ban him for a month, do the same to me. It's only fair. But this process should be treated with more dignity than such frivolous attacks.Tim (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tim and Lisa -- Voluntary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am proposing a voluntary reboot. Regardless of what civility impositions are placed on Lisa and myself, we should both be unaffected because I am going to stay away from her for a good while. And if I ever do encounter her again I'll forget about helping her communicate to a generic audience.Tim (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

L'Aquatique -- Voluntary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

L'Aquatique is the admin who pulled the trigger. She may not think Ilkali needs much mentoring, and if so, she'll gladly take on the task of friendly mentoring. Ilkali should be glad to get a mentor who's sided with him against his previous one. Alastiar will be glad to be free of this burden. Since L'Aquatique is an admin, her voluntary mentoring is enforcement enough. No person needs two mentors. All that is needed to solve this entire mess is for L'Aquatique and myself to agree to these voluntary impositions. No further action will be necessary for anyone, and even the arbcom can rest with a win win solution.Tim (talk)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Cailil

Proposed remedies

Alastair on probation

1) User:Alastair Haines placed on civility and revert probation for a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Counter proposal: Alastair receive a commendation for outstanding civility under unbelievable provocation, demonstrating unswerving loyalty to Wikipedia and its processes even when these were failing to support him. Amongst other things, it may be healthy for processes if ArbCom is not seen merely as a "stick", but a place where "carrots" are also offered to those who show willingness to aid communication, resolve conflict and protect both interpersonal relationships and the aims of the encyclopedia. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree to Self Defensive Counter Proposal...--Buster7 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

2) The Gender of God article is placed under article probation for a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose: the problem is people not the page. The only problems at Gender of God have involved three users—Ilkali, Abtract and Lisa—being forceful and otherwise inappropriate in editing. Their behaviour was effectively managed by Alastair and Tim without further assistance being needed. If anyone has been unhelpful, it is been uninformed parties seeking to pass judgement on people at the article and inadvertently creating more problems rather than settling them. Perhaps a more realistic suggestion would be that people are asked discuss freely, but not to make changes to the text until they have participated civilly and constructively on the talk page for a period of 1 month. (I do not seriously propose the latter, but it would have stopped the problems that arose at the article.) But the problem has been the users, not the topic—Ilkali wants to change God to god, Lisa cares only about Judaism, and Abtract is just "playful". Alastair Haines (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Types_of_sanctions for clarification of what "article probation" is Alastair--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel & Teclontz restricted within talk spaces

3) User:LisaLiel and User:SkyWriter/User:Teclontz restricted while posting to all talk spaces for a period of 6 months. No more than 3 posts to any talk page or noticeboard permitted per day. All such posts must be concise, civil, source-based and on-topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed (under any name)!Tim (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I agree with the concise, civil, source based an on topic, but I disagree with the limit to the number of posts and/or length of posts. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on the behaviour demonstrated here at this proceeding and also at ANI. Also as evidenced in the interactions between these users at Talk:Gender of God and other talk spaces in that topic area--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A word limit could be added to this so no gaming occurs--Cailil ^talk 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This option could be extended to other parties--Cailil ^talk 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa and Teclontz on probation

4) User:LisaLiel and User:SkyWriter/User:Teclontz placed on civility and revert probation for a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm just going to go away and hide, Calil. I appreciate the even handedness here, but my problem has gone on since last year and it's still going on -- and the personal cracks are just too much. Lisa has a lot to contribute, and if I disappear maybe she can go back to contributing and stop these diversions. The only other choice would be a long term ban for Lisa. Well, that won't happen -- so I'm the one leaving.Tim (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, this case is about Alastair and what I'm proposing here (regarding yourself & LisaLiel) is limited to that context. If you wish to seek dispute resolution with Lisa (as you have been advised to do), in regard to your own long-standing issues, please do so - open an RfC/U or a medcab request. Also the Arbs may consider the evidence presented against Lisa to warrant something other than I have suggested - if so they will propose some other measures--Cailil ^talk 11:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope that the Arbs consider the evidence presented against me to warrant something other than you suggested, Cailil. Because frankly, other than the edit war that got me blocked on August 3, I don't think there's a single thing that Tim's "evidence" shows about me that's problematic.

Tim himself acknowledged -- today -- that his intent has been to force positions to be presented in terms of other positions on Wikipedia. While I understand and empathize with his desire to save the world in this way, I will continue to oppose anyone doing that. It undermines Wikipedia. Tim has been told by editors with scads more experience than I have that doing this is incorrect. That you don't have to present Christian ideas in a way that Jews will necessarily understand given their cultural background (not that Tim has ever attempted this), and that you don't have to present Jewish ideas in a way that Christians will necessarily understand given their cultural background.

In fact, I think this is such a critical point that I want to recommend that it be addressed at the highest levels of Wikipedia, because clearly, what's been written about WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH hasn't been written in such a way as to be understood by Tim.

I honestly hope that Tim doesn't take this as a broadside against him personally, though I'm sure it's coming across that way. I just can't think of any way to say what I'm trying to say without it sounding that way.

I have interests, as does everyone who edits here. If Tim were to modify the article on Trinitarianism so that a Jew with a yeshiva background could understand the concepts, I wouldn't try and stop him, only because I have no interest in that area. I would, however, oppose his doing so in principle. The net result would be inaction on my part. But I do care about Judaism. I care about Judaism being presented honestly and faithfully, and with its own integrity. I do not agree that it has to be presented in such a way that Christians, who use terms differently than Jews (something both Tim and I realize), will easily understand. Every field of knowledge has its own jargon. Those who want understand something on more than just a surface level need to learn that jargon.

I don't care if a Jew reads Trinitarianism and comes away shaking his head saying, "That's crazy." I don't care if a Christian reads Shituf and comes away shaking his head saying, "That's crazy." Wikipedia is not here to serve as a forum for world-saving enterprises like interfaith dialog. It's an encyclopedia. It's okay if Christianity says that Christianity considers itself to be monotheistic. It's okay if Shituf says that Judaism considers Christianity not to be monotheistic. To force consistency of terms between the two means that one or the other or both will suffer in terms of integrity, and I'm convinced that this is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Every single interaction that I have had with Tim of a negative sort, with the sole exception of Gender of God, has been because of this single issue. Far from the Arbs having any need to discipline either Tim or myself, all they need to do is speak to this issue authoritatively, and in such a way that it is understandable to both of us. If we don't walk away from here until and unless we (Tim and I) are both satisfied that we understand Wikipedia policy in this matter -- even if one or both of us is unsatisfied with that being Wikipedia policy -- there should be no problems in the future.

The issue with Gender of God, I contend to have been between me and Alastair, with Tim only jumping in because of bad feelings from our previous interactions. It should be dealt with in the context of Alastair's behavior.

This is my request. I am asking, formally, to whatever extent I can, for a ruling on the issue that lies between me and Tim. Contrary to his repeated claims, I do not claim "ownership" anywhere on Wikipedia. But I do have an axe to grind. I don't want Judaism being misrepresented here by forcing it to essentially acknowledge Christian conceptual frameworks in the statement of its views. Not for consistency, and not for interfaith understanding. Not for anything. If that's wrong according to Wikipedia policy, then straighten me out, please. If it's right according to Wikipedia policy, then straighten Tim out. But I have no reason to believe that the problems we've had between us have any life or cause outside of this fundamental issue, and I think we're all better served dealing with root causes than by treating the symptoms. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa writes: "I don't want Judaism being misrepresented here by forcing it to essentially acknowledge Christian conceptual frameworks in the statement of its views."

Here's the basic problem -- I also don't want Judaism being misrepresented here by forcing it to essentially acknowledge Christian conceptual frameworks in the statement of its views. I simply don't want it misrepresented by using terms that other groups will misunderstand -- if there are authentic Jewish sources that say the same thing Lisa is trying to say in language all audiences understand. That is, I passionately want Lisa's authentic understanding of Judaism to be expressed in terms used by authentic Jewish sources. My only difference with Lisa is that if two Jewish sources say the same thing, and one is universally intelligible and the other is not, I'll opt for the intelligible one.

I completely agree with what Lisa is trying to say. I merely want all readers to get what she's intending to mean (if there is an authentic source that is available).

As for Christianity being monotheism... Lisa and I will completely agree that there are sources that regard Christianity to be non-monotheistic, and therefore Shituf. What caught my interest is that I found a source that said it was STILL Shituf whether in terms of an extra-divine relationship or an inter-divine relationship. It was universally intelligible, and I hope (from a historian Rabbi) authentically Jewish.

To summarize -- I'm not trying to change what Lisa is trying to say. I'm only trying to help her accomplish it. Neither Lisa nor I see any need for Christians and Jews to agree. Where we differ is that I think that good writing is also intelligible writing. You don't need all readers to agree with what you have to say. But it's helpful if they can decipher it.

To keep there from being a misunderstanding here: some concepts cannot be expressed intelligibly to someone from a different paradigm. Sometimes you'll have a Jewish source that is inauthentic but intelligible, and one that is authentic but unintelligible. In that case, I'm sure that Lisa will agree with me -- you go with the gibberish. Better authentic gibberish than inauthentic prose. But, again, if both DO express the authentic, then go with the one that expresses it well.Tim (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not resolved at ArbCom. What you two are doing here - making these very very very long posts about tangential content issues - is disruptive. Please stop it and seek dispute resolution for your content issues by request for comment and/or mediation--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried that. The RfC is still open. Not a thing has happened. I'm open to suggestions. As far as it being disruptive, I suggest that the accusations made against me here are all based on said content issues. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. However the length of this is proposal could be shortened to 3 months--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali and Abtract restricted at Gender of God

5) User:Ilkali and User:Abtract warned for gaming the system and revert warring at Gender of God. Both users placed on civility and revert probation at said article for a period of 3 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Good intentions

1) Inappropriate conduct undertaken in the service of a noble cause is still inappropriate conduct. (Lifted from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Upholding the letter of rules, without the spirit, was inappropriately conducted by various editors, administrators and mediators, however noble the cause. Alastair is to be commended for "standing in the gap" and seeking slowly, and in a restrained fashion, to bring the two back into alignment. In this, he did indeed succeed. Alastair has clearly worked from assumption of good faith (good cause) to nevertheless addressing errors (inappropriate conduct) and the consequences that have arisen from honest mistakes. He has demonstrated how establishing "bad faith" (ad hominem) is never necessary in a "non-punative" system, which Wikipedia in essence is. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair I am not talking about wiki-lawyering - I am talking about reverting. Reverting, even when one is "in the right" as regards content, becomes inappropriate when it is over-used (see WP:REVERT#Revert_wars_are_considered_harmful) as pointed out by FloNight above. It is also problematic in regard to restoring one's preferred version of content while in a content dispute - even if one is correct.
Also if you contend that wiki-lawyering occurred on the part of various admins you need to prove that, becuase currently there is no indication of this in your evidence - nor am I aware of any occurrence of it in the areas of dispute that I have examined--Cailil ^talk 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair's reverts

2) Alastair has used the revert function to maintain his preferred version of content. The edits he has reverted are neither violations of WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, nor do they constitute other types of vandalism (as defined in WP:VAND).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per evidence--Cailil ^talk 09:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Kristen Eriksen

Proposed principles

Can't we all just get along?

1) Contributions of new content or uncontroversial enhancements of old content are far more conducive to the improvement of Wikipedia than protracted edit warring over minutiae. The parties are urged to improve our coverage of other subject matter, and to leave the resolution of the content dispute to previously uninvolved editors who are more likely to be able to resolve the issue in an amicable manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm with you Kristen! :) I rarely contribute at GoG, it's not a high priority article for me. But if history is anything to go by, it receives more uncorrected vandalism than many articles, because it's generally only "unusual" editors that seem to want to contribute there. I guess that includes me! ;)

I should note however, that ArbCom are not here being troubled with any questions directly related to content. The active editors had actually settled these among themselves, probably with help from Cailil's intervention. There are no outstanding questions of article content that I am aware of. Lisa settled the content question by a compromise edit with which everyone was satisfied.

It was L'Aquatique's judgement call that other issues should be investigated by ArbCom (it appears to have been unilateral, no other parties have come forward and no other interests have been declared). As the record shows, Alastair seconded L'Aquatique's RfAr, since he thought there were outstanding issues needing considered responsible attention of behalf of the community, and so that a genuine consensus could form. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I mean, we could page-ban or revert-ban the participants, but that doesn't really resolve anything, does it? The moment their bans expire, they're going to be back at each others throats, engaging in conversations characterized more by hurling insults at each other than any actual discussion favorable to the resolution of this dispute, just as they have been in the evidence and workshop pages here. Having more and more arguing, fighting, bans, and other nastiness is spreading negative vibes through the whole encyclopedia. What we want is for the participants to apologize to each other, and engage in a group hug (well, figuratively, the darn internet actually precludes that). Maybe if good-faith editors got to socialize more, if we got know each other as people, if we reactivated Esperanza... I wish that I could give each of the parties a hug, and tell them that we would have a better Wikipedia, and a more harmonious universe, if they redirected their energies onto a more positive plane. You can't hug someone over the internet. But please try to imagine. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While this is certainly a brilliantly articulated and heartwarming sentiment, we may have reached the point where an "amicable resolution" of this matter has been rendered impossible, and the forcible imposition of complete topic bans, or 0RR as I have proposed, may well be the only viable option. Or, perhaps I'm just cynical from > 2 years of opposing the efforts of vandals, sockpuppets, and trolls who are trying to cause trouble. Stuff like having the Counter-Vandalism Unit nominated for deletion by a sockpuppet of Bobby Boulders really gets my goat (especially as a had a rather extended and frustrating argument with "Dr Chatterjee", aka Bobby Boulders, who shouldn't have been allowed to desecrate our encyclopedia with his putrid trolling). It's wonderful, though, that you obviously are quite familiar with Wikipedia (were you editing under an IP previously?), yet you still maintain a beautiful optimism concerning a conflict that I would view as being completely intractable to any "amicable resolution". Perhaps you might consider trying to informally mediate these sorts of disputes before they erupt into all-out disasters so bad that they require months-long arbitration cases to resolve -- or, as you point out, we're not even doing that, we're just interrupting the conflict -- which, in my view, is at least better than permitting unrestrained edit warring and personal attacks. John254 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suffering from considerable stress relating to Wikipedia, which both meditation and massage have proven quite efficacious in treating. Please e-mail me if you want to discuss any of this privately: I love you, and I want to help you. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:LisaLiel

Proposed principles

Cultural integrity

Wikipedia presents articles relating to many cultures, religions and ideologies. It is inevitable that situations will arise in which the claims of one will conflict with the claims of another. When the conflict itself is notable, articles have been created which describe it. One example of this might be the article Christianity and Judaism. But such articles are inherently problematic. Note, for example, that that article has been tagged as being essay-like, lacking in references, POV, too long" and original research. And these problems exist in an article dedicated to the conflict itself.

General Wikipedia policy has been, if I'm not mistaken, that concepts of a given culture/religion/ideology are to be presented, encyclopedically, according to the culture/religion/ideology to which the concept belongs. When shared concepts exist, such as the term "Messiah", which is viewed differently by Christians and by Jews, articles on Christianity and Christian concepts use the Christian understanding of that term, and articles on Judaism and Jewish concepts use the Jewish understanding of that term.

It has never been considered appropriate on Wikipedia to force consistency of terms from one article to another. No section exists in Christianity stating that the Jewish view of the term "Messiah" differs, and no section exists in Judaism stating that the Christian view of the term Messiah differs. Such sections do exist in Messiah, because that article is not specifically a Christian or a Jewish article.

When an article exists about a concept that is native to a specific culture/religion/ideology, it is inappropriate to introduce rebuttals in that article according to a conflicting culture/religion/ideology. For example, it would be inappropriate to introduce a "Jewish views" section into Trinity or Eucharist. And it would be inappropriate to introduce a "Christian views" section into Shituf or Oral Torah.

Furthermore, since such articles rely on fellow concepts within their culture/religion/ideology, they should use those concepts according to the culture/religion/ideology to which they are native. For example, the article Trinity has a section entitled "One God". Judaism differs with Christianity when it comes to understanding what "One God" means. The average Jew might find it difficult to understand how this article could use the term "One God" when Jews see it in a different way, but this should not constitute a reason for injecting the Jewish understanding of the term into an article on a Jewish concept. Similarly, the article Shituf talks about the Jewish understanding that worship of a trinity is not monotheistic by Jewish standards. Under no circumstances should this article be required to pay heed to Christian views of the subject when they conflict with the sourced Jewish views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

Speaking with good manners does not necessarily constitute civility. It is possible to be highly uncivil while maintaining impeccable manners in ones speech. Doing so could be considered a form of gaming the system, but it could simply be the way a person was raised.

Speaking arrogantly or condescendingly is uncivil, even if it is packaged in otherwise friendly terms. Statements such as "It is understandable that you behaved foolishly, because you are new, so you shouldn't be criticized too harshly for it" are uncivil in the extreme. On the surface, they may be taken as saying that the target of the criticism should be given understanding, but they do so by undermining their target, and belittling them.

Under no circumstances should accusations of incivility be answered with the defense of "impeccable manners", since such a defense is a non sequitur and is no defense at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Legal terminology

Accusing others of committing "defamation" and "libel" on Wikipedia should be seen as legal threats and a violation of WP:NLT, regardless of the accuser's caveat -- before or after the threat -- that he does not intend legal action in the courts. These terms are loaded ones, and constitute a form of intimidation that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Accusing others of committing libel "in the full legal sense of the term" should especially be considered threatening, again, irrespective of caveats and denials, because no one uses such terms for reasons other than intimidation.

Furthermore, criticism is not defamation. Even if someone feels that they are being unjustly criticized, criticism remains criticism. Criticism can be addressed, and criticism can be ignored. Calling it "defamation" is nothing more than a personal attack against ones critics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stable text and Ownership

Text that has remained unedited for an extended period of time may be edited exactly the same way that text which has existed for only a day is. The longevity of text may be due to consensus, but it may also be due to editors not having seen it yet. Editors come and go on Wikipedia all the time. Editors that have been on Wikipedia for a long while may not have seen a certain article yet.

No editor should feel free to undo edits that are not obvious vandalism on the basis that the text which was edited was "stable text". The fact that certain editors have lately adopted this as justification for multiple reversions of text is a mistake, and needs to be corrected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Usernames and Real names

We all choose our usernames when we sign up on Wikipedia. No one forces us to use any particular name. I, for example, use my real name. So does Alastair. This is a matter of free choice, and it does not create any onus whatsoever on others. To make any claim whatsoever based on ones choice to use ones real name as a username on Wikipedia should be dismissed out of hand, and viewed as yet another attempt at intimidation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It often occurs that a user chooses a username (whether his or her real name or something else) on a whim, not realizing how often the username will appear all over Wikipedia. We do not have separate standards for user conduct depending on whether the user edits under his or her real name or not, but sensitivity to the effect of Wikipedia disputes on an individual's real-world life can be appropriately shown in other fashions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

AlastairHaines

• Alastair has demonstrated a sense of ownership in his refusal to allow edits to text he views as "stable sourced text" ([33], [34], [35]), even when others disagree with him on the legitimacy of his sources. Even when a majority of other editors disagree with him ([36]).

• Alastair has behaved uncivilly to editors he disagrees with.

• Alastair is adamant in his refusal to accept that he has done anything wrong at all ([37]).

I haven't given much in the way of diffs here, because the diffs already exist on the Evidence page, and I don't really have much to add.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tim/SkyWriter

• Tim has demonstrated a long running lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies as regards WP:POV ([38], [39], [40]), WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, despite having been criticized on these points on numerous occasions by several editors ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]).

• Tim has personalized content disputes with other editors and imagined himself the victim of persection and "Wikistalking".

• Tim has edit warred. More than that, Tim has allowed his grudge against me to cause him to jump into a dispute between me and Alastair that didn't involve Tim at all and launch a reversion war.

• Tim has shown a distinct lack of grace when his view has not "won out", and has on several occasions accused those who differ with him on content issues of "vandalism" and wanton destructiveness. At times, his reactions have been tantrum-like.

• Tim has persistently misrepresented an Mediation Cabal case on his behavior as an attempt to prevent him from editing, in stark contrast to the actual request made in that MedCab. To wit, under the "What would you like to change about that?" section, I wrote: "I want Tim and Carlaude to be prevented from making edits to articles on Jewish concepts which insert Christian concepts into them, particularly when Judaism differs with Christianity on such concepts." Tim has continually claimed that I requested that he be barred from editing articles on Jewish concepts ([48], [49]), which claim is patently false.

• Tim has attempted to create "rules" of his own and impose them on other Wikipedia editors, demonstrating not only a sense of article ownership, but a sense of general ownership of Wikipedia and its processes ([50], [51]).

• Tim has accused me of being responsible for all accusations against Alastair and all conflicts with Alastair ([52]), regardless of evidence brought against Alastair by others that has nothing to do with me. His intensity in this is almost frightening.

• Tim has attempted to prevent me from editing out OR in an article on the grounds that "you and I have had our day on this article" ([53]). His insistence on personalizing every disagreement has made it next to impossible to engage him in civil discussion.

• Tim has accused me of removing reliable sources that he introduced in the face of diffs that prove I retained his sources. He has justified this oft-repeated false claim by saying that putting a source into a ref instead of having it appear as a cquote in the body of the article is tantamount to removing it ([54]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

LisaLiel

While I don't share the martyr complex that certain other editors have displayed here, I would be remiss if I failed to mention some of the mistakes and misbehavior I have exhibited during this whole thing.

• I edit warred. I was wrong. I could try and excuse it with my ignorance of proper dispute resolution procedures at the time, but it wouldn't make it any less wrong. I was blocked for doing it, and I have no complaint about that, other than the fact that those edit warring with me were not similarly blocked.

• Back when the Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic terms had not yet been removed, I misunderstood the mechanisms of AfDs, and I attempted to create one for the article myself. It was removed by admins, because I didn't follow process.

• I have made personal remarks about Tim. I am an Orthodox Jew. Tim claims to be one as well. In my entire life, I have never seen an Orthodox Jew defend Christian concepts as staunchly as Tim does here. I admit that I have certain personal problems with that, and Tim's open statement that he used to be a Christian pastor before converting to Judaism seemed to explain the anomaly to me. To date, it's really the only explanation I can see. But the truth is, I shouldn't need an explanation. I should stick to the problem at hand without trying to get to the bottom of it, particularly when my trying to do so is clearly very upsetting to Tim.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

AlastairHaines

Alastair should be censured. I don't know whether such a thing has a precedent on Wikipedia, but Alastair is not a bad editor. He is simply too arrogant to be willing to hear criticism from peers, or even from admins. I say "arrogant" in the descriptive sense, and not in the pejorative sense. Without a public determination that he has behaved wrongly, he will continue to maintain that he is essentially perfect.

Alastair wrote about me that "I'm sure she thinks she's being helpful, but she's only going to accept that she's not if others tell her. It's not fair or right but it's a fact." ([55]). While this was an incorrect statement about me, I think it is correct in Alastair's case. The very fact that he mentioned the idea suggests to me that he'll acknowledge his misbehavior if it's confirmed by those he is willing to listen to.

Preventing him from editing is a bad choice, because he can be and usually is a good editor. Punishing him in this way would not have any more effect on him, in my opinion, than a public censure. Less, in fact. And it would deprive Wikipedia of constructive editing.

If Alastair continues to behave uncivilly in the same way after being censured, which I doubt will happen, that will be the proper time to consider punitive measures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tim/SkyWriter

Tim should be informed, by sysops and admins and whoever else is in a position of authority that his stated goal of "consistency of terms" is not Wikipedia policy, and that editors LisaLiel, HG, Slrubenstein, Jossi and others are correct in identifying his POV/OR/SYNTH issues. The fact that he intends to abandon his current username and use a different one should not be considered relevant, because without a formal statement by The Powers That Be here, he will continue to maintain that only he, in all of his conflicts with others, is practicing NPOV.

I believe that if Tim hears this from unimpeachable sources, he will accept it, even if he disagrees, and will modify his behavior. I don't think that editing restrictions are necessary at this point. If I am wrong, and he does continue his current practices, the question of editing restrictions should be revisited at that point. But since he has yet to be properly instructed by those he considers reliable sources of Wikipedia policy, I don't think it would be fair to institute punitive actions against him yet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

LisaLiel

I don't think any punitive measures or editing restrictions are in order for me, because I have acknowledged the mistakes I made, and don't intend to make them again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

General

I think this ArbCom should be left open, but sealed, for 6 months. At that time, if no repetition of the problematic behavior has come to light, it should be closed. If the problems recur, punitive measures should be considered.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Proposed principles

Legal threats

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adopted from Kirill Lokshin's and Daniel's proposals above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think the sentence "Those editors who wish to utilize..." needs to be restored as an emphasis that users cannot edit pages on Wikipedia while threats are outstanding. Other than that, this is effectively focused. (On another note, it's annoying we're stuck to referring to a courtesy-blanked case page, but I don't know what to do about that.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perceived legal threats

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Based in part on Daniel's proposal above, which should also be considered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think you should add a caveat that even if the editor clarifies that no legal threat is intended, the language is still a violation of WP:NLT. That using such language and claiming that it's okay because of such a clarification is merely gaming the system. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Using the word defamation in itself does not violate WP:NLT, which was in part, the reason why Alastair was unblocked with agreement amongst the community. But repeatedly insisting that defamation has occurred, after it was repeatedly noted by several users that it had not occurred, could amount to block-worthy disruption - but not under WP:NLT. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nc, "after it was repeatedly noted by several users that it had not occurred" -- I think it would be helpful if these diffs were provided in my section (above), since I've not yet seen any diffs to indicate that administrators have investigated if such incivility actually occurred. It appears that once incivility was expressed as "defamation" then no investigation of fact occurred. But if you do have these diffs showing that administrators did in fact investigate if the defamation (or if you prefer "incivility") occurred, then it would greatly benefit this arbitration. It may not be PC to scream "assault", but it is also not appropriate to actually assault someone. The same would go for "defamation." Thanks.Tim (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring directly to Alastair Haines conduct in the final sentence - I had a different dispute (from some time ago) in mind. In that dispute, the complaint was looked into by several administrators at several times and each found that no such misconduct had occurred - the user continued to allege various forms of misconduct and kept refiling ANI complaints within a short period of time (possibly also using the same diffs for each report, off memory) - later, the user was rightly blocked for being disruptive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with the spirit of it, but I think we need to work on it some more too if we want to keep it as an absolute principle like the others. There are occasions where users are genuinely going to feel (for example) that the only way to describe what misconduct is occurring is by calling it defamation - note: at the time, they don't actually have an intention of taking legal action of any sort, nor do they perceive it as a word confined to legal proceedings. Whether it's out of unawareness or feeling that the alternative terminology we use here is inadaquate, they continue to use variants of the word "defamation" as opposed to "personal attacks" or "harassment". And I've only too often seen the "I hope you will retract it" phrase being used repeatedly in a way that is not at all reasonable. I guess it comes down to the very reason why I usually oppose the use of these sorts of examples in an absolute principle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They can use other terms. "Unjustified criticism", for example. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They can; but then that's coming to the point I made earlier - they feel the alternative terminology is inadaquate, particularly when they consider it personally-directed. Yes, we should discourage the use of those terms, but we need to show some level of understanding too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ncmvocalist, the legalistic terminology itself is chilling but when there is no threat of action behiond its use that language only becomes problematic when it's being used unreasonably or to gain an upper hand in content disputes--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We all search for the "right" word or phrase to convey the depths or heights of our position especially when involved in verbal conflict. We might use legal sounding words in "real life" (not that this isn't real!) to say to our adversary, "Enough, Already. I'm gonna SUE!". We have no intention of suing, it's an idle threat, meant only to say, "You've gone beyond the limits. STOP!" True, less charged words should be used, but in most cases those less charged words have NOT worked. I think it is a "slippery slope" if Wikipedia starts to limit the available vocabulary because of a possible perception (and that is all it is) of legal action. We are all faceless (and lawyer-less) entities...all we have is words.--Buster7 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Buster7 your comment is interesting because the fact is, being in any way adversarial is 100% incompatible with collaborative writing. Making idle threats is just as unacceptable as making real threats. And it is precisely the fact that this is a text-based medium that users need to be clear with what they post. Using language that is accidentally or deliberately ambiguous is problematic - doing so multiple times can become disruptive--Cailil ^talk 10:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement of fact by Buster7

Evidence that Alastairs appearance at Unencyclopedia here was as a mentor rather than a "stalker'. He was asked to mentor and was fulfilling his role. --Buster7 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(This is in reference to a Question by editor Cailil as to why Alastair would appear at an article he had never previously visited.)--Buster7 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

1) As one can see here I had asked Alastair to mentor me the day before my editing at Unencyclopedia. One might wonder why it was Ilkali that responded to my request for assistance (RfA).here Quite a co-incidence that of all the editors available, my "teachers" nemisis should appear. I leave it to the arbitrators to figure out this string of events.

2) Alastairs comments are quite typical of a mentor soothing an upset novice editor that has asked him specifically for help. He was obviously watching over me, not Ilkali. Who Ilkali was watching I can't be sure.--Buster7 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What's your proposed finding here? That Alastair didn't stalk me to Uncyclopedia? I'm not sure anybody has said that he did. My only claim about Alastair's conduct on that page is that, after we met there coincidentally, he was immediately hostile.

As for your suggestion that I stalked him there, check your evidence again. Your request for mentoring was made after my first post on that talk page, by about eighteen minutes. And it would certainly not be the first time I'd responded to a language RfC. Ilkali (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears like this is possibly a second example of Ilkali stalking me.

Sure, it is also related to my continued alerts to Ilkali for inappropriate interaction with other editors.

Finally, it is evidence that I don't simply defend "my" concerns, but act in the interests of the community and of readers.

Thanks Buster for this very helpful piece of evidence. Ilkali would be better served admitting he was inappropriate than seeking to silence valid findings against him. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"It appears like this is possibly a second example of Ilkali stalking me". Do you seriously believe that my edit to Jehovah's Witnesses, which was a simple style review and had nothing to do with any edit you had made there, was an instance of stalking? You are clutching at straws here. It's almost as ridiculous as your new claim that I stalked you onto a page you hadn't ever edited.

"it is evidence that I don't simply defend "my" concerns, but act in the interests of the community and of readers". I don't think I have to do anything more to refute this than to cite what you said: "Don't take Ilkali too seriously Buster, he's a notorious edit warrer awaiting discipline when I choose to pursue it". This is spite at work, not altruism. Ilkali (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Spite" does not describe any of my actions, Ilkali, good faith is the natural interpretation of all my edits, even under extreme provocation. There is no evidence to the contrary. "Clutching at straws" is a good description of the "evidence" you and others have presented.

"Edit warrer" was the mildest and most easily verified description of you at the time. Finally, the irony is that "discipline", or confronting your behaviour in an appropriate forum, has arisen as a result of your own attempts to escalate things. You had the audacity to "certify" (whatever that means) some step in a Wiki management setting that has led to you being exposed at this level.

I do have to agree though, it does appear that there's no way you could have stalked me to Buster's page, since you were there before I was.

Once I arrived, though, it was apparent that the solution to the conflict at the page where Buster was working simply needed both sides to see one another's good faith. It did not need people adding fuel to the fire with suggestions of bad faith motives, i.e. ad hominem-s, i.e. personal attacks.

Attribution of bad faith to editors with opinions contrary to your own is your bad habit Ilkali. The consequences of that in a community environment are becoming plain to anyone with time enough to observe the evidence. But the way you have employed it in regard to myself is breath-taking. I'm glad you introduced the word spite, it's certainly one plausible explanation of your personal attacks on me, however, motives are hard things to prove. Really, I'm not too fussed what your motives are, your unfounded assertions of bad faith regarding other editors are habitual, unnecessary, unhelpful and need to stop. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the majority of your rant, because it's not very relevant here.

"I do have to agree though, it does appear that there's no way you could have stalked me to Buster's page". Since I'd already explained that, why did you say "It appears like this is possibly a second example of Ilkali stalking me"? Ilkali (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Evidence section, please see #15...Evidence presented by Cailil, #3 in Part Two. here. My proposed finding is that Alastair appeared at my behest...as my mentor with no intention of ill will. It was your (Ilkili's) terse and direct response to an obviously new and good faith editor that provoked Alastair to respond in an also direct and terse manner. But, you "set the table". Again. I leave it to the administrators to elucidate for their own use how it was that you responded to My request and then chided me for making it. Somebody was stalking...and it wasn't me...eighteen minutes or no eighteen minutes!--Buster7 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't interpret Cailil's words as a claim of stalking, but I can't speak for their intent. In any case, I haven't accused you of stalking and I haven't accused Alastair. If you want to accuse me ("Somebody was stalking...and it wasn't me"), be prepared to justify the accusation. The evidence - especially the chronology - does not seem to support it. Ilkali (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

@Ilkali...Please be so kind as to leave my entries (20:50, 29 AUG) where I place them. If they are wrong, so be it. If I wanted my entry here, I would have placed it here. I have commented before about re-arranging the furniture. I wanted my entry to follow your request(9:26, 29 AUG) as to my proposal which explained (I hope to Calil's satisfaction) why Alastair appeared at Unencyclopedia. Any claim of stalking on my part was of secondary purpose. Your re-arranging distances my response from its intended (by me) position. There would be no confusion. The time stamp will clarify for other editors that it was entered out of time sequence. I will consider it your courtesy to me if you don't presume to know my wishes. Thank You--Buster7 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You have recently expressed uncertainty over how comments are customarily arranged, and shown willingness to learn. I interpreted your misplacement of that message as an innocent mistake and thought you would be willing to see it moved, if only to help you learn the convention. I apologise for the mistaken presumption. May I ask: Is it that you are still uncertain of how comment indenting works, or that you are deliberately flouting it? Ilkali (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the way we indent is based more on the Principle of Imitation than any predescibed preferred 'right" method which there doesn't seem to be according to other editors. We/you indent in the way that we/you have experienced working...and we/you imitate it elsewhere...and it works for us/you. But, there is no right way or wrong way. I am willing to learn, always. And what Ive learned is that there are different ways to indent. The way I do it might be called "the Low Countries" way since that is where I learned it. May I ask: Why would you be interested or aware of my recent clarification request at Manual of Style. Do my Wikipedia travels interest you? There is a word for that!--Buster7 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"there is no right way or wrong way". There is at least a customary way.

"Why would you be interested or aware of my recent clarification request at Manual of Style". Buster, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions and accusations of misconduct. A brief glance at the MoS talk page will show that I have edited there often and for a long time. I understand your desire to defend Alastair, but throwing wild and random accusations at his detractors is neither effective nor civil. Ilkali (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "officially prescribed" and "customary" is enormous. I didn't break any rules and I shouldn't have been "spanked" for it. I didn't flout...I choose from the Wiki Marketplace.--Buster7 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion for another place. Ilkali (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Alastair Haines

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: