Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Proposed decision

{{#ifeq:|yes|

Active:

1. {{user4|FT2}}
2. {{user4|Jdforrester}}
3. {{user4|Jpgordon}}
4. {{user4|Morven}}
5. {{user4|Newyorkbrad}}
6. {{user4|Sam Blacketer }}
7. {{user4|Thebainer}}
8. {{user4|YellowMonkey}} (formerly Blnguyen)

Inactive:

1. {{user4|Charles Matthews}}
2. {{user4|Deskana}}
3. {{user4|FayssalF}}
4. {{user4|UninvitedCompany}}

Recused:

1. {{User4|Kirill Lokshin}}
2. {{user4|FloNight}}

}}

{{#ifeq:yes|yes|

Active:

1. FayssalF
2. FloNight
3. FT2
4. Jdforrester
5. Jpgordon
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Matthew Brown (Morven)
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Sam Blacketer
10. Thebainer
11. YellowMonkey (formerly Blnguyen)

Inactive:

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. UninvitedCompany

}}{{#ifeq:|yes|

Active:

1. FayssalF
2. FloNight
3. FT2
4. Jdforrester
5. Jpgordon
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Matthew Brown (Morven)
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Sam Blacketer
10. Thebainer
11. YellowMonkey

Away or inactive:

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. UninvitedCompany

}}{{#ifeq:|yes|

Active:

1. FayssalF
2. FloNight
3. FT2
4. Jdforrester
5. Jpgordon
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Matthew Brown (Morven)
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Sam Blacketer
10. Thebainer
11. YellowMonkey

Away or inactive:

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. UninvitedCompany

}}

:To update this listing, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ACA&action=edit edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

"Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page."

I would like to ask why penalties are being proposed for me. I edit warred, and was blocked for it. It was a mistake, and I've acknowledged it. But virtually all of the "evidence" against me on the Evidence page was brought by Tim, and none of it actually shows me having done anything wrong. At the same time, it is damning evidence against Tim himself.

I think there is something terribly wrong with this process when an editor with a vendetta is allowed to twist things so that the subject of the vendetta gets penalized, while no action whatsoever is considered against him.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the evidence in this ArbCom has been about Alastair's misbehavior. Yet it is being proposed that I be subject to essentially the same penalties as Alastair, when I've done nothing to merit them. I have not exercised ownership over articles, as Alastair has. I have not made legal-sounding threats, as Alastair has. I have not done any of the things that Alastair has done, but I'm being treated as though I have, based solely on the fact that Tim, as part of his long-standing grudge against me, began the evidence section with an explosion of diffs attacking me.

I would like to request that I be removed from this ArbCom as a subject. I edit warred once or twice, yes. It was a mistake. The last time was a month ago, and it was while I was being dogpiled by Alastair and Tim. I'd appreciate it if the arbitrators here would look at the evidence a little more closely and realize that I should not have been dragged into this by Tim in the first place, and that Tim himself needs some very close scrutiny. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:The editing restrictions on you, and the rest of the named users, are mild and I do not think that they should impede you from contributing in a productive manner on topics that interest you. The mildness of the sanctions, coupled with your seeming inability to disengage from your conflict with SkyWriter, is the reason for my vote in favor of your sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::With all due respect, FloNight, look at the Evidence page. At the very top, there's a huge attack against me by Tim. The evidence I gave was all against Alastair, except for one item that was a response to Tim's attacks. How do you see me being unable to disengage when I haven't responded to him for weeks? He's the one refusing to disengage. From the beginning of this ArbCom, he has insisted that Alastair is lily-white-innocent, and that the whole thing was my fault. That Alastair was an "innocent bystander" and that everything is down to me. Does that strike you as reasonable? Does that constitute me not disengaging?

::In the edit war of August 3 which led to this ArbCom, I was having a conflict with Alastair when Tim jumped in and started reverting every edit I made. By way of contrast, when one of his edits included additional sources, I went to pains to ensure that his sources remained in the article even as I continued to have the conflict with Alastair. Are you saying that it was correct of Tim to revert my edits 4 times that day? I was blocked, and Tim was not. Fine; I violated the rules and I have no complaint about the fact that I was blocked. But Tim violated them as well, and was not. And now I'm going to be penalized and he is not. I don't understand why you think that's reasonable. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Let me add, please, that it's Tim, and not me, who is continuing to bicker non-stop on the Evidence talk page. He wasn't willing to disengage with me, and now he isn't willing to disengage with Ilkali. Nothing seems to satisfy him, and you're simply confirming his belief that he's doing nothing wrong. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Lisa, we've all done wrong here. I have one point right now that I'm trying to make with Ilkali, and that is that the solution isn't to look at what is wrong in the others here, but what is right. We all have things to offer, and in a collaborative effort we have to use what's right in each other even more than what is right in ourselves. I personally don't know how we can get there, and my offer has been to stay out of your way, and to disengage with you. If I'm the problem with us, you're free. If you are, you're still free. Please accept my avoidance as the only solution I know. In the end it doesn't matter who is keeping collaboration from happening. It's only necessary that we avoid people we cannot collaborate with. I've reached that point with Ilkali as well. Is that my fault? Maybe. Maybe it's his. But it doesn't matter as long as I disengage with him as well, which is precisely what I plan to do. And, for that matter, I'll keep doing that if I find someone else I can't collaborate with. Their fault? My fault? It won't matter if I just move on. I really do wish you the best. You are an excellent editor with great things to contribute, and you'll get a lot more done when I'm not around. And, well, I will too. Let's please leave it at that.Tim (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the previous section and the so-called evidence by Tim against Lisa (with whom I have had no contact that I remember), I completely agree with her. There is a huge danger that you will be seduced by the silver tongue of Haines and friends. Please don't confuse rhetoric with fact. Haines is a very skilled verbal dualist and most of us can't compete, hence he tends to win arguments even when he is wrong ... and his friends are clearly learning fast ... stating that things are so often takes the place of demonstrating it. Look carefully at the evidence against Lisa and much it will disappear before your very eyes; she is no worse than most editors would be when faced with the Haines subtle obduracy.

Haines, on the other hand, is a highly skilled and subtle, verbally manipulative bully as surely must be clear to you all by now ... even his own evidence shouts this conclusion. Please put yourself in the shoes of his many opponents and consider what it is like to cross him. Consider his god-like approach to editing and compare that with the (not perfect I have no doubt) attitude of his many "opponents".

If I understand the way your proposals will work, all that he has to do is to be polite and not revert very often ... this is simpy not good enough, some control of his attitude is needed - please! My previous proposal that he be banned for life was deliberately over-the-top to catch the eye ... if he can be tamed, he could be a useful editor, good luck in the attempt! Please don't tar others with the same brush; don't make the sanctions look as though Haines has been no worse than the others, he has been far worse and must have far heavier sanctions or he will simply run riot afterwards. Haines will not look at sanctions as a lesson learnt, he will look at them as the next stage in the game ... the game that is Haines, Haines, Haines.

Please don't mess this up guys! Abtract (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little dissatisfied with how this has ended. The entire process seems extremely impersonal, with no input from most arbiters beyond blanket agreement with proposals. Dozens of accusations were made against each party on the evidence page, and obviously some of them were deemed valid, but we have no way of knowing which ones. How are we supposed to learn from this?

In particular, I'd like to point out that Alastair has just deleted Coren's notification on his talk page, labelling it a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alastair_Haines&diff=237822356&oldid=237794380 "slanderous lie"]. If he is not willing to consider that he has erred now, when told as much by the arbitration committee, why should we think he will do so anytime in the future? He needs dialogue, not blocks and sanctions. Ilkali (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:Regrettably, the committee cannot convince, only coerce; this is why it is the last resort of failed attempts to mediate and not one of the first steps.

As an aside, closed cases generally receive little to no attention from the arbitrators — most (if not all) have probably removed those pages from their watchlist; if you have concerns there is little chance that they will be addressed here. Why not simply wait to see if everyone will abide by their restrictions first, and see if more will be needed otherwise? — Coren ^(talk) 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::Isn't his use of "slanderous lie" in violation of his civility parole? I thought the whole point was to get him to stop using legal sounding-jargon. L'Aquatique[parlez] 05:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Plus it's a pretty incivil thing to say. I'm not sure what part of it is supposed to be a "lie", since all it does is report the results of the case without comment on their validity. Ilkali (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::What is important is that Alastair has been notified and that he's read the notification - by reverting, he has acknowledged that he has read it (it doesn't matter what he thinks of it). If he continues to engage in problematic conduct from now on, particularly that which falls under the sanctions imposed on him, then as long as an uninvolved admin has spotted it, or been informed about it, then they will block him under the remedies of this case. If it comes to the point that there is monthly blocks (again, I seriously hope not), then the remedy will be changed accordingly - or so I've been told on the workshop page. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::That's not the issue. The fact that he responded to it with another use of the word "slanderous" demonstrates that he rejects the findings, and absolutely constitutes an infringement of the terms of his "parole". By not acting on this, you guys are showing him that he has nothing to worry about. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::If he thinks he can get away with it hereafter, that's at his own peril. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::But that's the thing, Ncmvocalist. He just did get away with it, because you're ignoring it. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::He's been blocked numerous times before. In every instance I saw, the immediate response was that the administrator was incompetent. The most you'll achieve with further blocks is to drive him away from the project. It'd be wonderful if someone uninvolved could at least try talking to him first. Ilkali (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm aware of a few users who have tried to talk to him in the past few months alone, so I don't think that's the matter. But if there's no change in his behaviour and he violates his restrictions, then that does say something.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::Because this doesn't remotely solve the problem, which is that his attitude is not conducive to collaborative editing. Either:

::*He'll reoffend in the near future and be blocked for it, in which case someone else will have to talk to him with the disadvantage that he/she does not have the clout of ArbCom, or

::*He'll manage by chance to avoid any trouble until his sanction period has ended, in which case nothing will change and nothing will have been achieved.

::His behaviour needs to change and this is the best opportunity to effect that change, but instead he's just being hit with generic sanctions. Ilkali (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:You can tell what was considered significant by referring to the findings of fact that were passed. Edit warring is the main focus of these findings of fact, with a secondary focus on other consequential behavioural problems. You can see that the findings link to particular examples of edit warring. Similarly the remedies have a focus on edit warring, and place restrictions on yourself, Alastair and Lisa on that basis. You may assume that if we don't include any given material from the workshop or evidence page in the decision, then either we don't put any stock in it or don't consider it significant compared with the material that is referenced. --bainer (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::You were wrong to place restrictions on me. You were wronger yet to place them on me and place none on Tim. Tim will continue his edit warring now, and his wikilawyering, and his attempt to impose his own analyses of Wikipedia rules on others as though they actually are Wikipedia rules. For the life of me, I can't understand why none of you even looked at his egregious behavior, but believed every lie he told you about me. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)