Revision as of 00:42, 9 August 2008

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:

Comment by parties:

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

"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" 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 22:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Questions to the parties

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:

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 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 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: . L'Aquatique 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 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)

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:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 17:15, 8 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. Misplaced Pages 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 00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 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 Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions, to be construed narrowly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 17:15, 8 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 principles

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 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

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 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

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: