Revision as of 18:48, 16 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:

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 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)

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 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)

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" 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)

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 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 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 07:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this relates to "Hell-..."; but a little flavour doesnt hurt - all things in moderation. John Vandenberg 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 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Parties can add themselves to the list at Misplaced Pages: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)

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:

Alastair Haines, editing waring is an absolute no-no on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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: Wrong diff. See: 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 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down. L'Aquatique 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)

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.

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".

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. 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)

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)

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 . 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 16:58, 11 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:

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 16:42, 11 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's completely founded. Have you actually read some of the stuff he's written? L'Aquatique 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 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 Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Decorum

2) Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Editorial process

3) Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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:

Proposals by Daniel

Proposed principles

Legal threats

1) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Misplaced Pages's collaborative editing model. Those editors who wish to utilize a court of law to resolve disputes with other editors may not use Misplaced Pages pages for communications preparatory to such actions, or edit until proceedings have concluded. Any general discussion of legal issues related to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 - he declined all three. 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Misplaced Pages:Legal disclaimer states that "othing on Misplaced Pages.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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

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 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 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 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and has represented Misplaced Pages favorably in Newsweek. Defaming Alastair defames Misplaced Pages, and that is precisely what has been so conspicuously ignored here. If Alastair, a spokesman for Misplaced Pages, has been defamed -- then Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages, 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (), 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 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)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. For Tim to lump edit wars in with legitimate dispute resolution such as MedCab, RfC and RfA shows Tim's utter disrespect for Misplaced Pages processes. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages processes, which is precisely what makes your misuse of them so disruptive. As I mentioned above, this is vexatious litigation. It's disrespectful to Misplaced Pages processes to misuse them in this way.Tim (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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:

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:

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:

Comment by others:

Proposed--Cailil 16:03, 16 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:

Comment by others:

Proposed--Cailil 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 should be concise, civil and source-based.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 16:03, 16 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:

Comment by others:

Proposed. However the length of this is proposal could be shortened to 3 months--Cailil 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 previous involved editors who are more likely to be able to resolve the issue in an amicable manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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: