Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilkali (talk | contribs) at 09:56, 7 July 2008 (→Statement of the dispute: added own analysis and evidence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

• Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Rushyo (talk · contribs) feels that Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has behaved unreasonably in threatening him with an ArbCom arbitration which Alastair had no intention of performing, resulting in huge distress and undermining Rushyo's perceived worth as an editor without any due process. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique (talk · contribs) feels that, in addition to the above, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has repeatedly acted in an uncivil manner towards herself, Rushyo (talk · contribs) and Ilkali (talk · contribs). He has shown no intent to follow agreed upon consensus and instead continually pushes his POV and demands that his needs be met over others. He refuses to admit any of this and has stated more times than she can count that he is 'waiting for us to apologize' for perceived personal attacks toward him. L'Aquatique 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali (talk · contribs) feels that Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) views himself as the sole arbiter over what content can be included in any article he has an interest in, and rapidly descends into hostile behaviour toward anyone contesting his judgement. His aggressive temperament has lead to cascading incivility and has repeatedly stopped discussion in its tracks. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome

I would like to see the user show some remorse for the results of his actions and not continue to state he intends to make an ArbCom case against another user, Ilkali, doing the same again. If the user's conduct continues in the same fashion more disputes will arise and more people will get hurt. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an apology to both Rushyo and Ilkali. I would also like to see him lose the attitude and start acting in a mature manner befitting a Wikipedian. I think that's about as clear as I can make it. L'Aquatique 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like Alastair to show willingness to respect consensus for a position that he disagrees with, and to focus on content rather than treating the disagreement as a personal war between him and I. I'd also like for him to start considering that he may not be an "impeccable editor" (his words) - that he can be wrong, and that others can criticise his actions and attitude without being guilty of making personal attacks. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Description

As a volunteer for the Mediation Cabal I offered to mediate on a dispute between Alastair, Ilkali and Alynna Kasmira regarding the article Gender of God. L'Aqùatique joined me as a mediator in this discussion. The case page is here and the discussion here.During this process a dispute arose between myself and Alastair and I resigned as a mediator to avoid conflict. I then posted a level 3 NPOV warning notice regarding repeated edits by Alastair and was greeted with a threat of ArbCom action. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the other mediator involved in the Gender of God case. Rushyo's summary above is accurate, I'm not sure what else exactly I can say, but I've added a ton of diffs below. L'Aquatique 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved in discussions over this article with Alastair for a long time. He and Abtract and I (and later Alynna_Kasmira (talk · contribs) have disagreed over the article's title, scope and lead. After a time, an RfC was opened by Abtract (talk · contribs) to discuss the dispute, before Alastair closed it with the text "This RfC is now closed. The conclusion is that Ilkali has continuously acted like a troll, and I've been too gentle with him". (). Alastair then began demanding that all things he considered personal attacks be deleted from the talk space . At approximately this time, I opened an AN/I against him, which ended prematurely due to over-eager archiving. After a time, he deleted a section himself and added his own incivil commentary to another. When other editors reverted these changes, he edit-warred until he was reported for 3RR violation and temporarily blocked. He was shortly reported and blocked again when he tried to freeze the article in an old state until consensus had been reached to move forward, despite being the only editor out of four who disagreed with the changes. After failing to garner support at Wikiproject Christianity with an extremely incivil description of Abtract and myself, Alastair took the matter to mediation (whereupon Rushyo and L'Aquatique became involved). However, he eventually disengaged with discussion of content despite no progress having been made and demanded that the mediators turn their focus to me and what he perceived as my poor behaviour. In his words, this was the "real issue" ().
At all points, Alastair demands that people be polite to him, on two occasions stating that this is a requirement for him considering their opinions (, ). Where he feels they have wronged him, he insists on an apology (, , etc). He has now announced intent to go to ArbCom solely to have me reprimanded, explicitly announcing that this is "not about content". I believe his pride is keeping him from functioning as a responsible editor. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. , but basically the entire case has been him making similar comments. L'Aquatique 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I included diffs in my comments in the above section. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:Harassment, WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette, WP:GAME
2. the above + WP:LAWYER, WP:TEND
3. the above + WP:OWN Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

2. , , , L'Aquatique 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

2. L'Aquatique 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
2. L'Aquatique 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.