User:Alastair Haines/Defamation


 * Copy of defamatory material.
 * Hard copy on PC.
 * Actual harm proven, defamed person was held up as guilty party in a RfAr on basis of this document.
 * Falsity of facts verifiable on several points.
 * Falsity arose not from malice but incompetance under several heads:
 * unclear perception of own role,
 * inability to interpret plain speech,
 * unclear reasoning,
 * reliance on opinion and hearsay,
 * neglect of due diligence in seeking evidence
 * neglect of due diligence in examining evidence
 * neglect of due diligence in avoiding harm to all parties
 * extremely poor judgement in assessing motivations of parties

Text of document, author: User:Ryusho
Since Alastair Haines has stated a firm intent to place me

under ArbCom investigation I'm developing this document.

Per WP:User Page, specifically "An exception is made for evidence compiled

within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process.", I

would ask that one not vandalise or blank this page. Please use the talk page if

you have comments.

Simple Overview
As a volunteer for the Mediation Cabal I offered to mediate

on a dispute between Alastair, Ilkali and [[User:Alynna

Kasmira|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.

Point by point assessment of Alastair's concerns

 * Failure to address what he believes to be the Cabal case's 'mandate' to take

action on a comment made by Ilkali.


 * My response to this was outlined in the case. I feel he misunderstood my

mandate (a term I'm loathed to use, since I see this as an informal process) as a

mediator. As a mediator I felt it was my role to achieve consensus on the content

dispute, not to punish other users for their actions as Alastair stated my role was.


 * I quoted the texts: 'facilitate communication and help parties reach an

agreement by their own efforts.' and 'Mediation seeks an amicable resolution to a

content dispute' which were the closest things I could find to mission statement

for the Cabal.


 * When myself and L'Aquatique stated this we were met with a highly aggressive

response stating what our role was and how it was reprehensible we failed to

meet his expections.


 * "I also ask the mediator to withdraw his own unsubstantiated opinions"


 * These opinions were cited as part of my role as mediator because I felt Alastair's

personal comments towards the other parties were bringing the process into

disrepute and preventing any form of consensus being met. The opinions in

question were stated in good faith as reasonable criticisms designed to help move

the process along.


 * "You have expressed an opinion on my talk page, without argument, and added

a threat."


 * The 'threat' in question was a standarised level 3 warning about POV content on

the Gender of God article. It was made with respect to dozens of minor

reversions since I initially took on the case and was made after my 'resignation'.


 * I stated as part of the warning: "Extremely WP:tendentious editing. Some

reverts have been starkly contrary to consensus. You have already been reported

twice under 3RR, completely annihilated any chance of reaching consensus and I

cannot assume good faith anymore. You have repeatedly made borderline

WP:personal attacks as well."


 * Personally I feel this was an extremely moderate warning given his behaviour

towards others. I provided 3 diffs, that could have been construed as personal

attacks, as evidence of the final claim. Had I not been an involved party at this

point I would have certainly felt justified in using stronger warnings.


 * "[...] I do hold you responsible for both failing to correct an editor whose incivility

was demonstrated in the very request for mediation..."


 * See above. I did not feel this was my role or my responsibility.


 * "...and for slandering an impeccable editor who was asking for help."


 * An 'impeccable' editor would not receive any 'slander' because they would have

never done anything to incur it. The idea that placing a warning to inform someone

of their actions on someone's user talk page it litigious is, in my opinion,

laughable. Everyone who has stated they a negative view of some of Alastair's

action has been accused of slander.


 * "For anyone observing this interaction, please note Rushyo made personal

comments while answering my request for mediation, he responded soon after

with further accusations and a threat."


 * Personal comments should read 'mild criticisms', further accusations should

read 'justifications for those mild criticisms' and threat ought to read 'reasonable

warnings about behaviour made after my resignation'.


 * "It appears to me, at this stage, that appeals to alleged majorities determine

text on a page, and appeals to other levels of process lead to unilateral action by

"responsible" parties without examination of evidence, delay or accountability for

their actions."


 * Not even worth meeting. Spent a whole week reading evidence purely to assist

his case and as for accountability... I'm pretty sure volunteering to help should not

accrue me any more investigation than any other of my peers. Like him.

Independent points

 * Alastair has failed to meet consensus on multiple issues yet continues to make

a huge quantity of controversial edits to Gender of God.


 * Alastair has been blocked for breaching the three revert rule on Gender of God,

after being reported twice by separate parties, before he even requested

mediation.


 * During the mediation discussion he was extremely passive aggressive towards

all four other involved parties.


 * Since I resigned, he has also proceeded to attack the other mediator involved in

almost entirely the same way he attacked me.


 * Alastair has demanded apologies from every single party, including the

administrator who blocked him, for their actions.


 * Of that administrator he has stated "I expect an apology in due course.

However, since I have limited time pursuing this will have to wait".


 * At least half a dozen parties are currently engaged in 'debates' with Alastair

because he has a contrary opinion on every single edit that occurs to [[Gender of

God]]. No party has instinctually sided with him on any of these arguments.


 * Fundamentally I entered this case with no bias. I don't really have much opinion

on the topic (although I gave it where relevant and helpful to building consensus)

and I repeatedly stayed my tongue as a mediator to avoid seeming like I was not

neutral. On the other hand, Alastair has been pushing a POV throughout all of it.


 * He has never once, with regards to this particular issue, stated he has been

wrong or could be wrong with regards to anything. He has described his behaviour

as 'impeccable'. For this reason, I have found it incredibly difficult to [[assume

good faith]] as this cannot, in my opinion, occur without deliberate intent.

Relevant Pages

 * Gender of God
 * Talk:Gender of God
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-25_Gender_of_God
 * Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-25_Gender_of_God
 * User_talk:Rushyo
 * User_talk:Alastair Haines