User:EGMichaels/Temp

There are basically two central questions with regard to Alastair:


 * 1) Did he violate the restrictions of the previous ArbCom, and
 * 2) Is he currently engaged in legal threats

Nothing else is actionable.

Does he annoy Maunus and Jeffro? I'm sure he does. I'm sure I do too (and it's probably mutual). That happens on Wikipedia, and the only option is to either gut it out or to move along to articles with less overhead. On Genesis creation narrative Alastair and I gutted it out. On Jehovah's Witnesses we decided to move along. I'm not sure about other articles Alastair edited that I was not a part of, but simply having a mutual annoyance with another editor is not a matter for the ArbCom. Most of the diffs I've seen here are trivial. We wouldn't be in an ArbCom for anyone else for trivia, and we shouldn't stoop to it now.

So, to the first item. Did Alastair violate the restrictions of the previous ArbCom? Given the nature of those restrictions, I'm not sure how he couldn't. One revert per week? And what's a revert? That's basically editing anything that someone else edited in that week. On those grounds, all of the parties involved in the previous ArbCom are in violation:


 * Abtract -- blocked for edit warring on another ArbCom!
 * Ilkali -- engaged in an edit war the day after being hit with the restrictions and a short while later he violated the civility restrictions
 * Lisa -- engaged in an edit war as well

You'll note that I linked you to the discussions for these on their talk pages, rather than to the violations themselves. There's a reason I did that. Note that all of the problems were resolved on a very low level for all of the editors who violated the previous ArbCom.

All of the editors but one: Alastair Haines.

In the litany of diffs Kaldari offered, I didn't see any evidence that Kaldari actually tried to resolve the issue on a low level. The most that can be said is that he threatened Alastair -- not with an ArbCom investigation but rather with an ArbCom condemnation... as if it were a foregone conclusion. This reminds me of a line in Hogan's Heroes where Gen. Burkhalter said, "the prisoner will be given a fair trial and then he will be shot."

Ahem! Ladies and gentlemen... while I have no expectation for you to be impartial, I think you should at least pretend a little better than this. Seriously -- Coren is an arbitrator here? There are so few administrators available that you can't find anyone else to fill that slot? Kaldari doesn't even try to resolve this at a low level? Bam! ArbCom! And then of course there's Riskier basically saying you've made up your minds already and there's no need for evidence.

Folks, nuance this a bit.

As for the legal threats issue... I've told you numerous times that I know who sent the note and I've seen it. The note was sent without Alastair's knowledge and it contained no legal threat. Duvora had another... er... impartial... admin review it and that admin thought it had no legal threat. The note asked for some admin to apply the civility policy.

Seriously, are we so afraid of policy that we'll gag Alastair rather than apply it? And are we so terrified of policy that we'll rush to judgment on this ArbCom because Alastair QUOTED it?

Okay -- let's make a deal... Alastair will stop asking you to follow policy, and you folks reboot, regroup, and PRETEND to be impartial for a while. You can always pounce on him later if he's so terrible.

Oh, and for what it's worth, on the Genesis creation narrative page Alastair and Lisa (who were opponents in the previous ArbCom) worked very well together. She got a lovely barnstar and we all congratulated her. You'll also note on my link to Lisa's talk page that my previous "SkyWriter" screen name was arguing in her favor. Why did we all do this? Well, I'll tell you -- we decided to resolve our differences and work together, rather than to keep pouncing without warning.

Kaldari didn't get that memo and went straight for the ArbCom after a single threat and zero attempts to resolve this like we three lowly editors (Alastair, Lisa, and myself) whom you all seem to regard as problem folks.

If the problem folks behave better than an Admin, perhaps the admin should slow down.

And perhaps you folks should as well.

Lisa, Ilkali, Abtract, and Alastair all four violated the previous ArbCom. The first three were reasoned with at lower levels. The last is here.

So I present my final piece of evidence: this ArbCom itself. It's evidence that lowly editors can resolve problems with much less time and effort than Kaldari offered Alastair.

In light of this -- we now have an additional question: what should we do? This is different from what can we do or what must we do. Certainly we can gag Alastair for quoting Wikipedia legal policy as if Wikipedia policy threatens us somehow. But should we? There are better things to object to than Wikipedia policy! Just look at the debacle last year when Coren gagged me for someone else's non-threatening request that admins apply the civility policy! While Coren could gag me, it is hopefully clear that he should not have done so. Same for his action regarding Alastair.

We are here to uphold the best principles of Wikipedia -- principles of impartiality in articles and hopefully impartiality in arbitration as well. Just recently I cannibalized some of Alastair Haines' own ideas about impartiality on Jimbo's own talk page and Jimbo said such a nice thing to me in response : "My humble applause to EGMichaels who has, in this statement, expressed what for me is the essence of what it means to me to be a Wikipedian".

Gentlemen of the jury, your honors, good soldiers on the execution field, let's proceed in an impartial manner and collectively express what for Alastair, myself, and hopefull all present is the essence of what it means to be a Wikipedian. It is VERY clear that Lisa, Ilkali, Abtract, and Alastair Haines violated a nearly impossible set of restrictions, and it is VERY clear that the first three were dealt with on a far lower level.

Impartiality requires we do the same for Alastair.

Folks, if he's REALLY that bad, you'll have another opportunity -- won't you? The only reason to deal with him unfairly now would be that you didn't have such confidence.EGMichaels (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)