Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

Statement by Daniel
I rejected the RfM, due to the fact that Alastair was at the time indefinitely blocked due to legal threats (and hence it would be impossible to conduct mediation), as well as his disagreement. I explicitly noted that this was without prejudice if both the legal threats situation and Alastair's disagreement were reversed, however I also suggested an article requests for comment before trying an RfM again.

The rejected RfM in its final state is preserved here for case management purposes. Regards, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ilkali
My comments on Alastair are available in the AN/I and the RfC/U, and contain dozens of supporting diffs. Ilkali (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to Teclontz's statement: Arbitration requests are not made or granted just on the basis of somebody being involved in two disputes. It is insulting to everybody involved - and especially to L'Aquatique - to suggest that the reasons behind this case are so trivial. Ilkali (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Miguel.mateo
Not that it matters, but I am bringing it up since it may. Alistair has been accused of misbehavior by some of the editors that have similarly accused of missbehavior other very junior editors in Wikipedia. The samples that I have can be seen here, some of these editors placed really bad accusations in the original editor's talk page, without any hard evidence. My point? Some of these editors accusing Alistair maybe are just jumping into conclusions too fast. Just my two yen worth opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LisaLiel
Alastair seems to feel that he can change any article if he deems it appropriate, but that other editors require his permission to edit articles. I assembled a list of diffs that illustrate this. I got out of control during this attack of reversions and was (correctly) blocked for violating 3RR. Alastair, however, continues to maintain that he is flawless and perfect and has never done anything wrong. In my opinion, it is this attitude that makes him unfit for participation in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Someone who is constitutionally incapable of admitting fault, no matter how egregious the offense and no matter how obvious the evidence, is someone who will always be the center of problems. I'd only add that I'm using my real name as well, and that doing so is a personal choice. Alastair made the same choice, and he can hardly use his own choice as a bludgeon to try and prevent others from criticizing him. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PS, I would like to note that even here, Alastair has attempted to turn this into an investigation of Ilkali, rather than address even a single criticism of himself. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the recent statement by Tim, I will state that despite his strange belief that I am somehow "stalking" him on Wikipedia, the edit I made on Sunday morning, which began the latest edit war, had nothing to do with Tim at all. On the contrary, as the list I've posted shows, while Tim's edit may have alerted me to the fact that there was editing going on in the Judaism section of that article, the changes I made were solely to a bad faith edit by Alastair, who moved two reliable sources (the only ones in the article about any Jewish view of the question, traditional or liberal) to the end of the article, and characterized them as "opinion pieces" .  He had originally tried to label them as POV and irrelevant.


 * This edit had been done by Alastair a few weeks earlier, and I hadn't noticed it among the flood of edits on the page during his edit war with Ilkali. I corrected the section, and Alastair replied by reverting it.  This was when I lost my cool and reverted it back.  I was remiss, and should have sought third party assistance at the time.  Instead, I unwisely continued to revert first Alastair's and then Tim's reversions of my edit.


 * Contrary to Tim's tale of persecution, when Tim added a source to the section in question during this edit war, I stopped reverting the section to my initial edit, and started reverting it to my edit with the addition of Tim's contribution. Tim blames me for the fact that his proposed edits in two other articles were not in the end accepted by a consensus of editors.  He considers it to be a personal thing.  I state for the record that it isn't.  In fact, Tim has invited me to help with another article he was working on, though I didn't take him up on it.


 * As far as the article Gender of God, I didn't even know that Tim was working on it at the time that I put it on my watchlist. But looking back now, I see that Tim had only made edit to the article prior to my first edit there.  That edit was a reversion an edit by Ilkali .  His second edit in the article was also a reversion, this time of an edit by Alynna_Kasmira .  I think that having ones first two edits in an article be reversions is a bit odd, but I hadn't noticed that until now. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to L'Aquatique's response to Tim's response, L'Aquatique wrote the fact that he was willing to step forward and be as bluntly honest as he did reflects very highly upon his character. I dispute this.  What Tim did was the equivalent of someone being willing to sacrifice himself in order to bring someone else down.  He wrote what he did in order to indict me, but he knew that simply accusing me would look bad, so instead, he accused me and himself jointly.


 * I'd like to point out, again, that my edit in the war on Sunday had nothing to do with any edits of Tim's, and was purely due to Alastair's bad faith edit from a few weeks earlier. And that Tim's first two edits in Gender of God were both reverts of edits by other editors.  I think those alone should be sufficient to show where Tim is coming from. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident
The sheer heat of the matter at hand becomes clear as soon as one reviews the alleged legal threats. This is a sure sign that the dispute has escalated to a level at which intervention by such a body as ArbCom will be necessary before the issue festers and becomes further blown out of proportion, and grows into a real problem beyond the plain text. An obvious accept, with much hope of finding a solution to the dispute as well as the accusations that seem to be liberally thrown about by both parties. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber
I must disclose I have known Alastair for over 25 years and hence my opinion is coloured by this. I have always found him thoughtful, openminded, erudite and very helpful. As I am an atheist and he is religious, our wikipaths haven't crossed often and I have little interest in the Gender of God article. He has been helpful and thoughtful in some discussions on vampire, and Sirius, and was happy to accept others points of view then. The Gender of God is always going to be an extremely difficult article manage both due to the interpretation of the subject matter (which 'God' and how broad/narrow to take it), and because of those who may edit it. I felt the 1RR proposal for the page was a good one, as I feel this dispute is as much about the page as about users. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: The other antagonist not thus far mentioned WRT Alastair earlier on on the Gender of God article, User:Abtract, has a significant block record, as well as LisaLiel's issues above. Hence the scope of this case is somewhat murky. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Privatemusings
I must disclose I have known Alastair for over 25 mintues and hence my opinion is coloured by this. I have always found him thoughtful, openminded, erudite, though with poor choice in beer. Ok, so I'm just sort of passing through, but am glad the arb.s will take a look at this (I promise to hold no charity fundraisers over this one - and hopefully even you chaps can sort this out in less than three months!). Speficially, I think it would helpful to clarify whether or not the use of the word 'defamation' constitutes a legal threat. On a personal note, I'd offer a note of support to the protaganists here, and ask all to consider whether or not a breakdown in communication isn't the root cause of the problems here. I hope the arb.s could ask some questions - I think just one of you could sort this out in 15 posts with little trouble. Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Teclontz
First, I want to apologize to Alastair for causing this mess by daring to venture onto a page he was dealing with. I've had a perpetual series of edit wars with a single user (I think the only edit wars I've been in were with the same user). Alastair is a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The hot tempers that brought the initiation of this Arbitration case were the direct result of an edit war that started only a few hours after I dared make an edit in a Jewish section of the Gender of God article. It was foolish for me to think it was safe to do so.

In fact, the only reason I felt that it was safe to edit there was the presence of Alastair. Being a religious Jew with a working knowledge and education in Christianity, I've found Alastair to be a moderating force in my dealings in Wikipedia. He's consistently upheld Wikipedia standards, consistently encouraged me toward patience, consistently tried to find the middle ground, and has even disagreed with me and corrected me on occasions that I was getting too close to a particular issue. I am a better editor today because of Alastair's cautions toward patience. He's advocated complete faith that the Wikipedia system eventually works things out right, and I've very vocally argued against his optimism. I would very much like to see Alastair proven right in this case. I really do want to have the faith in Wikipedia process that he's tried to help me with.

If I remember correctly, in this latest edit war I had with Lisaliel on the Gender of God page, Alastair stopped after a few edits, and Lisa and I were the last people involved. That is, Alastair STOPPED participating in the edit war as soon as he realized one was starting, while Lisa and I CONTINUED to edit war until I followed his lead and stopped as well. Lisa did not follow his lead, and was subsequently blocked.

As for Ilkali, Alastair and Ilkali had an earlier issue. Lisa and I had an earlier issue. The only reason Alastair got caught in MY edit war was because he had no idea that Lisa and I have this bizarre history. He acted like I do on a normal page. A revert or two if long standing and well cited content is eliminated without discussion first. I think after it kept going he realized that something else was afoot and backed out of it. Then Lisa and I followed our usual pattern.

When the administrators came in here they saw three editors in the latest edits: Alastair, Me, and Lisa.

Being normal intelligent human beings, the Administrators put two and two together and thought Alastair was the common denominator. Accordingly, they kept encouraging him to stop things that he wasn't even doing at the time. I was the one fighting on the Gender of God page. The latest disagreements on the Gender of God talk page were between Ilkali amd MYSELF, not Alastair.

Being normal intelligent human beings, the Administrators saw three guilty parties. Lisa and I both promised to back down. Alastair just insisted he wasn't a part of it.

Being normal intelligent human beings, the Administrators saw Alastair as unrepentant and therefore uncorrectable. And therefore we are here now -- basically because Alastair has shown the bad behavior of protesting his innocence.

Well, here I am. I'm the guilty party. Actually, Lisa and I are the guilty parties. Alastair was an unfortunate bystander in this case. His only crime was in telliing normal intelligent Administrators that he really was the bystander here. I do not fault the Administrators in any way. I think they are doing an excellent job. And the history that Lisa and I have is so extended and so bizarre that someone coming from the outside would never expect to look at the two of us instead of Alastair.

If I were L'Aquatique, I would have done EXACTLY what she did: start this arbcom.

And I want to apologize to L'Aquatique for causing this confusion. You had no way of knowing. To you, Alastair and Ilkali was one strike. Alastair, Lisa, and Tim was one strike. The person with two strikes is Alastair.

But that is just by accident. Again, I'm sorry to Alastair and L'Aquatique for not having the skills to get away from this. I had felt safe on the Gender of God page because such an experienced editor as Alastair was there.

And he got shot with a bullet aimed at me.Tim (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to Ilkali, I don't think this is trivial at all. I think this is a very long term and serious problem stemming from November of last year through today, and I really do think that the Administrators are on target by including ALL editors in their consideration: you, me, and Lisa included.  At the bottom line, Ilkali, is the need for Wikipedia to have a process to ensure that the overhead of disruptions doesn't eliminate real work that goes into the creation of an encyclopedia.  They also want to see that personality issues don't eliminate real work as well.  At the heart of it are ultimately three things, all extremely serious:
 * Long term disruptive edit wars
 * Personal targeting in the opening of your last "case" against Alastair
 * One editor's personal agenda to make sure I'm not allowed to edit in Jewish articles or Jewish sections of articles.
 * That's two personal targeting agendas and one edit war habit. All three of those are very serious.  SO serious that Alastair has been swept up into the bow wave of yourself, myself, and Lisa.
 * The Administrators have shown amazing wisdom both in opening this issue, and in adding the three most guilty parties to the review.Tim (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lisa's response to L'Aquatique's response to Ilkali's response to me: folks, this is going to take a while. We can't even stop fighting HERE.Tim (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rushyo
A draft I wrote up before the RfC occured

Alastair's behaviour towards his fellow editors has been nothing short of atrocious, but I know ArbCom doesn't really want to hear editorials so I'm going to directly respond to Alastair's statement:

"However, until someone actually questions some feature of my so far uncriticised behaviour[...]"

This statement is symptomatic of Alastair's disregard for views of the editing community. He has consistently assumed all his arguments to be flawless and all his behaviour to be spotless, despite being blocked on repeated occasions   and having a request for comment chastise his behaviour towards other users.

I don't really have much to add that isn't already in the RfC beyond the statement that Alastair's behaviour has put me off becoming a long-term Wikipedia editor and, in my opinion, represents the worst Wikipedia has to offer because he is hiding malicious and aggressive behaviour under a veneer of scholarly elitism. His attitude towards other people has been to bully them into submission through intimidation whether it is a content or personal dispute and to me this represents grossly unacceptable behaviour.

I do not dispute Alastair brings a lot of good content into an article but his behaviour towards other people should not, in my opinion, be tolerated and his disrespect for administrators   and everyone else who tries to discuss anything with him, who does not explicitly agree with everything he says, lead me to believe there is no other reasonable approach to take towards him.

It is not as though we have conflicting opinions on the content that flared this up in the first place. User:L'Aquatique and I both dedicated our free time to helping him solve a content dispute. That it has ended up like this can only ultimately be explained by the behaviour of one party. If his behaviour were as he feels it is - as he states it is - then this could never have happened. I would not want to support a Request for Arbitration against anyone that I felt was a borderline case. I understand the potential repercussions of this RFAr and how my statement may be used as a justification for those repercussions.

If Alastair's behaviour indicated that was capable of respecting the views of others then I would not support an RFAr. If he could be reasoned with, I would still be reasoning with him. I believe there is no other recourse at this point. His consistent threats, accusations, personal attacks and lies (I rarely use that term but I cannot ignore that have been able to directly contradict so much he has said in the past) have had a visible effect on editors that, really, just want to write an encyclopaedia. Can editors be allowed to do that without harassment and bullying, please? - Rushyo  Talk  21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Buster7
From reading the above ...others lit the fire...others fanned the flames of discord...Alastairs only fault was to get involved and attempt to extinguish the fire, to work, in his manner, with other editors...and Now---you have led him to the Pillary---and you expect him to tie himself to the burning post---Not satisfied, you request that he check the knots to make sure they are secure. All for his well-being. How thoughtful.

Alastair is a very bright and articulate editor. Many of us would rejoice if we had his characteristics. If all Wikieditors "played" like Alastair, vandalism and Graffitti would not cover the pages and history of WikiWorld.

The attacks against Alastair are completely unfounded and without ANY basis more than conjecture and exaggeration, inventing "bad faith" and peddaling, evermore, confrontation.--Buster7 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman
"I recognize, and hope those who have posted recognize, that further incivility and trouble could very well lead to an arbcom case (remember that they, however, do not rule on content)." Looks like I called that one well. In all seriousness there does seem to be some civility trouble and the like, but in all honesty this should be a relatively simple case for arbcom, primarily compared to a certain one up. Wizardman 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't need a clerk note saying it's open sent to me. It's all well and good but I watch the page enough that I'll know.

Motion re Abtract

 * There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about,, on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited. Should Abtract violate this restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to one month, by any uninvolved administrator. Alastair Haines is urged to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. I am concerned about the interactions described above by John Vandenberg, in light of the prior history of Abtract's harassment of another user as documented in Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian. I will add that Abtract's belated admission that he deliberately sought set out to harass and annoy Collectonian and his promise to stop doing that would have been better received if they had been made before this arbitrator had to spend several hours analyzing the evidence and drafting the proposed decision in that case. Despite Alastair Haines' own issues, there is no reason to allow him to be subjected to similar misconduct. Abtract had better drop his pursuit of vendettas against other editors, whatever he thinks of them, right now if he wants to retain his editing privileges. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The diffs collected by John Vandenberg are compelling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Will leave Alastair Haines fate as an editor in his own hands instead of having it unduly influenced by Abtract. This is only a stopgap measure to deal with the immediate issue. Additional wikihounding from Abtract will bring more editing restrictions or a ban.  FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Kirill (prof) 05:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

full archive diff  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

last related edit by Jdforrester at 18:20, 17 December 2008. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Alastair Haines


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by John Vandenberg
L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two.

Here is the chain of events that led to the block:
 * Initial changes which set off the chain of events to the block:
 * Alastair Haines reverts, and posts to the talk page.
 * Ilkali reverts
 * Alastair Haines reverts
 * Abtract reverts
 * Alastair Haines then restores one chunk of the disputed diff.

While this was happening, Alastair did another unrelated revert: this was a revert of this, as demonstrated by diffing from change to revert - there are no changes in the Sikhism section.

Abtract has been reverting Alastair on articles with no other involvement or engagement on the talk page. The evidence submitted by and about Abtract was disregarded in the case remedies.


 * Update: There was a more clearly pronounced interaction between these two users on Singular they hist
 * An anon made a change, which Alastair improved; Abtract removes the entire paragraph ten days later, AH reverts two and half days later, Abtract reverts again with no discussion on the talk page; Alastair waits 7 days as he is supposed to under the editing restrictions, and reverts, Abtract reverts, and after 20 minutes without discussion on the talk AH reverts again and warns Abtract, requesting that he state his reasons for removal. Abtract takes issue with the warning and reverts once more.  At this point, Abtract has reverted four times, with "remove unnecessary detail and pov on motives" as the basis, repeated in the edit summary on three of those occasions.
 * Finally someone else steps in, and reverts. Abtract later tags with "fact", over a period of 40 mins AH provides some good sources on the talk page and asks for other contributors to provide other examples, and two weeks later Abtract removes the uncited passages.  Days later AH restored the passages, but has not provided citations yet.
 * There have been only a few cases of reverts occurring on this article in the ~750 edits that Alastair has been a significant contributor. In each case it looks like the matter was quickly settled.
 * If this was an isolated incident, it would be fair to assume that Abtract had a sudden and only brief interest in this topic on September 12, since he didnt follow up on the talk about the sources.
 * Sadly, here is the third article I have found where he has popped in for a visit to an article that AH has contributed to. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Further update: Manliness shows a similar situation. An IP removes a section from the article, AH restores days later, and then Abtract reverts 10 hours afterwards, again with no prior history on that page.


 * He also appeared at Galaxy_formation_and_evolution a few days after Alastair and does a intro rewrite, and it was the intro rewrite which sparked an edit war on Gender of God.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong has extended the block due to the way that Alastair was managing his user talk page. Again this is justifiable, as the talk page management was not good. A big edit war there.

I think there are three amendments that would help this case work better:
 * 1) Blocks should be from uninvolved admins
 * 2) Ilkali, LisaLiel, Alastair Haines and Abtract should not permitted to revert each others edits, or if that is too strong, they must accompany any revert with justification on the talk page.
 * 3) Alastair Haines should be given no room to move in the management of talk discussions, as he is his own worst enemy in that regard.  This is primarily in regard to his own user talk, but a broader restriction would be preventative of similar problems occurring in other namespaces.  He must not remove or later comments left by others, except by way of removing an entire thread after a reasonable period. (i.e. archiving)


 * Yet another update, Abtract has now removed an interesting and sourced paragraph that was added to Virginity a few hours ago by a user with four contribs since April 2007: . Alastair and I welcomed the user, and then Abtract reverts their addition with an edit summary of "rv v".  Please do something about the motions that were proposed or I will need to ask administrators to start helping instead. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet one more update, Abtract has now started snipping at me unprovoked, and also not factually as my reply indicates. After my reply, he starting to take an undesirable interest in my User:Jayvdb/New pages list that I linked to in my reply, promptly breaking the syntax in one of my most recent new articles.  Talk:Gender_of_God was not helpful on an article that needs delicate handling. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by L'Aquatique
I agree with many of John's points- I particularly like the idea of not allowing the major parties to revert each other although in practice that may be difficult to regulate. In addition, although it is somewhat unorthodox, we must put some method in place to prevent Alastair from entirely having his way with his userpage: during this dispute he erased many of my statements and then selectively quoted sections out of context in a method that, frankly, stretched my AGFifier. If for no reason other than transparency's sake, he should not be allowed to do that. Removing comments is one thing, removing them but replying to them makes it incredibly difficult for someone uninvolved to understand what is happening in a neutral way. I do not agree with the statement that "uninvolved admins" should not be allowed to place blocks. For one thing, who decides who is involved or not? I've had no contact with Alastair since the end of the arbcom case, I forgot to remove Gender of God from my watchlist and I happen to notice a revert on it- not by Alastair but by Ilkali. I looked into it, noticed that there was an edit war, gave both parties the same warning. Ilkali apparently listened to me, Alastair did not. His claim that I have it out for him is patently, and obviously false and I expect anyone looking at this situation to realize that I'm being honest here: I don't give a damn what he does, as long as it's within policy. Thems the rules of the game. It's easy to say that an "involved admin" shouldn't have made the call, but is anyone here actually disputing that it was the right call to make? From his comments and reactions to other admins that have dropped by it's clear he would have reacted this way to any admin who blocked him. Since it was the right call, it doesn't feel relevant to me who made it. L'Aquatique [  talk  ] 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to NewYorkBrad: I do believe it was done in a way intended to mislead. If you get a chance, you should take a look at the history of his talk page, it's pretty much spelled out there. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to John Vandenberg: obviously, I disagree. This user may contribute a lot of content but that does not, as he seems to think- put him above the rules. This is not a newbie who does understand our social mores, this is an experienced editor who has been here long enough to know better- he's been the subject of an arbcom case and is on civility parole, for goodness sakes! There is no reason why we should be accomodating him. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to JV's response to Ncmvocalist: I'm tackling a good faith user? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch...? L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]Response to Kirill: while I do believe that his behavior has been inappropriate and his conduct towards me obnoxious- I don't know that we're to the point of a yearlong ban yet. If we had newer evidence of his intention to wholly disregard his arbcom sanctions, I would feel more comfortable about it. Just as we don't block vandals at AIV who haven't edited recently, we shouldn't ban someone based on three month old diffs. He should be coming back from his block what, tomorrow? Let's see what his response to all this madness is. L'Aquatique [  talk  ] 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also just want to point out the thread on this page's talk. It's really quite telling. Ryūlóng and Haines. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Abtract's most recent post: that's not the same edit- the material is completely different. I don't think that qualifies as violating his arbcom restrictions- clarification from an arb might be helpful here. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Note by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a note re: the inappropriate removal of L'Aquatique's comments at Alastair Haines talk page prior to the block extension.
 * I'm not too fond of the idea of changing the existing restrictions to reduce the number of administrators who may enforce them in this particular case.
 * Will look into Abtract's conduct with one of the involved admins - I don't think the majority are aware of this so will notify them too.

Both myself and LessHeard vanU looked through this and per User_talk:LessHeard_vanU, we couldn't find similar issues between Abtract's conduct here and that found in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Rather, it seems a case of reverting with minimal communication. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Newyorkbrad

After further review and discussion with a couple of others, I've struck my above post (and apologies for the delay). This has taken a lot of time already, and I note the further edits that were made since my last comment below - John Vandenberg has presented enough to demonstrate cause for concern. I also support the second proposal re: Abtract, and prefer it being enacted by ArbCom rather than by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) slightly modified @ 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further restrictive remedies may also be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, both yourself and Casliber have requested for some consideration, but before that, both of you may need to assist him so that these concerns are resolved. This is the second time there are a problems, but more troubling than that (which is perhaps the cause of my reluctance), Alastair's statement(s), particularly the one below, seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding or even appreciation of the fact that many users have found problems with his conduct. There's a much greater need to make him understand that he has an obligation to make time: he needs to ensure that any edit he makes are in full compliance with his restrictions. Of course, I expect that he may find it inconvenient to spend time to ensure complicance, but his current editing style is a problem - what is needed is a substantial change so that this will not be a problem in the long-term. Absent of (1) an understanding of what those problems are, and (2) a willingness and ability to deal with them, the change will not happen and this situation is likely to deteriorate; he may find himself preveted from editing, whether voluntarily or non-voluntarily. He'll probably be given rope this time, but it's all in his hands as to how he will use it to his benefit or detriment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment to John Vandenberg

I've been discussing this with the person who initiated this request, and I don't think we'd have gotten beyond a greeting if either of us predecided any relevant issue. I hold a wider view; my above comment notes under what circumstances a ban may not be necessary. However, to call a ban unjustified in this case is at a stretch and confirms my doubts regarding your understanding of the issues and concerns here. Rather, what's being considered (or should be the only things left to consider) is the the requests for clemency (which is reasonable), and any relevant factors/evidence. I am aware of the large amount of time and effort others are putting into this to try to get those factors, but it's all in AH's hands now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to Anish

Statement by uninvolved Miguel.mateo
I do question the first block given to Alistair. Not only the admin who did the block is inappropriate, the block itself is not justified. Please check the evidence given in User_talk:Alastair_Haines. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

@John: I am not disagreeing with you, but the evidence provided by the admin who blocked Alastair is here: User_talk:Alastair_Haines, the second evidence is a revert Alastair did on his own edit. I think the admin in question had definitely quick fingers to act. Then check again to her answers in User_talk:Alastair_Haines, she still believes that the second evidence provided is "within policy". Anyway, you have shown extreme professionalism so far in this case, I know it is in good hands. I will leave you guys alone now, I am sure you all need time to analyze. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, apologies for interrupting once more, but you can see some evidence of Alastair being attacked blindly (even when he can not defend himself) by one of those people that want nothing but to get him off Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Ilkali: unfortunaly, we are all entitled to give our opinion, and in this case we, "the cheerleaders", are not the only one that felt that it was not handled properly. The fact that you and your buddies are constantly assuming bad faith against Alastair will never fix the issue. Why do you have to think that a random comment from an IP, in this talk page, has to come from Alastair? BTW, I suggest you to read sarcasm. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Casliber: Please do me a favour and review again, L'Aquatique blocked Alastair and later she asked another admin to review that block. Look at the evidence she placed in Alastair's talk page: the second Alastair's revert is a revert he did to himself. When I asked why she counted that as a revert, her answer was "that is the policy". I honestly believe that she acted too quickly against Alastair, but that is for you guys to judge. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This case is barely moving, but I want to bring the committee back to the original re-opening of the case. Quoting John "L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two." I do not want to see any restriction to L'Aquatique, but something should be done (maybe self-done) to avoid admin-type interaction between her and Alastair in the future. I am confident that if she had reported the incident instead of taking actions directly, we wouldn't be here. I have nothing personal with her, so I think a statement from her that she will not apply any admin restrictions in the future but she will report any incidents to an uninvolved administrator for review will suffice I think. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Abtract
Just to clarify my position. I have edited Gender of God many times over the last year or so - indeed it is there that I had the misfortune to meet Haines for the first time. Naturally, the article is on my watch list; when Haines (or anyone else) makes unhelpful edits, I revert them. I would not support any relaxation of the restrictions on Haines who likes to use his undoubted intellect and knowledge to control the content of article he feels he owns. Nor would I support any restrictions on other editors to allow Haines more freedom to act - he is a bully who needs less, not more, freedom imho. Abtract (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

My views on Haines are, I hope, well known and well documented: he is a bully of the worst kind - he uses his superior intellect, knowledge and charisma to overwhelm lesser mortals. I first had the misfortune to meet him on Gender of God and then again on Singular they, both articles have been on my watch list for some time. I was highly relieved when he was restricted but frankly not too surprised when he completely rejected the restrictions as being beneath him and certainly not to be considered when he edits. His aggressive stance towards any admin who crosses him is all part of his arogant I-walk-on-water style; be warned this guy will not change his spots unless forced so to do, or you banish him. So far as my actions are concerned I want to be entirely open here: in an unrelated case (with C........n) I was guilty of some petty revenge-seeking minor edits mainly designed to annoy Cn. I admit it, I am human - I felt wronged, I was hurt, I hit back. I have learned my lesson and would draw your attention to | this edit (and the two by Cn that preceded it) to demonstrate that I did not take a golden opportunity (handed to me on a plate) to pursue the vendetta any further. My interactions with Haines have been quite different: mainly they have been on articles where we share an interest (I don't edit much nowadays because I have other fish to fry which explains my infrequent visits to certain articles), I may well have edited on a pop-in basis on new article because I do watch Haines' edits occasionally (I stress occasionally), but I only edit, or revert, if I think the edit or rv is fully justified (someone above said my changes to intros were "good", I think I quote correctly). I watch his edits because he is a convicted bully and it is all our duty to stand up to bullies - if I had time I would watch more of his edits. I am guessing that quite a number of the editors, admins on this page also watch his edits (indeed one or two may well watch mine), so be it. I have been at the brunt end of his bullyboy tactics and I know what it is like; protecting others where I can occasionally (but only if I disagree with his edits, be clear) is a worthwhile cause - much better than being bitchy with Cn. My attitude to Haines is what any decent editor would support if they knew all the facts - as you guys surely must. Abtract (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about resticting me

I see that a rather draconian restriction on me has been proposed. Even the proposal must give considerable heart to Haines ... were it to be enacted, you will never be able to control him or his cheer-leaders again. Please think carefully about the message this would send him and the freedom it would grant him. I have no particular desire to keep an eye on Haines but, unless someone does, he will continue his bullying rampage and get his way on all articles he chooses to own. Abtract (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am so saddend by the likelihood that this restriction will be enacted. Do you guys actually read the diffs? On what basis am I "wikihounding" Haines? This simpy beggars belief. I watch his edits, I make changes to articles, if I find them interesting, if I feel they need it and I certainly stand up to his bullying ... where is the harm in that? Where does it say I must not do that? Can anyone point to an edit I have made on a Haines related article that was not a good faith edit? I think not. Think about this very carefully; Haines must be laughing all the way to his "get out of jail" card. Abtract (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ryulong
I don't know if I'm actually an involved "party" in this. I reviewed the reverts Alastair Haines made after L'Aquatique requested someone to review her block of Haines. I looked into the block and made my comment on his talk page, and warned that if he continued to purposefully remove the comments left by L'Aquatique to skew the view of the discussion in his favor, I would prevent him from editing his user talk page. When I returned to Wikipedia yesterday, I found that he persisted in his activities and did the same to my message, I decided that the course of action was to (instead of protecting the page) block his account for 48 hours from that point such that the editing of the talk page was disabled. This added 12 hours to his block in total. If others feel it is necessary, I can restore the original block length and keep the user talk page editing disabled.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ilkali
Problems like this will continue as long as Alastair wilfully and explicitly disregards the sanctions placed on him ("I do not feel in any way party to whatever conclusions &#91;Arbcom&#93; may have come to"). L'Aquatique's actions in this case were fair and generous. Alastair's violation of his 1RR was objectively verifiable, leaving no room for bias, and she did not even block him at his first offense; he was given a warning and contemptuously rejected it. The only reason we would restrict L'Aquatique from enforcing Arbcom's rulings is to protect Alastair's pride, which is at best unnecessary pandering and at worst encourages an attitude that has already proven itself disruptive. Ilkali (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re L'Aquatique's comment: At the point where you issued warnings, Alastair's edit (which pushed him over 1RR) had been the most recent for over two hours. I object, as I did on my talk page, to the insinuation that I did or would have violated my 1RR sanction. There is no evidence of such. Ilkali (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re John Vandenberg's comment: Would you endorse a requirement that Alastair both: 1) accept that he violated his sanctions (thereby warranting a block), and 2) agree not to do so in future? If an editor is allowed to openly ignore the sanctions placed on him with no greater result than an occasional short-term block, then what was the point of those sanctions? Ilkali (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Newyorkbrad's comment: Alastair has actually violated the restriction twice; once at Singular they and once at Gender of God. The fact that he accused the blocking admin of corruption in the latter instance clearly indicates that he still does not consider himself subject to the 1RR restriction. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Miguel.mateo's comment: I have never called for Alastair to be banned, and on multiple occasions have even argued against it. You, like Buster7, have come into this matter knowing nothing about the circumstances and with the sole interest of defending your friend by demonising everyone you perceive as his enemy. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I continue to insist that the best first step is to talk to Alastair. It is far too early to consider a ban. In my opinion, all of the problems with this editor stem from his pride and inability to view his own actions critically (this is not helped by the presence of cheerleaders like SkyWriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo). By far the best approach is to either shake this attitude or persuade him to change his editing pattern so it cannot cause conflicts. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The following was recently added on Alastair's talk page:

"The heat is off ArbCom in my opinion, but that means it comes back on us to be bold in assisting one another in conflicts", "I hate to ask people to waste their time on conflict to help me, but I need friends to do this for me and they are willing. I will aim to assist others in their conflicts, but my own are going to be fought by my friends"

What exactly are you enlisting these people to do, Alastair? Ilkali (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Buster7
The fact that Administrator L'Aquatique is blind to the negative personal involvement and the animosity that she has toward Alastair is most upsetting. She went after him as her very first act as an Administrator. It was almost as tho she had him in her sights from the very beginning. She should be banned should recuse herself from any contact whatsoever having to do with Editor Alastair Haines. Her animus toward him certainly seems irreconcilable. --Buster7 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LisaLiel
Everything I had to say about this case was said in the original case. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by not-impartial Casliber
I have been too busy to examine the article material in depth, and I am nonpartial as I am a friend of Alastair (so if anyone feels this means this should be disregarded so be it). I note that (a) if I were blocked by an editor I had previously had a confrontation with after (b) two editors I had previously had run ins with turned up to revert changes of mine in a tense situation, I would be pretty enraged. Now whether this is justified or not is another matter, but what I do see here is a heated situation. Many actions are done and later regretted in the heat of the moment, so I would take this into account with respect to events and statements after this point. I appreciate L'Aquatique did ask another admin's view before blocking, which was a wise move and I respect that, but I do think in these cases that even the semblance of a COI can be bad - i.e. another admin should have done the blocking. End result, what am I asking for? A plea for clemency for Alastair, who is a valued contributor and has much to give. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alastair Haines
So long as ArbCom members appear to endorse unsustainable criticisms of my editing, that amount to personal attacks, there will be problems.

Since my editing is, and always has been impeccable, it is easy for me to overlook any restrictions placed on me. They only ask me to do what I've always done anyway. There is no evidence, anywhere, that suggests I have done otherwise than act in a way that any reasonable member of the community can find consistent with improving and maintaining Wikipedia, either in incidents refered to above, associated with the original ArbCom case, or in any other editing at Wiki.

I have absolutely no problem with the restrictions ArbCom proposed, except two—one practical, the other more abstract. Regarding practicality, it is simply unreasonable to keep a diary of all reverts I make, and consult it. I simply work too quickly for that. I revert multiple times and quickly while copy-editing and receive no complaints. Additionally, when people repeatedly vandalise a page, it is impractical to keep a diary of what they did and when. Again, I never receive complaints about this.

That brings us to the abstract issue. L'Aquatique, Ilkali and Abtract are not credible witnesses, all have demonstrated personal animosity and gaming the system. These things are obvious even to casual observers. All make a point of seeking to paint a picture of my editing as though it had been broadly agreed to contain questionable elements. This is simply not the case. No credible witness against my editing has ever been brought forward.

I will not deal with it here, but the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much, for a range of reasons. This is a serious problem, that I would like to help ArbCom members resolve in another forum. Current handling of the case is creating embarassment for people (namely the arbitrators) that I would like to spare from that. I love volunteer workers, and can imagine few jobs more challenging and uncomfortable than addressing the sorts of disputes that are accepted as ArbCom cases.

However, while a handful of people's untennable misrepresentation of my editing (which are simply personal attacks) remains uncorrected, a fundamental principle of Wiki editorial cameraderie is being blatantly "bucked" in front of the noses of responsible parties. Unsurprisingly, the ir-responsible parties are making, and will continue to make, sport of this oversight. It's only my problem in the sense that I have to experience it, in reality it is the problem of my fellow Wikipedians to protect me from it. Is it easier for it to be endured, or for it to be corrected? I've been enduring, please correct it. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I just remembered, I did make one edit that was not aimed at improving or maintaining Wikipedia. My apologies to everyone for my playfulness on that occasion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS I've just been glancing over this page. ArbCom members have way too much work. I am embarassed that I only notice this now. I think the decision in my case was unhelpful, but with the deepest sincerity, now I don't care. ArbCom members have volunteered to do a task that is almost impossible, as far as I can see. Make whatever decisions seem best to you in the limited time available to you. I am not going to hold you accountable to live up to what are, in my revised opinion, unreasonable expectations in the circumstances. You have made it difficult to support you, but support you I will. I have plenty of resources of wise and good friends at Wiki who can ensure peace and that you are not troubled again. My apologies that you have once more been troubled by this case. Very inconsiderate. Make sure you get enough sleep, stay faithful to real life friends and take breaks when you need them. I doubt you'll be hearing from me again, but I'll be thinking of you. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sam has lead the way for me to say something more helpful. Please feel free to change your vote and ban me instead. Your comment that my opinion regarding the ArbCom case is not a matter of enforcement, strikes me as profoundly Wikipedian. It is extremely easy to respect and strive to co-operate with that kind of thinking. "I am willing to endure your criticism if you are willing to endure mine." That's a realistic, mature and egalitarian view of life isn't it? How it bears on details of the case itself is interesting food for thought. Best regards to all in your deliberations. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: I think it is important that I acknowledge that I've heard Florence' comment. I may well have misread it, but if I've heard correctly, it extends a great generosity—a legitimate opportunity to influence a vote. I may be in error to do so, but in the nicest possible way, I take it personally—as a gift. There are many ways to honour that, and I will pursue as many as I can. Perhaps being more open to influencing votes is something I should think of incorporating into my "style". Everyone else does it! ;) There are complexities, but I think that's all I should say, right here, right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Accept: I accept the proposed urging of ArbCom to not interact with Abtract, and will cease as of this post. I am heartened that there are no restrictions proposed for him, save in reference to myself. I would protest on his behalf if there were. He has a keen mind and clear expression, I wish him well in his studies ... and at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anish Shah
Although, I have never been involved in this dispute nor with the other editors, I have been involved with Alastair many times and hence in the interest of wikipedia, I feel compelled to make a statement. Any proposal to ban Alastair or put any restrictions on his edits, spell a big disaster for Wikipedia. Most editors on wikipedia are either mass editors or intellectuals, Alastair is those from a rare breed who is both. His edits have a compelling effect on those editing with him. It raises the quality of edits and discussions on the pages edited by him. I have found him a team player and hence fail to understand why certain editors are after him. I am sure that L'Aquatique is a good wikipedian and a good person to work with, but as stated by John Vandenberg there is no denying the fact that she has a history with Alastair. In such cases even good admins tend to lose objectivity and do get trigger-happy. In real life we do have cases like – Judges recuseing themselves in interested cases or interested directors not voting in board resolutions. So I do support Vandenberg’s view that block should be from uninvolved admins. Secondly, the case of Alastair editing his own talk page is so trivial that I am surprised that it is even discussed. We should not be worried as how a discussion thread is going on a talk page. In most cases I see persons replying to the other talk page rather than in his own page under the question. In such cases no one worries about the “transparency” on the talk pages. Everyone should have the authority to manage his own talk page and remove any edits or warnings that he deems to be defamatory or bogus. --Anish (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed with User Kirill and FloNights decision to support the motion to ban Alastair. While they may have some valid reasons, I feel following things need to be considered: --Anish (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alastairs contributions here . With more than 20,000 edits, they are a veteran’s contribution befitting an administrator. As can be seen he has raised the standard of the articles that he has edited.
 * Is a ban on Alastair justified? Is he a vandal, or incivil, or a spammer or indulging in harassment to anyone? Or a sock puppet? Of course not.
 * The only issue it seems some people are targeting him because he is not confirming to their idea of some behavior. And these are the people with whom he had some history and hence have totally lost objectivity of the issue. These are the only people who are opposing him. As for the revert war or edit war it takes two parties to indulge in it. So Alastair cannot carry the blame single handedly.
 * There is nothing wrong in saying with conviction that ones edits are impeccable. If he were arrogant, Alastair would not have apologized in one case where he playfully made some non-serious edits.
 * Skywriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo are not the only so called “cheer leaders” A lot of people have shown support and appreciation for Alastair. If these can be called “Cheer leaders” then his victimization can be called “Witch-hunt”
 * A one year ban is like a life-time ban……I have seen good people leaving wikipedia in such cases. Mostly vandals come back after one year bans.
 * Alastair has not done something wrong…..kirill only worries that he will do something wrong in future..and hence the ban. This is like unjustified pre-emptive strike.

Comment to Ncmvocalist  Its not that I have not understood the issue being discussed here. I am looking at much much wider issue here that is likely to result on account of unjustified ban on Alastair. The question is, are you willing to take a wider view of the issue or have already pre-decided on this issue?--Anish (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Redtigerxyz
I am not directly associated with the case, however I have been involved with Alastair as he is currently copy-editing Vithoba. I am a major contributor to the article and "maintain" it. Alastair has considerable contributions to religion-based articles like FA Anekantavada (Alastair was the FAC nominator) and Vithoba. So i am against the idea of Alastair being "topic banned from (all) religion articles for a period of time that is definitely greater than one month" and "banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year". I also support the view that only uninvolved admins should enforce a block. Also, about the removal on his own talk, wiki-policy allows it - Talk_page_guidelines. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Leszek Jańczuk
I am not directly associated with the case, but Alastair copy-edited some of my articles (f.e. Codex Coislinianus, Papyrus 110, Uncial 0212), and I can say one: He is very good wiki-editor. Every article copy-edited by Alastair became better. He also created a lot of important articles. He is one of the best editors, we know, and this discussion is not a good idea. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. Note that a user's "removing warnings" from a his or her own userpage is generally not blockable (or "block-extendible"), although I can imagine some situations (was this one?) where it would be inappropriate to allow removal of comments in the middle of a thread so as to deliberately make the remainder of the thread grossly misleading. On a different issue, I'd appreciate someone's making sure there are no parallels between Abtract's behavior here and his conduct discussed in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The information added by John Vandenberg adds to my worry that this may be another "wikihounding" situation involving Abtract. I have not reviewed the evidence on this myself as yet. Abtract's comments on this issue would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Motion proposed concerning Abtract, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still reviewing the comments and will vote when I'm done. Hopefully today or tomorrow. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to change my vote now, but I'll continue to review the comments and evidence presented, and if I see something that gives me confidence that problems will not continue then I'll change my vote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to take a look at : The Alastair Haines situation

 * (initiator)

Statement by Privatemusings
per this email and this note, I gather arbcom have received some information ahead of this request - but every little helps, right :-)

An OTRS ticket ( #2009040310049955 ) has somewhat divided the OTRS agents, with confusion as to whether or not it constitutes a legal threat. Regardless, because it comes from a publisher of this user's work, a decision has been made to ban the user indefinitely. A simple examination of the ticket by the arbcom would be helpful. You might also like to review this diff noting that it was posted subsequent to the OTRS request, and clearly by the protaganist!

Please review this asap and consider further steps to improve systemic performance in this area - overall it's just been totally unacceptable in my view.


 * @risker and MB - for what it's worth, the outcome of a good conversation on IRC in the OTRS channel was that the OTRS folk are divided, and unlikely to take any action (it was important to note that this was not an impasse, but it's hard for me to explain why not!) - the simple fact is that two users have been indefinitely blocked over this - one clearly in error, which, despite being fixed after 5 days is still a ginormous stuff up. At the very least, I'd hope the committee might lean towards taking some responsibility towards resolving this situation speedily and smoothly, it would speak well of us, no? Privatemusings (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues
to be explicit, I am swallowing a degree of distaste for this process in asking the committee to attend to the following gigantic boobs outstanding issues;
 * A good faith user was blocked for 5 days based on an administrator's hunch that they might have sent an email. They hadn't, and I would like to committee to strongly underline how inappropriate this bungle was. It's the sort of thing that can cause unnecessary drama, I reckon.
 * Alaistair Haines has been indefenitely blocked, with the stated rationale that someone else sent OTRS an email. I'd like arbcom to examine this interesting reading of site policy.
 * A couple of days after someone else sent OTRS an email, Alaistair posted this diff explaining his current position in regard to legal action. Only a gigantic boob could have missed this - it's linked some 5 or 6 lines up :-)
 * The Pièce de résistance - as a response to another somebody (me) asking a few questions, some people note that maybe it's a good idea to open up Alaistair's talk page, and some people think 'hey, the exact opposite might be just the ticket' - right now the talk page is protected from all editing. Way to go wiki dispute resolution!

Finally, I have to pass a wry comment on Brad's note - it's interesting that the vagaries of this project lead such a wise chap to state that editing under your own name is not a good idea. It took me maybe 30 min.s yesterday to sift through and realise the scale of the boobage in this situation - please try to attend to it, dear arbs :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC) hopefully the section title will have captured at least someone's attention.....


 * more hmmmmm..... I headed over to Coren's talk page to ask for his rationale for a block, and wondering if he could outline the best next-steps for an unblock, where he mentioned "The matter is currently in discussion within the Committee." - is it? Perhaps I'm wrong to read into that the intimation that arbcom are currently discussing this, but I'm not sure how not to! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * any news? My reading of the below is that the arbcom doesn't consider this an arbcom matter, which is in tension with Coren mentioning that arbcom are indeed discussing it. Are you discussing this?
 * It's my opinion that there's a systemic problem in how you (arbcom) choose to communicate around requests such as these, right now I (as initiator) have no way of knowing if anyone is actually attending to any of these issues. Meanwhile, while thumb twiddling, head scratching and general procrastination and avoidance continue, a good faith user remains indefinitely blocked. This shouldn't be acceptable to any of you.
 * If anyone flicks me an email letting me know when we can expect an update (ideally with some explanation as to why) I'll be patient, otherwise cage rattling is the only avenue available, I guess :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well no email (yet), and no surprise there, I guess :-) - as I noted on the administrator's noticeboard thread, several reviewing admin.s are of the opinion that this is now an office and arbcom matter, and are unwilling to take any action. My reading of the arbcom's comments below is that you're not minded to take any action either, which is odd considering Coren mentioned that you were discussing it. Coren, as the blocking admin. is now completely unresponsive, although the good news is he's amused by the situation. Coren notes in her edit summary that 'this does not need to proceed further' - oh good, so it's all sorted out then?
 * what I have noticed is that it's easier to get a conversation going about a shaven vagina round here than it is to resolve the indefinite blocking of a long standing valuable editor. Come to think of it, that sounds like this wiki :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The only potential concern I can see here is that Mr Haines apparently can't edit his own talk page, I am always wary of impeding attempts by living individuals to correct inaccuracies about themselves. Mr Haines has contacted OTRS through his representatives, but if we believe that there is a pressing problem with his communications being impeded then there is no reason not to ask Coren to change the block parameters.

A quick look through the history suggests the following interpretation of events: Alastair Haines has a series of blocks for legal threats, and has been warned many times about them. When another comment was made which he considered defamatory, rather than make another legal threat and get blocked, he appears to have asked a colleague to make the threat on his behalf. The colleague was perhaps more moderate than Mr. Haines himself, and in any case the request was a reasonable one and handled to to correspondent's apparent satisfaction. It seems to em that the concern here is that rather than exploring ways of not making legal threats, Mr Haines has decided to explore other ways of making legal threats without consequences. That is plainly unacceptable. That is how I read it from the current comments, anyway; we'd have to ask Coren for his take I think.

The supposed controversy or debate is not evident to me as an OTRS agent and subscriber to otrs-en-l, and I don't see any suggestion that Coren has gone WP:ROUGE on this. It looks like a standard response to legal threats, and it also looks as if all parties are already mindful of the WP:BLP implications. What prior attempts have been made to resolve this dispute? Has it been raised at the admin noticeboards? Has anyone asked Coren about the specific issue of talk page locking?

In any case, I can't see what ArbCom is intended to do here, this seems like the first step in a dispute resolution process, not the last. Attempts to resolve the dispute by argumentation on WR are not, as yet, a part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process are they? That seems to have been the major venue for this debate thus far, by my reading of the comments.

I would also note that the ticket referenced above has been closed as successful, with a comment from the individual who raised the ticket complimenting Wikipedia on our enforcement of policies. Is there any evidence of a continuing issue requiring resolution, other than a user who is blocked and doesn't like it? I'm not seeing anything here which makes this an "OTRS needs ArbComming" type case. There are three tickets relating to Haines, being 2009040310049955, 2007062910002018 and 2007062810015248; all are "closed successful", none are long threads, none show evidence of outstanding issues. On what basis is it claimed that this block is a response to OTRS? Unless I have grabbed the wrong end of the wrong stick, this does not seem to me to have anything to do with OTRS, it looks like a standard case of an on-wiki argument which has generated a single email complaint which was swiftly resolved by removing some talk page text. I think invoking OTRS is a red herring, we should focus on the user himself and his history of inappropriate legal posturing. I think that's what Coren has done. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Having worked this out from first principles, as it were, I think the best course is to protect AH's talk page as being the locus of the disputed content, and to ensure that he is given the information necessary to request any courtesy blanking that may be necessary. I will do this and post at the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Coren
Guy has, in fact, nailed the matter with no small amount of precision. While the OTRS ticket itself is closed and has been resolved, the block to AH's account is a matter of continuing pattern of legal and pseudo legal bullying being continued through an agent or proxy. If someone in a clear (and admitted) business relationship with an editor who has repeatedly been blocked for legal threats picks up the same language (and, indeed, much of the same wording) as the previous threats immediately after the editor has been obligated to withdraw them, those threats can rightly be considered as made by proxy.

(There was also another editor blocked by myself, SkyWriter, which has since been unblocked. I had apparently misidentified them as AH's publisher.)

As for the block parameters (that is, excluding editing the talk page), I've simply implemented the specific conditions made by the originally unblocking admin, Theresa knott. I do not feel strongly about it either way, but I do believe that the matter is now best handled entirely off-wiki (either with the Office, or with ArbCom &mdash; as a ban appeal, not as anything to do with OTRS). &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On timing: I realize the email arrived before AH was unblocked; I was referring to it arriving after Alastair had been blocked for making essentially the same claims. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
The OTRS ticket was received on April 3rd. User:Alastair Haines made his second unblock request on April 8th. User:Theresa knott left time on WP:ANI for any objections to her proposed unblock on April 8th, posting the strict conditions on Alastair Haines' talk page when she unblocked. Coren blocked Alastair Haines and User:Skywriter on April 9th because of the prior OTRS ticket. There seem to have been various crossed wires here, probably because of different time zones (Europe, Australia, USA). Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil
I'm not going to add much more since I think everything has already been said. And basically I agree with Guy, Coren and Mathsci. Also as John says below I have asked Alastair to give me a list of diffs - I'm yet to recieve any and am about to ask again.

I have gathered, without being able to see the OTRS ticket, that the publisher was concerned about content on Alastair's talk page but I know that Alastair has issue with other comments elsewhere. Comments including the ArbCom proposal to ban him (a proposal that was rejected). I believe he has sent an email to the Committee - if he has not speciified what diffs / comments are problematic in that message I can ask him to do so. If he does send them - I will pass them on to John and/or the Committee (as long as Alastair doesn't have a problem with that). But that said we can only really judge if it breaks our rules (WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK) not if it is defamatory in a legal sense-- Cailil  talk  16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have not been able to locate the specific proposal (from the previous RfAr) that Alastair objects too - so he will need to spell out which one he has issue with. I think allowing him to post to his talk page might help progress matters-- Cailil   talk  16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note of Clarification. I page banned User:LisaLiel from User talk:Alastair Haines - I didn't block anyone.  Also I don't know if Lisa's or specifically any other user's comments were the issue.  Lisa was page-banned per the RfAr for being disruptive and pointy - nothing else-- Cailil   talk  19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoety
To Risker: While I agree that this is not the correct method, WP:OTRS does state that any actions by an OTRS volunteer on-wiki are reviewable by the Arbitration committee. Please see. Tiptoety talk 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber
I feel the 1 week block from JHunterJ which was the initial flashpoint for this dustup was incorrect (however I note my involved status) - mainly as it put a content builder with a genuine interest in the article in question, and a content remover who has been guilty of stalking another user, on the same level. Things have spiralled out of control since then, with other issues being drawn in. This breakdown in communication has become a massive timesink and I can see further confrontation on arb pages as no different. I do think some negotiation is possible in order to defuse the situation, calm it down and return an equilibrium of sorts. I apologise I have had limited time with this but believe we can sort it out by email. Open discussion has drawn a peanut gallery so far which has not been helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Had I thought of it earlier, a Request for Clarification on the 1 week block might have resulted in an earlier resolution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ottava Rima
I was, as far as I know, the first to notice the User:SkyWriter block. I contacted Coren and discussed the matter with a few others. I was glad that others stepped forward and that the matter was handled calmly until Coren's return. I am not a friend of Coren's. Most people will know that Coren and I do not get along. However, Coren proceeding in a fair manner and reacted quickly after he returned.

I am not a fan of NLT related blocks, nor am I a fan of people having their block logged marked up over the matter, let alone from being removed from contributing to the Wiki over it. I believe that these matters can prevented in the future if there is a clear statement about taking something to court and there is a clearly identified person. NLT is to prevent matters from being taken onto Wiki or disrupting the Wiki. Legal matters require individuals, and cannot happen behind pseudonyms in such a way. So, there should be a higher burden of actual legal matters to warrant an indef ban. As for the "threat" part, in casual conversation, they should be taken as a breach of civility in general, as they can be, in their title, threatening and are rude in general. There should be a difference between actual legal matters (indef block until they are resolved) and threats (in extreme cases warranting a block related to civil like disruptions but not an indef block). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SkyWriter
Here is what I understand from information given in discussions: NO INTERVENING STATEMENTS FROM ALASTAIR OCURRED
 * On April 3 someone opened an OTRS requesting that an administrator follow Wikipedia guidelines and remove personal attacks against Alastair Haines.
 * The OTRS administrator Daniel refused on the grounds that they represented [encyclopedic] content.
 * On April 8 Calil page-banned one editor from Alastair's talkpage for 6 months.
 * On April 8 Alastair Haines issued an extraordinarily comprehensive legal waiver that he would never take legal action – covering the past, present, and future.
 * The problem possibly solved by both Calil and Alastair -- Alastair was then unblocked.
 * On April 9 Coren blocked Alastair for the April 3 OTRS, wiping out the entire talk page (including the personal attacks).
 * Sometime after this the OTRS emailer thanked Wikipedia for its prompt response and praised the site for following its own policies against personal attacks.
 * Both Daniel and Coren have failed to explain:
 * 1) What threat (i.e. an "or else" statement) was associated with the OTRS.
 * 2) How a "thank you" after blocking Alastair shows collusion with Alastair.
 * 3) How a "thank you" constitutes a legal threat.
 * 4) How a "thank you" prevents arbcom from lifting the Alastair block.
 * 5) How personal attacks on a talkpage constitute unremovable encyclopedic “content.”
 * 6) How Alastair’s extraordinary legal waiver constitutes ongoing legal posturing.

I therefore recommend that Alastair be unblocked, and that Coren and Daniel be required to read Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks and unequivocally promise to enforce those guidelines before being allowed to work an OTRS or block a user.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The following was moved from the clerk notes section. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know where to put this -- but Coren has unblocked Alastair.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Is this the correct page for this request per OTRS or should it be moved elsewhere? Does anyone else need notification (OTRS admins, cary, etc)?   MBisanz  talk 05:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please notify Cary Bass on his page at Meta, and he can determine which other OTRS volunteers should be informed. Risker (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notified at m:User_talk:Bastique.  MBisanz  talk 10:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not link statement headings per Arbcom procedure. The correct format is: ==== Statement by Jimbo Wales ==== . KnightLago (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Recuse - Tiptoety  talk 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a general note: Please don't edit other people's comments; bring issues to our attention. And Privatemusings, please reword the level five heading in your section.  MBisanz  talk 06:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * done - and for the record, whilst the adding of gigantic boobs, where appropriate, is most welcome, their removal may well be reverted. Take note, lurkers. Privatemusings (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing that this is stale, I'll be archiving in a bit.  MBisanz  talk 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: OTRS is outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee and is a creature of the Wikimedia Foundation. Any comment on this situation made by the Committee must obviously exclude any OTRS information, as several Committee members do not have OTRS authorization to see the ticket involved.  Risker (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Privatemusings and Tiptoety: The initial request, upon which my comment above was made, was for the Arbitration Committee to review an OTRS ticket and make a decision on what to do about it. That is outside of the scope of the Committee. Each OTRS volunteer is responsible for his or her own actions and, just as with any editorial or administrative behaviour issue, could be reviewed by this Committee. The arms-length relationship between OTRS and the Committee is one that protects the individual who submits information to OTRS; if the person who initiated correspondence with OTRS wishes to send a copy of their email to the Arbitration Committee then we will review it and respond where appropriate, but I do not believe the Committe should muscle its way in to this area without the direct request of the party involved. Risker (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This seems to be a matter for Cary or a member of the OTRS team to handle, as would be true for most OTRS ticket related situations. What, exactly, is ArbCom being asked to review? (Are we being asked to make a determination about the legal threats, or lack thereof, in the ticket? Are we being asked to review the block? Are we being asked to review the substantive relation between the submitter and Alistair Haines?) Also, please understand that this matter involves an OTRS ticket and private correspondance, which may limit our ability to full explain or comment upon the situation on-wiki (and impede full access to all of the evidence available). --Vassyana (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed among the arbitrators. However, this situation does involve confidential and identifying information, which may not be appropriate to discuss on-wiki due to its nature. --Vassyana (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment In no way is this issue ripe for consideration by ArbCom in this form. I have no reason to think that OTRS agents would not be able to work through the issue as it relates to them. Sensible people disagreeing with each other (if that is the case) is a strength of the system not a concern. IMO, no action needed at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse; I have acted in the matter of the OTRS ticket as an administrator and an OTRS agent. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse; I was involved in the last arbitration case and initiated the clarification request. One of the unresolved problems has been that Alastair Haines finds a few comments left around the project to be inappropriate.  If he is unblocked, but these objectionable comments are not identified and discussed, I fear we will be back here again soon enough.  In case it is still outstanding, Cailil says he is waiting to be advised of a list of problems so that the community members can assess and possibly fix them.  He could also send them to arbcom if he prefers, or he could send them to me. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A substantial amount of the problem here involves the fact that Alastair Haines, an editor who has gotten into more than his share of editing disputes, edits Wikipedia under his full name. (Not merely that he discloses his real-life identity, but that his username is actually his name.) This automatically and overtly transforms any dispute involving A.H. the Wikipedia editor into an accusation against A.H. the individual, a fact that has consistently been unhelpful. I repeat the recommendation that has been made in the past that however this particular block is resolved, he consider requesting a rename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentA mere rename will help but not solve the issues here. I have to pretty much agree with Flo, Coren,and Guy, this is not ready for arbcom and I would be uncomfortable unblocking AH this time.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse as a non-impartial friend of Alastair. I will add a comment above later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - nothing substantive to add, except to say that a full and frank discussion of the grey areas of the 'no legal threats' policy is long overdue, including what to do about legal posturing, and those who are litigious by nature, but still want to edit Wikipedia. At some point, repeated arguments over legal threats and possibilities of legal threats, distracts too much from what we are meant to be doing here - working together to write an encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, agree with Carcharoth. Wizardman  16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with JzG that the OTRS aspect here appears to be a red herring. 'No legal threats' is an absolute principle and one with a very clear boundary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per my colleagues; OTRS is within not our bailiwick; however, NLT is and probably could use reviewing.  Roger Davies  talk 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

 * (initiator)

Statement by Sandstein
I have recently taken arbitration enforcement action against as described in this AE thread (permalink). The case page instructs me to "log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision". However, the case page has been courtesy blanked by.

What logging, if any, is to occur? And should the page really remain courtesy-blanked if it appears to be needed for logging and enforcement purposes?  Sandstein  05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
What I have seen happen in the past is the blanking is undone, the logging done, and then the case re-blanked, all in separate edits (ie. three). If you explain them with sufficiently-descriptive edit summaries, people will know what's going on when they look at the edit history and know which version to look at to get the full log. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I agree with Daniel's comment and suggested method. By using a descriptive edit summary when unblanking, adding the admin action, and then courtesy blanking again, someone will know where to look for the full version of the log. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another (IMO simpler) method that is just as clear would be to edit the last non-blanked revision, followed by blanking. Only two edits this way, but no less clear.  Both approaches serve the same purposes, however, of logging the sanction yet maintaining the page blanked.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Either of the above is fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Newyorkbrad. I trust this has now been accomplished? Risker (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the above methods work, but I strongly question the wisdom of maintaining the page blanked if it is necessary for continuing enforcement and logging. --Vassyana (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way's good, though unblanking the main page would make it easier as well. Wizardman  22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The logging section ought to be visible on the page at all times, particularly whenever there is an active block or ban. --bainer (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Vassyana, Wizardman and Stephen Bain.  Roger Davies  talk 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines
Initiated by  Ncmvocalist (talk) at 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected: (all users have been notified)
 * (initiator)

Statement by Ncmvocalist
A recent AE request was filed by Kaldari based on a ban that was imposed by Sandstein in June 2009 (on Alastair Haines), and which was supposed to last until June 2010. The ban on Alastair Haines was imposed in response to a separate AE request (that was filed by Kaldari in June). In June, Sandstein had invoked remedy 1 of the case which read "Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for...up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines." Remedy 1 expired in September 2009. Tznkai held off enforcement due to uncertainty over whether sanctions imposed under standard ArbCom probation (or discretionary sanctions) were intended to outlive the the case remedies. Sandstein has since accepted that he regrettably did not take this expiry date into account when he specified 1 year in his ban, and Skomorokh has declined the AE request accordingly. The case log, which still specifies the ban, has not been amended. It is clear that our AE admins are clearly surrounded by an unfortunate dilemma, and uncertainty.
 * Background

Here's a scenario. The community imposes a standard probation for a period of time on a user or area. The user was page-banned for 3 months, 2 days before the probation was set to expire. Would it not be incredibly foolish to refuse to recognise the child sanction (page ban) 1 month down the track, because the mother sanction (probation) passed away 2 days after giving birth to the child sanction? Can ArbCom clarify what the problem is - are we not drafting things properly, or do inadequate guidelines (if any) exist regarding AE? Personally, I'm inclined to think it's the latter. This formal request for clarification was opened to assist future AE.
 * Request for clarification

In the meantime, I am concerned by the AE that led to this clarification. In addition to the probation, Alastair Haines was also "required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page" in the case. This was the revert that unambiguously violated the page ban, and was obviously problematic. No accompanying discussion of the content reversion exists. At the AE request, Alastair Haines also asserted "I am very happy for this matter to come up, because it demonstrates how defamatory the ArbCom publication last year actually was. If discussion shows people think less of me because of that ArbCom publication, then it proves defamation has occurred." There are other problematic assertions he made there. I believe the relevant now-expired case remedies intended to address certain problems, and need to be re-enacted "indefinitely" rather than "for one year". Rather than subjecting the community to a number of issues, like wikilawyering, potential courtesy blanking issues, other issues the ArbCom case has already encountered, etc. etc., I am requesting ArbCom to nip it in the bud (perhaps using a motion). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for amendment


 * This case was primarily opened because Alastair Haines was relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions - based on the above, what has changed? He's now expecting me to declare myself (and has tried to make me out below) as 'involved' - but on the basis of what? A comment I made in November 2008 that was clearly marked as uninvolved? On a separate note, while users who file a request provide an appropriate (and civil) notification to the user mentioned because they are required to, would ArbCom class this as an appropriate way to respond to such a notification? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alastair Haines, please cease in your repeated attempts to misrepresent my position. I am neither involved, nor am I disappointed by any of the outcomes ArbCom has delivered on this case so far - quite the contrary. I'm mystified that you really don't seem to be getting it: making foolish accusations only undermines the notion that your conduct has improved to a sufficient level that further or continued sanctions are unnecessary. For the record, I am a Hindu contributor, and have no objections to a review of my actions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth/NYB/bainer: Kaldari's comment appears to suggest that there are ongoing problems. We know and seem to agree that admins at AE (Sandstein in this case) should have the discretion to reset the sanctions. We can also agree that there was an inability of some sort (be it perceived or actual), despite what appears as a clear willingness to do so at the time. So should ArbCom remedy the inability by resetting the sanctions so they expire in June 2010? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I welcome and support Vassyana's proposal, and it is likely that this view of mine will not change as the problems that led to this point have been a long term issue that outlive any mitigating factors. That said, I do not object to Risker's proposal due to the current circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
It is good practice to provide all relevant links in any post to any forum. The relevant remedy is here (direct link because Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is, strangely, blanked); the AE threads are here (1 year topic ban imposed, June 2009) and Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (enforcement of topic ban declined, December 2009). I have no opinion beyond what is stated in the latter thread.  Sandstein  10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kaldari
Alastair Haines has managed to be continually disruptive on Wikipedia for over a year now while evading or ignoring any effective remedies against him (apart from about 10 brief blocks). Each time, he has pleaded innocence and received undeserved allowances. I've tried numerous times to get relief through the proper channels, and each time, it ends up being nothing more than a brief respite, or in this last case, a complete waste of time. I would have filed a separate Rfa in the beginning, but I was encouraged to request relief through the existing Rfa (which was still in force at the time). If I attempted to create a new Rfa at this point, it would probably be rejected to due to the age of most of the evidence. Am I really left with no alternative than to start the process completely from scratch and act as if there is a clean slate? Such a scenario would be quite unfortunate, and IMO a reward for bad behavior. I am requesting the ArbCom review the actions of Alastair since the enactment of the original decision and if appropriate enact further sanctions via ArbCom motion rather than a completely new Rfa. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments moved from arb's section
 * (Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, but...) I think what we need (and what you are implying here) is some concept of probation, i.e. if an editor consistently fails to abide by the terms of their arbcom decision while it is in force, discretionary sanctions can be extended as appropriate without having to completely restart the process. Any uninvolved admin should be able to act as a "probation officer" through Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Otherwise we are creating a legal loophole, where editors who are under Arbcom restrictions have no incentive to abide by those decisions when the expiration dates are approaching, as any additional penalties will be null and void at the end of the deadline. And to answer your question, I would be happy with the existing topic ban if it can, in fact, be enforced until June 2010, otherwise I'll have to file a new Rfa. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike that, Alastair needs to be indefinitely banned from patriarchy and gender-related articles. See his recent edits here (unilaterally rewriting the lead of patriarchy and adding massive amounts of POV material without any discussion), here (unilaterally restoring an article merged through AfD with no discussion), and here (unilaterally rewriting the lead of gender, removing information, and rearranging the article to support his POV). He is causing substantial disruption to these articles which he has been doing consistently since he joined Wikipedia. He is now also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages. Kaldari (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And just to top off the cake, he's now making thinly veiled legal threats (which he's been blocked for before). Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example (from last week) of Alastair recreating an article deleted through AfD and then attacking the admin who deleted it ("a fragile ego", lacks the "confidence to be able to apologize", "obstructive and divisive"). Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alastair Haines

 * So far I am impressed by the conduct of all parties.
 * Firstly, I am impressed by the original ArbCom that did a very good best in a situation fraught with strongly expressed emotions and generally more heat than light.
 * I am even more impressed by the amendment that provided me with relief from one of the original baiters.
 * Finally, I was impressed by the "strange blanking" that was so courteous.
 * Sandstein was right to act as he did on the basis of what he could see. He acted quickly at the time, but so did I, I was getting married the following week.
 * Kaldari is certainly not wrong here, either, on the basis of what he can see.
 * If nothing is done here, Kaldari and I are going to have some rather difficult talking to do together and who knows how that will go. But isn't that the normal hard work of Wiki?
 * NCM, you seem to have lasting suspicions regarding my editing.
 * Perhaps you can see things I cannot see. Please come to my talk page, as you have in the past, and talk with me about them one-to-one. You are actually an involved party by virtue of some previous events. Email me if this issue is really worth your time.
 * Sandstein and Tznkai have been particularly gracious here.
 * But I am very willing to answer to anyone who has doubts about my responsible editing.
 * Is this the most helpful forum, though? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I've just read Sandstein's comments, and I'm confirmed in my opinion that there is no longer any issue here. I expect and welcome some rigorous content debate at Gender of God, Patriarchy and other places, when I get back to them, who knows when? But those articles have never have been my priority at Wiki and nor has discussion there reached fever-pitch much at all.
 * In the interests of ongoing harmony, I'm willing for my comments re Kaldari to be buried where no one need read them. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think Tznkai is wise to point out that AE is not a forum for expanding or reducing the original ArbCom.


 * Review of original AC


 * If AC, nonetheless, thinks it good to review the past, I have this to say.
 * NCM participated in discussion related to that AC, and is no doubt disappointed that it upheld my complaints about two adminstrators and multiple baiters. I, on the other hand, am obviously disappointed that it also found faults with me that I (and others) continue to think are unsustainable. AC awarded me with restrictions; the community awarded me with two barnstars! ("Defender of the Wiki" and "Civility") Hindu and Jain contributors insisted I not be restricted from religion articles. Is that a sign of a difficult editor? Or rather a sign of a neutral team-player?
 * Actually, I would love the whole case to be reviewed, because current discussion shows that it's high time I was exonerated completely, and that others got their trouting. But I'm not vain enough to think I'm that important, and not vindictive enough to want to see anyone trouted.
 * So, I'm certainly willing for us to review that ArbCom; but, if we do, the first points of business should be addressing the behaviour of administrators and baiters who were not explicitly considered at that time, contra Brad's criterion for taking on the case in the first place ("behaviour of all to be considered"). Observe the embarassing oversight regarding mediators and Abtract, and those were not the only obvious oversights, as several 3rd party posters evidence. Indeed, my own actions should be reconsidered also; and, as I have said, exoneration should be one of the possible outcomes. NCM also is actually one of the minor involved parties whose actions need to be explicitly reviewed if we conduct such a review.
 * However, because there are no outstanding restrictions on my account, I'm happy to let the whole thing slide. Internet communication is imperfect and I'm happy to write things off to that.


 * Addressing the current content issue


 * If the past is not reviewed, what about the future?
 * It is currently proposed that a topic ban be placed on my account. I don't wish to forestall further discussion of that option; but if it is enacted, I will almost certainly oppose it, in a wide range of forums until all past, as well as present, issues are resolved as thoroughly as possible. I have been adopting the low-profile response to very rude treatment for some time. Eventually one must indicate one is not a doormat.
 * Continued harassment of my account on the basis of presumed past indiscretions on my part is something of a concern to me. Especially when, in the current case, Kaldari is deliberately edit warring over reliably sourced material that many, many third parties have expressed a desire to see in article space. He is a late-comer to the content discussion and has appealed to process rather than sources to suppress information which he knows is recognised by the community as important, as well as by tons of reliable secondary material too.
 * But what's the real issue here? A brute fact like the universality of patriarchy is as unpopular with everyone as it is accepted by the more than 30,000 reliable sources (possibly most of them feminist, granted) regarding it, that were presented in a deletion discussion. It is simply unfair to pour scorn on a Wikipedian brave enough to cop the understandable flak for posting such an unpopular fact.
 * If any further discussion regarding my suitability to edit in that subject area is considered necessary, that's fine, but it needs to explicitly deal with the content issue at least indirectly. What impact does restricting Alastair lead to? It leads to erosion of reliably sourced material. How much drama is there when he operates without restrictions? Well, actually, there is little or no evidence of much drama at all. All blocks on Alastair's account bar one have been appeals to the AC restrictions, all bypassed content issues, and the grounds for the first have been overturned by subsequent events. Indeed, the blocks, on investigation will prove to be groundless, and they compromised reliable sources Alastair had been defending. Most on topics unrelated to patriarchy. (The Oxford Dictionary and Bible at other articles were two classic examples.)
 * In fact, the patriarchy article currently admits the universality of patriarchy, but attributes the discovery of that fact to feminism. That, of course, placates some readers, but does not reflect the history of the literature. Anthropology establishes the universality of patriarchy. The most prominent secondary source that synthesizes the anthropology, and the one attributed with doing so by the other secondary and tertiary literature is, very (in-)famously indeed, Steven Goldberg.
 * All this is covered in talk page and deletion discussions and is well known in the community now. However, it doesn't stop Kaldari from edit warring about it, challenging consensus and bypassing discussion, creating drama by bringing things here.
 * If we are to consider the future, what is good for content and harmony, Kaldari needs to be co-defendant. No priveleges for administrators. No priveleges for content area experts like myself either.
 * But why discuss it here? There are other forums specifically designed for it. AC has other pressing business. Kaldari saw a chance offered by AC restriction placed on me and he took it. Wouldn't you if you shared his personal convictions? But now those restrictions are past, there is a level playing field. Frankly, I think there will be less drama now, because people like Kaldari will not be able to bypass consensus building by wikilaywering, threatening (and acting) to attack me, rather than interact with my content-related actions and talk page comments.
 * Much of this is in answer to Tznkai's questions. My priorities are listed on my user page. The biology of gender is indeed one of my priorities, partly because documenting reliably sourced material stops people endlessly squabbling with one another rather than finding sources that are abundant, even online. (Singular they had editors going bouts with each other until I provided the linguistics they needed to settle the dispute.) I claim that "knowledge ends prejudice". Facts often show that opposing parties are both right and both wrong, since they've been overlooking reliable empirical evidence. Give people the facts and they stop fighting. Patriarchy is universal. So put the beast to death! But how do we know it is universal? By the hard work of women and men who did field studies in 3,000 societies in the early 20th century. Feminism is a superb and reliable source for exposing patriarchy in contemporary society. But can you find this information at Wiki? Only if you go back into the edit history. Why? Because Kaldari doesn't want you to know.
 * As scandalous or laughable as I think the Wiki community and beyond would find that. It might surprise people to know that I'm sophistated enough not to let such things change my priorities too much. The New Testament is much more important than the Wikpedia feminist task force censoring information. I'm not going to let people like Kaldari force me to make their agenda my number one concern. Mind you, I don't want him to keep getting away with it either. Were others taking action, I would relish the opportunity to wash my hands of it.
 * Stablizing some content is a long process, the longer the better, but making bids to silence reliable content providers is not the way to let that process work itself out. It is not me who is provoking drama, sources I provide perhaps, processes that do their best but remain imperfect perhaps. Can the blame-game stop soon, please.
 * Obviously I wouldn't like a topic ban, but it's not because I'm some one-track-minded POV pusher*, it's because reliable sources stabilize content and promote harmony, even when people don't like them. It's also because if AC here and now impose such a ban, it implies they believe I'm less than the reliable content editor I am known to be. It will be because they have been misled, and it will mislead others. Because it concerns my public reputation, I will, as I said, need to address that.
 * Although I trust no new restriction will be applied. If such is the considered wisdom of people here, please ensure you apply every due diligence, because the implications of such a decision are profound, and will, this time, be subject to intensive scrutiny.
 * Content and behaviour are not always easily separated. There is so much content related material underlying allegations against me, that although I don't have the experience to understand all ACs concerns, I understand enough to have refrained from appealing to it myself to solve content issues. I can only urge you to avoid getting entangled in content you are simply not expected by those who appointed you to have to deal with. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnote: observe that at the original AC the only voices against me were people who were found to be wrong on various points and had specific ideological commitments, yet voices endorsing me came from all sorts of subject areas and ideological backgrounds. I do not work alone. I do not work for myself. I love this project. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add this while retaining the previous post which answers questions posed by Tznkai. I've just discovered that User:Crusio is the editor-in-chief of Genes, Brain and Behavior. What that means is I don't need to "keep Kaldari honest" when it comes to deleting information regarding the biology of gender. For example, quite independently of me, Crusio has recently sourced a stub Brain Gender I put up some time ago, and restored after a speedy. Biology of gender material frequently gets rough treatment. But there's people much better qualified than me to handle it. Kaldari may have us believe Goldberg's explanation of patriachy can be dismissed as rejected by "most sociologists", but it is right in line with contemporary research. Knowing of an editor better qualified than me to handle content in the area, means I have a way to refer edits I think to be in error to a third party specifically equipped to deal with the content issue.
 * If the issue is ongoing disharmony, as I think it should be, we have a low-key remedy in at least one reliable point of contact.
 * If the issue is specifically trying to flag some fault in me. That's quite another thing indeed. Whatever it would be, would need to be something that could be demonstrated had been discussed informally with me on my talk page prior to any escalation.
 * I need to return to real life work. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
I have no opinion on Alastair Haines, Kaladari, or the case that led to this point, but my view point on the AE process is simple: enforcing administrators are not in the business of litigation, and they are not in the business of extending, shrinking or overturning Arbitration cases. A good enforcing admin will look beyond what information is given, but they are not obligated to have a omniscient wisdom and clairvoyance as to history, extenuating circumstances and various twists and turns. It is the participating parties who must make what they want, and why we should listen to them, clear.

On the matter of the relevant provision, time limited discretionary sanction remedies need to be better drafted to ensure whatever discretionary sanctions are imposed are either limited by the time sanction, or not. I've given it a shot. My instinct is with Sandstein, that discretionary sanctions should not live past their host remedy.

As a final thought, again professing ignorance and ambivalence to the case at hand, Arbitration remedies like this seem to be running under the assumption that a sanctioned editor is mucking up the article creation process, and not trying to, but it can also make them vulnerable to baiting and someone using enforcement as leverage for a content position, again, without really trying to. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but I operate under the assumption that ArbCom was aware of this danger, and thought it was worth the risk. I try to keep an eye out for manipulation of the process anyway, and I presume my fellow patrolling admins do as well.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) It appears I neglected the word "not" in my statement above, which is embarrassing, but I'm going to qualify it anyway in a moment.
 * Further comments

When ArbCom puts a time limit on a remedy, it seems to be telling enforcing administrators that it only believes the remedy needs to last for a certain time, or that ArbCom wants an opportunity to review it. The use of administrator discretion to extend a remedy past that time, or exercising discretion to extend remedies (somewhat like wishing for more wishes) seems contrary to the intent and the purpose of a time limit. Blocking in general is supposedly actually controlled by the enforcement provision, in this case up to a month, all of which seem to be signals against a year long ban. That said, I'm hardly going to argue against administrator discretion and flexibility, so maybe the rule of thumb is that a discretionary sanction should live past its host remedy, but not live longer.--Tznkai (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale
I think it's okay to review this, however, I don't think any sanction that was initiated at the time was wrong to begin with (in real-life a law that becomes ineffective do not retroactively apply to old situations.) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Clerk note: Please remember to only comment in your own section and avoid threaded discussions. Thank you, Tiptoety  talk 22:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment - I would normally say that imposing a block/topic ban that greatly exceeds the expiration date of the original sanctions should be avoided, but I suspect it is not that uncommon, actually. A good example is the escalating series of blocks that end in a year-long block in some cases (such year-long blocks would normally exceed the expiration date of the original sanction). There are also cases where editors have ended up indefinitely blocked following arbitration enforcement, and that remains long after the original case sanctions have expired. What is needed, I think, is for such sanctions to be reset. When Sandstein imposed the patriarchy topic ban in June 2009, he should have been able to reset the original sanctions to expire one year from that June 2009 date. This sort of resetting of sanctions is commonly seen when people evade a block. This would resolve the "remedy outliving the original sanction" issue, but would raise other issues as well. My view is that admins enforcing an arbitration ruling should have the discretion to reset the original sanctions. As for the specifics of this incident: (1) The case blanking was a courtesy (to respond to Sandstein's comment); (2) Alastair Haines should have at the very least asked for clarification on what the status of his topic ban was before his edits to articles in the Patriarchy topic; (3) Alastair Haines has said "I expect and welcome some rigorous content debate at Gender of God, Patriarchy and other places, when I get back to them, who knows when? But those articles have never have been my priority at Wiki and nor has discussion there reached fever-pitch much at all." - I have three questions here: (a) What is your priority at Wiki? (b) Where has discussion reached fever-pitch (not a good thing)? (c) Do others agree with what Alastair Haines has said here? But other than that, if Alastair Haines is willing to abide by the topic ban until it expires in June 2010, and Kaldari is happy with the original arbitration enforcement that led to that topic ban for Alastair Haines (and does not want to raise further issues), and future infractions of that topic ban are sanctioned as needed, then we are done here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker. This should be archived for the reasons given. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial reactions here are the same as Carcharoth's. Awaiting responses to his questions and observations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am extremely concerned by the tone of some of Alastair Haines's recent contributions and am watching this situation closely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where a remedy incorporates the ability for what might be termed delegated remedies to be implemented (as is the case here, or with discretionary sanctions remedies, for example), it would deprive the remedy of much of its meaning to interpret its time limit as automatically providing a time limit for delegated remedies applied under it. Of course, new delegated remedies can't be instituted beyond the time limit, but that shouldn't prevent ones instituted within the time limit from having all the necessary scope to be effective. In this case, the indefinite page ban as originally proposed in the arbitration enforcement thread would have been excessive and not supportable by the remedy. A year is a long term, but not excessive given community and arbitration standards on the subject of page bans. Thus, I think this page ban can stand. In the future I think we ought to be as specific about length of delegated remedies as we are about the length of blocks used to enforce remedies in order to avoid confusion in this area. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt in my mind that a sanction imposed as a consequence of an open-ended remedy can extend past the originally enabling remedy unless it was otherwise specified. The Committee imposes such remedies without the expectation that its expiration becomes a date for hostilities to resume.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that I find, as a rule, that imposition of topic bans by administrators to be one of the more measured responses to disruption &mdash; even in the cases where they were not specifically shored up by a specific arbitration remedy (though, arguably, the bar to impose them is lower when such a remedy is present). &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification. The expiration date of probations, discretionary sanction remedies, and related sanctions are the date when administrators can no longer impose measures under those sanctions. They are in no way a time limit on any restrictions or other measures imposed under those conditions. Vassyana (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Amendment request. I am very receptive to the amendment request. Alistair Haines continues to engage in several problematic patterns of behavior. Personal attacks and bad faith assumptions are ongoing. There is a continued denial of wrongdoing and tu quoque arguments. He continues to disregard community feedback regarding due weight, original research, and POV forking. He rejects the results of community consensus and processes. The restoration of the universality of patriarchy article is a very good illustration of these two previous points. Some of the principal signs of disruptive editing listed in the eponymous policy describe this situation. Currently I am considering an indefinite general conduct probation with discretionary sanctions. (This example is exactly the text I would use, except for the name of the editor.) I will wait for responses from the commenting editors and other arbitrators before moving to propose any measure. Vassyana (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker. Archive this and revisit the matter at a later time. Vassyana (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As Alistair Haines is currently taking a wikibreak due to personal reasons, I propose that this thread be archived, and this issue revisited when he returns. Risker (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Archive and revisit, per the compelling arguments advanced by Risker and Vassyana.  Roger Davies  talk 10:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * User:LisaLiel, 24h, for reverting on Messianic Judaism William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines, 48h, for edit warring on Gender of God . L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Abtract, 2 weeks, editing the same article, interacting and personal attacks on Alastair Hanes . Shell    babelfish 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines, 48h block for edit warring on Gender of God following request at arbitration enforcement.--Tznkai (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Abtract, one month, editing same article, reverting, gaming the rules, Any further infractions should result in a community ban. Jehochman Talk 11:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines, 1w block for edit warring on Virginity following discussion at arbitration enforcement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Abtract blocked for 1 month for editing the same article as AH, per request made at arbitration enforcement. Kevin (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines blocked for 2 weeks following request at arbitration enforcement, also topic-banned from editing patriarchy and all related pages (including discussions), broadly interpreted, for a year. Kaldari (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)