Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alastair Haines

Teclontz's outside view
This is a response to the outside view written by Teclontz. "And we tried to hammer out some ideas on the talk page instead of in edit wars". Nobody has claimed that he can't get on with anyone. The problem is that (in this case, at least) the majority of people have had difficulties with him and his style of editing. You say that the "only thing [you] fault Alastair for [...] is sticking it out with the article". Have you viewed the evidence given in the RfC? Ilkali (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I did, actually.  I admit that I didn't spend a lot of time with it, but it looked like a lot of people warning him about things that I had trouble connecting to any kind of provocation.  Perhaps I should spend more time with it, but I was hoping everyone would just shake hands and go to their respective corners.  Since it doesn't look like they are, I'll spend more time with it.Tim (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay -- I've read through the diffs. What they show is that Alastair asked for an apology, and you are asking for an apology here.  Sounds great.  Everyone should apologise.  Now, here's the way to apologise:
 * Whereas each person believed he was right
 * Whereas each person did not intend to give offense
 * Whereas each person did perceive offense
 * and Whereas "I'm sorry you were offended" is a fake apology implying "I'm sorry you're too stupid to realize I was only speaking rationally"
 * Therefore each person should truthfully, forthrightly, and unambiguously give a real apology like, "I'm sorry I offended you. I certainly didn't mean to, and will try to avoid it in the future."


 * Also, the diffs show another thing here... just reading them, it actually looked that a good half the time Alastair was being harmless and being threatened with being blocked, or ruled against, or whatever. Even if meant in a helpful way (and I'm sure it was), once you're in the minority it turns into a group-think situation in which the minority is wrong because he is a minority.  Granted, Wikipedia works on consensus.  But we all know that consensus isn't always right.  For proof, I'll guarantee that half of you will think the American consensus is dangerously wrong this November (if whoever you voted against wins).  I'd also like to point out that a person cannot participate in an edit war all by himself.  I've been in edit wars, and I was NOT happy about it at the time -- and I suspect the person on the end of the other undo button wasn't happy either.  So, accusing someone of engaging in an edit war BY HIMSELF is utter nonsense.  What was he doing, undoing himself?  No, you slap BOTH people for edit warring and put a stop to it.  The last time I was in an edit war an Admin came in and stopped us both (and I was thanking God for that admin!).


 * As for "threatening" and Arbcom (whatever the heck that is) "that he had no intention of"... let me get this straight, CONSIDERING something is worse than DOING something? How in the world does THAT figure?  Alastair was in an edit war.  Got it.  WITH WHO?  Why aren't we attacking the other person too?  Alastair considered some kind of action.  Got it.  Last I've seen there are SEVERAL actions not only being CONSIDERED, but actually being DONE to him.


 * Guys -- there's real work to do out here. Wikipedia is a big place.  Unless someone is changing your article so that it says something that is a flat out falsehood, let it die down and edit somewhere else until the excitment goes away, then come back, or get a third opinion.  Is it wrong for people to delete true information?  Sure.  But it's not as bad as putting in false information (which may be what the other person thinks you've got).  And letting it pass to edit profitably elsewhere is far more productive to Wikipedia AS A WHOLE than continuing to slug it out in a single article.


 * I know this, because I've been ridiculously guilty of it myself. We are not GENDER OF GOD editors.  We are WIKIPEDIA editors.  If someone jerks something out and won't listen to what you think is reason, just make sure he hasn't put in something down right FALSE, and go edit another page.  We have a huge encyclopedia that needs a lot of work and effort that we are wasting in one article, and in discussion of the article, and in actions and mediations about the article, and in discussions of the actions and mediations about the article, and in actions and mediations about the editors, and in....


 * ...it never ends. We'll hit the end of the internet before finding out who's "right."  You're all right.  But you're not alright, because you're fighting instead of editing.  It's a wonder the whole site's servers haven't crashed from the overhead by now.Tim (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "What they show is that Alastair asked for an apology, and you are asking for an apology here". I'm not. And I'm happy to apologise when I think I have erred. I apologised when I mistakenly removed the gender section from the article, and I'm willing to apologise for a few of the harsher things I said to Alastair. But I won't apologise for criticising his attitude to editing, and he won't be satisfied until I do.
 * "Granted, Wikipedia works on consensus. But we all know that consensus isn't always right". Is this intended to justify his ignoring consensus? If editors are justified in ignoring consensus when they disagree with it, in what way does Wikipedia "work on consensus"?
 * "I'd also like to point out that a person cannot participate in an edit war all by himself. So, accusing someone of engaging in an edit war BY HIMSELF is utter nonsense". This is precisely what Alastair has been doing from the start. Despite being blocked twice for 3RR violations, he refuses to acknowledge that he has edit-warred. This is part of the problem. He seems incapable of considering that he may have erred at any point.
 * "As for "threatening" and Arbcom (whatever the heck that is) "that he had no intention of"... let me get this straight, CONSIDERING something is worse than DOING something?". I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The string "that he had no intention of" doesn't appear anywhere in any summary. I'll assume you're talking about Rushyo's summary? I wouldn't like to speak for him, and I haven't read all the exchanges he's had with Alastair, but the idea of threatening a mediator - someone who's volunteered to help settle a content dispute - with an Arbcom case just for criticising his conduct is atrocious. To make such a threat with no intention of carrying it out is bullying, plainly and simply.
 * Can I direct you to a few diffs in particular? How about this one, or this? How about his abandoning a mediation case and the content issues raised therein, simply because it focused too much on content on not enough on punishing an editor Alastair had clashed with? Would you agree that these represent poor behaviour? Ilkali (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Itali, it appears that the first instance was his asking for outside opinion (which is a reasonable first step), and that the second instance was trying to show some diffs of what he needed an opinion about. Well -- isn't that what you have done also -- in an escalated way?  I think this quote from you might help: "I'm happy to apologise when I think I have erred".  That's true for most of us, but here's the problem: it's not our thinking we have erred that brings the need for an apology, or else we'd be apologising to ourselves.  It's the OTHER person's thinking we have erred that makes the need for the apology.  And we aren't apologizing for their thoughts (which is just calling someone stupid); we are apologizing for our actions that they take to be wrong.  Here's the rub -- if we MEAN no offense, then we HAVEN'T done anything "wrong."  But people who MEAN no offense are the people who DO apologize, for precisely that reason.  The only reason NOT to apologize is that you DO mean offense (I'm talking to everyone here, myself included).
 * "Is this intended to justify his ignoring consensus". No, and I apologize if I worded it in a way that led you to think so.  It was certainly not my intention.  My intention, in context, is to urge everyone to shake hands, stop edit warring on all sides (since it's technically impossible to edit war by yourself), and to walk away when the consensus is strong arming against a rational edit (hint: we ALL think our own edits are rational).  My point is simply this -- although we DO edit with a consensus, those of us IN that consensus cannot congratulate ourselves for being "right."  We EDIT on consensus, but quite often that consensus is flat out wrong and hopefully will be corrected by a later consensus with cooler heads.  That's the beauty of Wikipedia -- the consensus can change later.
 * When I pointed out that Alastair could not have been edit warring by himself you wrote "This is precisely what Alastair has been doing from the start". I must confess that I'm a bit at a loss here.  I've seen no times in which Alastair was 3RR reverting his own edits.  And you can't undo an undo that someone hasn't undoed for you to undo.  So, any accusation of an edit war must have someone else involved.  You CAN say, "Alastair and such-and-such were edit warring" but it's a but odd to say, "Alastair and some invisible ghost were edit warring."  Who is that invisible ghost?  Let's resurrect the spirit and bring him here for a last judgment, shall we?
 * As I said, I looked at your diffs. They did not show Alastair in any worse light than his detractors.  And that's the problem.  We are wasting good editing time here.
 * Finally, I recognize that the consensus could be against my view, also. And again, that's the problem: people being AGAINST someone.  I'd really suggest we all shake hands and call it a day.  And if I've offended you, please believe that it was poor editing skills on my part and was not intentional.  Thanks.Tim (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for general comments on the disagreement at Gender of God. This RfC is for discussion of user Alastair Haines. Suggestions that we "all shake hands and call it a day", while possibly well-motivated, are not helpful here.
 * "Itali, it appears that the first instance was his asking for outside opinion (which is a reasonable first step)". He wasn't asking for an opinion, he was prescribing one: "a couple of trouble-making editors have been playing games", "They've said enough to show they're trouble, but it's the edit style that proves it", "They need to be confronted", "sign below if you've got some time and patience, a cool head, and understand why this needs to be done". He was explicitly requesting aid from people who agree with him, and he was being extraordinarily uncivil while doing it.
 * "and that the second instance was trying to show some diffs of what he needed an opinion about". He inserted his own derogatory commentary into the conversation. You might have an argument if he'd immediately reverted himself - he could've linked others to the version with commentary while leaving it out of the canonical version - but when somebody removed his text, he repeatedly restored it! That's what lead to his first 3RR block.
 * "When I pointed out that Alastair could not have been edit warring by himself you wrote "This is precisely what Alastair has been doing from the start". I must confess that I'm a bit at a loss here". You might want to look again at what I quoted.
 * "As I said, I looked at your diffs. They did not show Alastair in any worse light than his detractors". This strains my efforts to believe you are looking at it neutrally. Ilkali (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we are agreed that we suspect the objective skills of each other... But, again, I think we need to recognize that. I've repeatedly said that Alastair should have simply moved to another article while the consensus was against him in this one -- and simply found a different subject of interest and knowledge in which he could work with a consensus.  I hope you would agree to that also.  The problem of this fight is that people have been fighting.  And as for my ability to READ... rather than question my motive, perhaps question my eyesight.  After all... I've apparently been typing your screen name flat out wrong the whole time... and I assure you I had no motive for that!
 * I think Alastair should have stopped it.
 * I think the people undoing his undos should have stopped it.
 * I think we have an opportunity to stop it -- this and all the other mediation cabals or what-nots.
 * After all, isn't peace and harmonious consensus the real goal here? Yes, truth too -- but not Truth with a capital T.  We don't have any control over that.Tim (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

 * Comment I just want to point out that the user in question has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats against the Foundation. If he retracts his statements, he will be unblocked, but I don't know whether we want to continue this? L'Aquatique [review  ]  04:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm closing this for now. If the block has been lifted by or within 2 weeks, then I'll re-open it (as if it's a temporary close). Otherwise, this is pretty much resolved. Let me know of any updates here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been unblocked. Apparently his threat to sue everyone wasn't a threat when he realised what he'd said entailed. Exactly what he's on the line here for... -Rushyo (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The block was lifted . Oops, didn't see Rushyo's comment. Ilkali (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the above, I've reopened it. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So...
What now? Do we sit around until the apocalypse, waiting for him to write some sort of response? He's made it quite clear he wants nothing to do with this RfC, sees no problems with his behavior, and will continue to act this way. What do we do now? L'Aquatique [le faux nez  ]  08:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there's no need to wait for a response here. But the purpose of the RFC is to give him a chance to try to improve (if he has engaged problematic conduct). If after a period of time (maybe 2 weeks) there's no change in his conduct, then proceed to the next step on WP:DR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks- L'Aquatique [review  ]  09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the only people who are continuing aggressive behaviour is us.Tim (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional evidence
I didn't want to place this in the body of the RfC because of the time difference, but I need to keep track of it somewhere, so:

Alastair attacks me out of the blue on a talk page he had never previously edited. There was an RfC leading there, so I don't suspect stalking, but his tone and words are clearly uncivil:. Ilkali (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You were a bit hard on the buster fellow, but yikes. I would think this needs to go in the evidence section since its further evidence of his incivility and more importantly a sign that he still intends to persue an arbcom case. <font color="#000000">L'Aquatique <font color="#838B8B">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#838B8B">review  ]  17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)