Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: SirFozzie (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Move case to alternative forum

1) I propose the current case be moved to an alternative forum. Arbitrators have compromised any appearance of neutrality by their own admission of forming conclusions prior to the closure of evidence. Additionally, the participation of non-neutral arbitrators, who cannot WP:AGF, also by their own admission, fundamentally violates the foundations on which RfArs have validity. The issues here can easily be settled, but this forum has proved to be an unhelpful one for that purpose. The aim is to resolve issues via a genuine process, not a mere show of one. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, no - see below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Alastair here. Coren will not recuse himself, although there is no reason not to. Agreed to time limits are being unilaterally broken. Arbitrators speak of "not delaying the inevitable" and "foregone conclusions". Most venues at least pretend to be impartial, but there's not even a pretense here -- and there's no reason for it.

Consider this for a moment, if the "conclusion" is so "obvious" then a different venue will come to the same conclusion.

The only reason to refuse after so many admissions of bias would be that you actually thought a different venue would come to a different conclusion.

So I ask you -- is there ANY administrator here who SERIOUSLY thinks a different venue will come to a different conclusion? You risk nothing, and gain everything here.EGMichaels (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EGMichaels, no uninvolved user agrees that this should have been taken somewhere else. Also, please stop being a dead horse - this frivolous argument about recusal has been addressed multiple times on the evidence talk page (and below on this page). It has nothing to do with partiality, but everything to do with giving parties an opportunity to voluntarily address their conduct short of binding and involuntary outcomes. Wikipedia has its own dispute resolution process, and arbitration is a final resort to produce binding outcomes when voluntary remedies or previous binding outcomes did not sufficiently make the desired effect on the sanctioned user(s). Both the principal party after which this case was named, as well as the filing party, submitted themselves to arbitration as can be seen here - if any party wanted to exhaust a more preliminary step, that is when they should have argued it. There is also no such thing as "agreed to timelimits" or the like. I suggest you consult the arbitration guide to hopefully improve your understanding of this arbitration process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm -- thanks for your reply. I believe at the time Alastair agreed to the arbitration he had no idea that Coren would be an arbitrator for a case that he himself laid the foundations for. To quote Vizzini from the Princess Bride: "Inconceivable!" My own jaw dropped when I saw that, and I told a couple of non-Wikipedia friends who thought I needed to use the computer less often. When Coren didn't simply recuse himself I knew it was a foregone conclusion. But when admins and others start SAYING it here (I think you also used the term "foregone conclusion") and don't even pretend to be impartial, there's nothing to lose for Alastair or I to point it out. Do I expect a different venue? Of course not! Only an impartial panel would agree to it. A truly partial panel will simply say "no!" and plow ahead. So, Alastair had to ask -- I had to ask as well -- even knowing that he would be turned down in the request.

As I said to you before, there's no reason not to have granted the recusal from the start. No one really expects true impartiality, but people do like to enjoy the pretense of it. Look, seriously, I believe Alastair knew it was a foregone conclusion even before Kaldari raised the case. We all did. But we at least wanted you folks to pretend to "arbitrate". Admittedly, it's a conceit we humans have. It's why we like to watch law and order. We want "process" to be followed, even when no one really believes what they are doing. What we balk at is when the Judge himself breaks the "fourth wall" and tells the audience, "I can't wait to bust this guy." That's the District Attorney's line. We need to stick to our lines, folks!EGMichaels (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your reply, I think your non-Wikipedia friends thought correctly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think so too. Below your quota of disillusioned editors, eh?EGMichaels (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deferral of proposed decisions

2) I move that proposed decisions be held over until results from the alternative forum become available. This protects current arbs from being responsible for bringing Wikipedia processes into disrepute, while upholding them in their role as ultimate arbitrators. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, if it is THAT straightforward, you risk nothing.EGMichaels (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No. I'd be quite vocal about this issue if it was occurring. Sufficient comment was made to make each party's position clear. ArbCom is now ensuring that dispute resolution does not become inaccessible due to unreasonable and lengthy delays in straightforward cases; that does not equate to Wikipedia processes being brought into disrepute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Arbitrators to withhold comment until evidence is complete

1) I propose an injunction on arbitrator comment, other than clerking, until May 17, closure of evidence and start of workshopping. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Um, no. SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will expand, Alastair: You apparently are unclear on the nature of cases before the Arbitration Committee. Parties and observers can comment and discuss cases, but the Arbitration Committee's decisions ( per the proposed decision voting page) are what gets used to resolve the case before the Committee. If you are not willing to abide by Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies, as you are apparently un-willing to abide by the commonly understood editing policies, there is a simple solution. You can cease contributing to Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Fozzie, it's unclear to me that arbitrators actually get a vote in this kind of injunction. It would appear that it's a matter for parties and observers to decide. As such, something more than "I don't like that" from an arbitrator is required, I would think. Please expand on "um, no" (which is rather unpersuasive). Alastair Haines (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that you, Fozzie, are unwilling, in the current case, to abide by dispute resolution policies, along with Kaldari, Coren and others. There is no such evidence regarding me, and plenty to the contrary: such as me even discussing this matter with you. Your comment demonstrates very clearly a failure to assume good faith, and is further evidence that the injunctions and motions I've proposed are not only wise, but necessary, given even your own attitude as posted right here. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I see no good reason to delay the inevitable - see also my comment on the proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is THAT inevitable, there is no reason to avoid the appearance of propriety.EGMichaels (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decisions deferred at least until motions above decided

2) I propose an injunction on arbitrator attempts to exclude further evidence from the case. Ideally this should be in effect until the 17th as previously agreed, at the very least it should be in effect until the motions above have attracted sufficient comment from parties other than arbitrators. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not happening. Each party has provided sufficient comment to make their position clear; I see no good reason in this case to delay the inevitable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if it is THAT inevitable, there is no reason to avoid the appearance of propriety.EGMichaels (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you begin familiarising yourself with the policies, guidelines, essays, and norms of Wikipedia dispute resolution; your claims about avoiding propriety are frivolous. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me WHICH policy says that arbitrators should admit bias before evidence is fully submitted. I'd love to see it.EGMichaels (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to have missed where you gave me a link to the dispute resolution policy or norm suggests any impropriety has occurred in this case. Can you provide it again please? Perhaps you know of previous cases that supports your view? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm, you're the expert -- please show me ANY policy that says arbitrators should admit bias before evidence is fully submitted.EGMichaels (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you didn't quite catch the hint; there is no policy that suggests arbitrators have acted improperly in this case - if there was, I'd have been vocal about that, as I said above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look -- you've actually had me digging to see if the policy fails to address the necessary impartiality of an arbitration committee. You could be right and the policy just doesn't mention it. While it SHOULD go without saying (in the real world an "arbitrator" is necessarily not an involved party or partial to one), it may HAVE gone without saying -- in which case this ArbCom is not in violation and the policy needs amendment. But I can't find the absence of something on the entire site! I need you to give me the EXACT policy that would address the subject either way and I'll go through it. But proving a negative is impossible unless you give me a finite area to search. Fair?EGMichaels (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm... hello? Did I lose you? There is limited time on this case. Have you found the relevant policy that allows a person to arbitrate a case in which he is biased?EGMichaels (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread my reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You gave no information of a specific policy which allows bias on an arbitration. An "arbitration" is by definition "the hearing and determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed to by both parties." There is no way that Alastair would or could have agreed to Coren as an impartial referee -- and now you are trying to argue that there is no policy requiring an arbitrator to be impartial. Well, it you don't mean "impartial" then don't use a term like "arbitrator" which is by definition "impartial." We are communicating in English here. We need to use it.EGMichaels (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Kaldari

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Maunus, Kalidari, and Jeffro77 as a group have engaged in uncivil behavior toward Alistair based on his religious beliefs. They have undermined the spirit of camaraderie and mutual respect that is supposed to exist among contributors. See below:

@Alistair These endless efforts to game the system by slicing and dicing a dozen different definitions (and definitions of definitions) are pretty transparent. Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus violates WP: civility

@Alistair This is an excellent example of how you twist sources to appear to confirm your views. There are two possible explanations: bad faith editing or you are simply not intellectually capable of understanding simple phrases. Maunus•ƛ• 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair We are not nearing consensus and you're biases are so blatant that not mentioning them would be a crime towards wikipedias foundational principles. We have provided sources all along - that you choose to disregard them instead flaunt your irrelevant theological sophistry is not our fault.•Maunus•ƛ• 10:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair Your hypocrisy is clearly visible… •Maunus•ƛ• 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair …As for the rudeness with which you were received as I have hinted that a modest amount of introspection might lead you on to why that might have been…Maunus•ƛ• 14:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro77 violates WP: civility

Alastair, I'm fairly sure you already know the etymology of the words Christ and Messiah, and I certainly don't need to cite the 'Kid's Alamanac' for it. Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Deadtotruth (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deadtotruth posted this in several places. Response at [1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deadtotruth's broader claim including me among editors who have "engaged in uncivil behavior toward Alistair based on his religious beliefs" has not been demonstrated. Though I have certainly argued, logically and with sources, about the suitability of including Alastair's points of view in Wikipedia articles, I have not objected to Alastair holding any particular belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari has created a battleground for his ideological beliefs by calling for this arbcom while ignoring the violations of WP by his allies in the JW article. In fact his request for this arbcom without asking for a similar arbcom of Maunas indicates that Kaldari has pursued the witch hunt pattern of editorial escalation that I describe on the talk page. He is seeking to censor those he is opposed to while turning a blind eye to wp violations of those who share his ideological beliefs.Deadtotruth (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Kaldari's failure to open an ArbCom case about my conduct has to do with the fact that we had never interacted even once prior to him opening the case about Alastair. Only after opening the case did he arrive at talk JW where he had a chance to observe my behaviour. However, you should probably consider requesting a case about me yourself (or at the very least open an ANI case about my behaviour) as it is apparently imperative for you that I be punished in the harshest terms possible. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard wording and seems appropriate to this case. Shell ^babelfish 23:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kaldary is gaming the system by calling for an arbcom against those who don't share his ideological views without calling for similar action against those who share his ideological views. After reviewing the info on the JW page, I found ample evidence that Maunas violation wp:civility and even though kaldari was aware of this he ignored it. Thus this is nothing more than a witch hunt to silence Kaldari's ideological opponents which is a WP:civility violation.Deadtotruth (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kaldari has created an edit war with EG Michaels and Alistair haines. Kaldari has arbitrarily and unilaterally removed over a half dozen references without any attempt to discuss his differences rationally. Kaldari has formed a clique with Maunas and Jeffro77 in order to edit war and has now escalated this into the present arbcom which follows the witch hunt pattern that I describe on the talk page. Deadtotruth (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and undue weight

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; all relevant views should be represented in proportion to the prevalence of views in reliable sources. Undue weight should not be given to individual opinions or aspects which are peripheral to the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kaldari has removed references that don't agree with his individual opinion and instead of ensuring that all relevant views are represented in due proportion he is trying to remove references and ban those who don't agree with him.Deadtotruth (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

5) On-wiki threats of legal action against other editors are intimidating and are therefore incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing model. See Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Legal threats. Any general discussion of legal issues related to Wikipedia participation should be conducted in a non-threatening fashion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would add that constant threats or implied threats that one will seek legal remedies against the Wikimedia Foundation are also inappropriate, especially when the threats are frivolous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perceived legal threats

6) Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if an editor asserts that a second editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", the second editor will often interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, less charged wording, such as "you have misstated my position in this dispute" or "you have made a statement about me that is not true and I hope you will retract it for the following reasons" is far preferable to an allegation of defamation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Might need some tightening up of the wording, but this principle is important to the case. Shell ^babelfish 23:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was originally mine (on the workshop in the original Alastair Haines case, I believe), so any suggestions for improving it would be welcome. The essence is that it is better to avoid legalistic language whenever possible, for the same reasons that overt legal threats are undesirable, rather than need to police the precise borders of the NLT policy.

I do not understand the point that Deadtotruth is making, but if his position that editors should routinely throw around terms like "defamatory" when discussing civility issues, he is incorrect. Editors must not act in this fashion and are subject to sanctions if they do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at the civility noticeboard especially this link [2]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kaldari appears to be trying to defame Alistair haines by referring to a previous arbcom that was blanked because it contained flagrantly defamatory statements concerning Alistair. WP wording includes the word defamatory when referring to uncivil comments by editors. Since Wikipedia uses the term defammatory it is entirely appropriate to refer to any remarks as defamatory in a WP: civility complaint see civility noticeboard [3]. What is important is that editors not defame other editors and that all admins should immediately intervene to stop defamation. Both Shell and Kaldari appear to not be supporting wp concerning defammation by implying that anyone should be censored for reporting defammation. This is just another reason that Kaldari should be removed as an admin - he wants to investigate the victims instead of the perpetrators. Alistair was unquestionnably defamed in the coren arbcom debacle which is why wikipedia blanked the investigation page. I believe that Kaldari should apologize to alistair for implying in any way that it is improper to complain about defamation see [4]. Failing an apology, Kaldari should be suspended as an admin.Deadtotruth (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, the problem here is that a number of people considered Alastair to have been (at least potentially) defamed. Alastair was one. I was another. A publisher was another. Deadtotruth is a fourth. As I noted, although not all incivility is "defamation" ALL defamation is uncivil -- and Wikipedia does have a civility policy. The previous ArbCom was grossly misguided by gagging Alastair for complaining about... incivility... without taking any concern to stop the... incivility... itself. At the very least Coren should have applied the civility policy and stopped the problem at its source. Instead, he gagged Alastair for complaining about being defamed without stopping the defamation which was occurring all over the ArbCom discussions. I was shocked to see Coren still an admin, let alone on the arbitration committee. Honestly, I would have never guessed after that debacle he would still be around, because his actions would have left Wikipedia vulnerable had Alastair ACTUALLY been making legal threats.

Let me walk you through the logic here: an organization has no legal vulnerability when it follows its own policy. The vulnerability happens when someone in authority refuses to follow his own policy -- in this case, Coren. Had Coren been dealing with a litigious person he would have actually created a problem in the real world. Thankfully he was only toying with Alastair, who was NOT making legal threats, but rather pointing out that POLICY needed to be applied.

Our safety here comes from Alastair (who is not litigious). Our problem comes from Coren (who continues to refuse to apply policy).

Alastair's still appealing to POLICY -- Wikipedia policy -- not to a court of law. There is no legal threat. There is instead a policy request.

Coren was the problem then, and not Alastair. But we have an opportunity to right what was wrecked in the first ArbCom by simply encouraging administrators to follow policy.

All of this can be de-escalated easily. You are thankfully dealing with someone who is not litigious. Coren (the principle party in this ArbCom because of the last) has been asked to apologize and permanently apply Wikipedia civility policy to the text of the previous ArbCom.

I'm serious -- ASK Alastair what he wants here and if he would be satisfied with Coren applying Wikipedia policy. I'm confident that's pretty much all he's ever wanted. It costs Coren nothing more than five minutes, and it saves us all from endless contention that drags hapless administrators like Kaldari in its wake thinking they have a tiger on the prowl, when instead they have a pussycat. Alastair is the victim here. Don't gag him for screaming rape. Just apply policy. We really DO have good policies here. I recommend them highly.EGMichaels (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration rulings

7) Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee. Violations will be regarded seriously.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Past sanctions

1) Alastair Haines has previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, inappropriate removal of comments, and making legal threats.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Important. Whether or not the recipient of the sanctions agreed with them isn't relevant. Shell ^babelfish 23:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The grounds for those sanctions are disputed. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The previous arbcom made restrictions on both sides equally, and had to be blanked out because potentially libelous comments were actively being made on the arbcom itself -- at the request of a third party.

In other words, the arbcom was gagged -- not Alastair.EGMichaels (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin coren was sanctioned for sanctioning alastair. No one should be sanctioned for reporting defamation whether it is perfomed by another editor or an admin. Defamation is clearly against the WP:civility guidelines and should be reported as such see civility noticeboard [5]. Deadtotruth (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute

2) The majority of Alastair Haines' disruptive editing is centered around articles related to gender (including Patriarchy, Why Men Rule, Gender of God, Gender and religion, Singular they, Virginity, Hijra (South Asia)). He has also engaged in contentious editing at Jehovah's Witnesses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The locus of dispute is Kaldari's concern that Alastair sometimes contributes what Kaldari believes to be conservative and Christian sources. Here, Kaldari is simply observing that I have participated in editing and discussing content at the articles he lists, as I have at many others. Theology of gender is part of my current research project, so it's hardly surprising I contribute, as I have at Song of Songs, Israelian Hebrew and Gender. God and gender are controversial topics, so nor is it surprising that discussion is sometimes needed. It's either a miracle, or credit to most parties involved, that discussion is normally civil. Conspicuous by their absence are my current involvement in an FA nomination for Iravan—a patron god of the hijra—and my documentation of Bahasa Binan. It is only in articles where Kaldari has a non-conservative point of view and I have provided "conservative" sources that there is any dispute. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have only edited two of the articles above, or three if you count talk pages. My personal point of view is irrelevant, nor do I object to presenting conservative Christian points of view with due weight. Kaldari (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you consider Steven Goldberg to be conservative, and anti-gay, and he ain't neither. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-gay?? I consider Goldberg's research to be terribly one-sided (biology vs. sociology, not liberal vs. conservative). Even his biology is outdated at this point, however. Kaldari (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Goldberg's biology is well and truly out of date, albeit still sound. However, ethnographies pre-dating Western influence do not date. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely so, EGM, Kaldari has used processes to intimidate and gag me, allowing him to remove reliably sourced content associated with Steven Goldberg (conveniently absent from his list). The locus of dispute is actually content, masquerading as conduct issues. However, that in itself is a conduct issue—Kaldari's conduct. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that Kildari is a person of good faith. The problems with Goldberg are not a matter of opinion. The arbitrators should try to get a copy of his book and also look at the reviews in American Anthropologist. I have a copy of the book. There is mention of biological and anthropological knowlege, but it is not easy to find. The first 3 footnotes in chapter one are a statement from Goldberg himself--not another book, just his own opinion. I'm talking about the text through page 19. I can't even believe he is still being discussed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It is apparent from this exchange that Kaldari is trying to win a content dispute by gagging another editor involved (Alastair). Content disputes are not legitimate matters for an ArbCom.EGMichaels (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines is a valued contributor

3) Alastair frequently contributes resourcefully and productively in other topic areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And I frequently contribute helpfully at religious and gender articles, like Gender itself, and Misogyny. I really appreciate this comment Kaldari, but not if you're angling for me to be restricted within your own area of contribution. The discussions you and I could have on talk pages could be helpful things. I doubt we'd always disagree. Please look carefully at Talk:Hijra (South Asia). I am a long way from being the kind of conservative you might think I am. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in areas where I agree with your point of view, I don't agree with your editing and discussion style. Trying to seek consensus with you is generally just tilting at windmills. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses for example, my personal point of view is even more extreme than yours. I would characterize Jehovah's Witnesses as a criminal organization or brainwashing cult if I were writing a personal essay. On Wikipedia, however, they are entitled to be called a "Christian denomination" just as any other branch of Christianity is. I take WP:NPOV seriously, and I still hold out hope that you will come around to it some day. Kaldari (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't agree about the JWs then. I don't know enough about them to judge them. Operation Mobilisation tells me they are a "Christian denomination", which I've never disputed. The Oxford tells me a "Christian" is one who "professes" the "doctrines" of the NT. The CCC tells me the NT says Jesus is God. That means RS say there are two POVs. L.R. from Alberta needed an editor to provide RS for his POV, so I did. Now there is less reader surprise at the JW article and more neutrality will hopefully mean more stability for text, harmony for editors.

Show me one place where you've accepted a proposal I've made. I could make the same accusation about "Windmills" against you. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair's ability to make valued contributions is not being contested. However, when Alastair holds a strong view, he is not above ignoring comments from other editors as well as from reliable sources (Catholic Encyclopedia), or taking others' comments ('L.R. of Alberta') and sources (catholic cardinal re inter-religious dialogue) out of context to support his view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I've found Alastair to be incredibly level headed and fair in my dealings with him on various articles. He has an engaging and open manner that can make someone mistakenly feel he will get full scale support. This is entirely not the case. There have been a number of occasions in which Alastair has personally supported my POV, and even agreed with it, and yet encouraged me to go with consensus.

I've even seen Alastair bow to other people's wording that he personally disagrees with, and even researched better sources to justify their use of terms against his own. While partisan editors could become disillusioned at not having a meat puppet in such a supportive and encouraging fellow editor, most reasonable editors appreciate being encouraged to back down when they are on the wrong end of a consensus.

What Alastair will NOT compromise on is Wikipedia process. He won't allow validly sourced material -- even material he doesn't personally support -- to be arbitrarily deleted. As I do, he prefers to err on the side of sources, and err on the side of inclusion of all notable POVs in the body of an article, and exclusion of contested POVs from ledes and titles (so that they do not contradict any other POVs represented in the body).

On several occasions I have been discouraged at the process, and Alastair has continually encouraged me that Wikipedia will eventually right whatever content issues I've seen.

Alastair's only "fault" here is being too patient on subjects I would walk away from. It leaves him vulnerable to sideline attacks such as this ArbCom diversion from a simple content dispute. I've even seen Alastair attacked for (gasp) being polite!EGMichaels (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(regarding Jehovah's Witnesses discussion) Folks, we're back to content disputing here -- in any case, Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves a Christian denomination. They consider themselves as true Christianity, in contrast to false Christendom. We need to be respectful of all POVs and represent them fairly. While some sources could call them a "Christian denomination", there are other sources which say otherwise. When there is such a conflict, find another wording that doesn't create a disconnect. Ach! Now I'M content disputing!EGMichaels (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Come on, EMichaels, that's just being cheeky. In effect, "Hey, no content disputes! Here's my final word on the content dispute. Now, no content disputes!")--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is cheeky -- and it is my position that Alastair has behaved better than you or I on the Jehovah's Witness page. I'm sure you can agree that he agreed in principle with me but in consensus with you far sooner than either of us could agree with each other. The fact that the most agreeable editor involved is being the focus of an arbcom is, at best, bizarre.EGMichaels (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Alastair behaved better than you did, but I don't agree that he behaved better than I did, though I believe that B_Fizz and Bradv behaved better than I did. I think the overall issues are too complicated to characterize the ArbCom as bizarre.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued legal threats and posturing

4) Alastair has continued a pattern of intimidating other editors with thinly veiled (or occasionally overt) threats of legal action, even after being warned against making actual or perceived legal threats at his previous Request for Arbitration.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alastair.. you are making Kaldari's point for him. Saying things like you have grounds for legal action, etcetera, will be taken as a thinly disguised threat here by many. I urge you to reconsider this path you are taking. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per SirFozzie, in the strongest terms. It is mandatory that this behavior cease immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly one of the largest concerns here. These comments cross the line; using legal terminology to bully other editors is not acceptable. Shell ^babelfish 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadtotruth: Are you kidding? The post office does mail confirmation all the time without needing to involve a lawyer. If you start talking lawyers, it's completely reasonable to assume someone is referring to legal action (even then it's not usually the lawyers who perform the confirmation). Shell ^babelfish 02:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have never made legal threats against other editors.[13] I have reminded people that we need to protect the Foundation's legal responsibilities (WP:CC-BY-SA 4d). Alastair Haines (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're aware, the Foundation is protected by common carrier status. Regardless, they have their own lawyers and don't need our help. When you talk about "slander" and "libel", the people who would be legally responsible are the posters, not the Foundation. Obfuscating the target of your threats doesn't make them less intimidating or more acceptable. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err Kaldari, it is not possible to sue an anonymous Wikipedian. I repeat, you have precisely no evidence of any threat, real or implied against any Wikipedian, let alone one using a real name. But you are quite correct: the Foundation have their own lawyers and can look after themselves. So, there have never been grounds for blocking me for legal threats. It is you that's the wiki-lawyer here, and you who repeatedly escalates without warning, which is genuine intimidation. Whether the Foundation can be held liable for things published by the ArbCom it appoints is a legal question on which I take advice from lawyers, of course. It's none of our business here. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: Thanks Fozzie, I hear what you are saying. There is no evidence that I have ever even implied a legal threat against any other editor. Kaldari notes the Foundation can look after itself. So, the whole legal threats thing should be dropped, unless it can be shown I've implied a legal threat against an editor. It is not fair to raise the matter of legal threats, because I cannot speak in defense without the whole thing being raised again. I'm perfectly happy to withdaw my comments, so long as the accusations I was responding to are also withdrawn (or suitably modified). How could I offer more? But how can it be fair to have accusations made, that are not allowed to be defended without raising exactly the same problem?

Perhaps there is an easy way out of this. Since implied legal threats against the Foundation is an accusation that clearly also involves two known Wikipedia editors other than myself, we probably cannot apply due diligence to resolving that matter here without them being invited. That also benefits Coren, who was also involved in this. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EGMichaels: The ArbCom discussion was blanked as a courtesy since Alastair edits under his real name (as was explained in the previous ArbCom). It had nothing to do with issues of libel, despite whatever Alastair claims. (In cases of actual libel, diffs are deleted, not simply blanked.) Your claim that Alastair hasn't made any actual legal threats is also rather flimsy: "if the defamatory material regarding me... is not removed by Wikipedia review processes, after repeated urgings by me to that effect, within the period allowed by the revised statute of limitations in Australian defamation law, I shall regretably need to have a lawyer send a letter to the Foundation." That is one of the most straight-forward legal threats I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kaldari, granted there are various receipts for mail that a person can obtain to supposedly "prove" that mail was delivered and received by another party. However only a person who used a recognized clerk of court (a lawyer) who as an extension of the court can confirm that mail was both sent and received can prove that the mailing occurred correctly. It is not a legal threat to use a lawyer to confirm that mail was sent and received by two parties in fact it is required for certain types of documents many of which are not legal threats but are simply notifications. By the way, registered mail is not proper proof that the other person received mail. Alastair seems to be referring to be able to send mail that he can prove that was both sent and received. There is no legal threat implied in trying to properly confirm that mail was both sent and received. I believe that you possibly are uniformed with properly proving that mail was sent and received. For what it's worth some invoices are sent via this process - I have used this form of billing to prove that an invoice had been delivered. However I still didn't get paid but I could prove that the person did know about the invoice. Remember this is not a legal threat just an official way of sending mail and proving that it was received.Deadtotruth (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari -- the previous ArbCom was blanked because a publisher got wind of the libel and asked that it be removed per Wikipedia policy. Coren apparently mistook me for that publisher and mistook Alastair for that same publisher, as if we were the same person, without opening a sockpuppet investigation to even check his facts (for the record, although both of us are writers, neither of us are publishers). It was outlandish, irreseponsible, and most illogical, damaging the account histories for both Alastair and myself (as SkyWriter) so badly that I no longer edit as SkyWriter. Are you telling me that the previous ArbCom has NOT deleted the libel and that it is STILL in violation of Wikipedia policy??? How on earth are you standing still, man! Follow Wikipedia policy and eradicate the libelous ArbCom. Don't compound the problem by opening a second frivolous ArbCom on the victim of previous mistakes. And while you're at it, be a responsible admin and clean up SkyWriter's history from that ridiculous block. As for the "legal threats" issue, Alastair repeatedly asked for Wikipedia policy to be followed; I did as well; and a publisher did also. Who WILL you listen to? Alastair repeatedly said he was not making legal threats and even offered a letter from a lawyer to state that this was not a legal threat but a simple request that you follow your own policy. Getting a lawyer to say you are not making a legal threat is probably the only thing a person can do when you continuously gag the victim of libel rather than simply gagging the perpetrator of libel. Alastair repeatedly said "I am making no legal threat" in the context of the quote you cited. In essence it was "I'm making no legal threat, and if you don't believe me, I can get a lawyer to say the same thing in whatever terminology you prefer: this is not a legal threat, but a simple request that libel be removed, per policy." That's not an appeal to the courts -- but to Wikipedia administration. There IS a policy against libel. One doesn't need the law when there is a policy to appeal to. Well, APPLY THE POLICY, and DELETE THE LIBEL NOW. I'm not involved. I'm not making a legal threat. I'm making a Wikipedia policy appeal that libel be deleted. Thank you for pointing out that the libel is still there. Please have it removed per policy.EGMichaels (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to reiterate that all of the evidence I've presented is from after the previous Arbcom. I'm not interested in whether Alastair did or didn't make legal threats before then. The purview of this RfAr is Alastair's actions since his previous ArbCom concluded. Kaldari (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purview of this RfAr includes your actions Kaldari, the failure of due process in the last RfAr, and its consequent publication of restrictions likely to prejudice people's opinion of me. Even you bringing this RfAr Kaldari, and arguing from those restrictions, proves you think less of me because of them: A valued contributor ... BUT look what the previous RfAr published. Case closed. Events themselves are demonstrating that I refrain from legal action even when I continue to have grounds. Why pay lawyers when this can be sorted out here? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: Milomedes makes a very explict legal threat against other editors, albeit in hypothetical language: "all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom." I support the indefinite block that was imposed in that particular case. It is a good example of precisely what I have never done. And, I might add, would never do. I find the very thought reprehensible, and resent Kaldari accusing me of it. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: I'm not sure. I've never been involved with that article or its talk page. Kaldari (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncm: nah ncm, I didn't even bother to delete Mish's comment. My block log is full of people who demand that incivility be allowed on talk pages. I've learned my lesson. "Incivility" is administrator-code for complaining about baiting. Arbitrators insist that personal attacks are allowed, or at least they are allowed on Alastair Haines. I'm special. :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kaldari, I was there and Alastair was being (what looked to me like) slandered and libeled. He wasn't threatening to sue, and stated a number of times he was making no legal threats. The problem was that several editors were using this "no legal threats" as an opportunity to be libelous at will.

This behavior continued even on the ArbCom itself, which ultimately had to be blanked in order to erase the (potential) slander and libel that was happening on the ArbCom.

It is not a legal threat to say, "Please stop slapping me in the face."

It is, instead, bullying to slap someone on the face and then try to get them sanctioned by an ArbCom for asking you to stop slapping them -- on the grounds that 1) people can sue me if I slap them, 2) he says I slapped him, so 3) that must be a legal threat.

Uh, no, that's not a legal threat on Alastair's part. It's legalistic bullying on the part of those who raised that ArbCom, where the slapping continued so obnoxiously that a) ALL involved editors on BOTH sides were restricted, and b) the ArbCom ITSELF had to be blanked.

I think the sanction on Alastair was merely the ArbCom's way of telling everyone to sit down and shut up -- and the equal sanctions on BOTH sides was the only way to resolve an ArbCom that was going to have to have its very content purged.EGMichaels (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{od}It should be noted that there are precedents for indef blocking editors for single legal threats of a much more inconspicuous character. User:Milomedes was indefinitely blocked for making this comment[14] that was perceived as a legal threat and refusing to retract it. This means that even loosely worded comments suggesting possibilities of legal consequences of editing here may lead to blocks.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair, have you considered refraining from making such "reminders" indefinitely? Doing so might resolve this dispute? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, the last diff you provided links back to this grossly inappropriate comment which I consider nothing short of baiting by the editor who made that comment. I'm not sure how it made it to an article talk page (without following talk page guidelines); did it end up being removed from the talk page/talk page archives? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring and disruptive editing

5) Alastair has continued a pattern of edit warring and disruptive editing across a range of articles, even while under restrictions against doing so from his previous Request for Arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Edit warring with WHO? Himself? A person cannot war in a vaccuum. Specifically WHO was engaged in this edit war and how can you logically bring a case against one side of a war and not the other? Imagine the sentence, "France was at war..." Well, with WHO? Where is your ArbCom against the OTHER people in this mystery war? Obviously you are biased, Kaldari. You need to drop this ArbCom or else list the other parties in the war and cite them as well.EGMichaels (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence. Just another example of Kaldari's personal animosity. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Continued personal attacks and harassment

The logic of this is hard to follow: even ignoring the fact that Kaldari has failed to provide any evidence of me edit-warring, why ban me from gender articles if issues are supposed to be across the board? Why restrict edits across the board if the issue is in gender articles? It's no matter, however, since there's no evidence to support any need for either remedy. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It's easier to win content disputes when the other editor is blocked from making more than one correction per week.EGMichaels (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines put under probation for legal threats

3) Alastair Haines is prohibited from making any legal accusations or threats on Wikipedia or through a third party. This includes characterizing edits as "slander", "defamation", or "libel" against him; suggesting that lawyers be consulted or involved in an on-wiki dispute; or discussing the Wikimedia Foundation's legal liability for hosting statements regarding Alastair or his activities. Should the user violate this prohibition, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is purely an attempt to perpetuate an ongoing slight on Alastair's exemplary editing. It provides nothing that WP:NLT already provides for everyone. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

NLT already provides a stronger remedy for this. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines put under civility probation

4) Alastair Haines is prohibited from personally attacking or harassing other editors or engaging with other editors in a way that shows a lack of civility. This includes excessive use of sarcasm, creating attack pages about other editors (unless part of an established dispute resolution process), or denigrating other editors' intelligence or character. Should the user violate this prohibition, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed principles

Legal accountability

1) WP:CC-BY-SA 3.0 4d. Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This language quoted from the license has nothing to do with content disputes regarding the contents of articles or on-wiki discussions concerning them. Your persistence in viewing discussions of Wikipedia content through this legalistic prism and the continuing implicit legal threats against the Wikimedia Foundation raise a fundamental question about whether you should continue editing here, because the possibility that changes may be made in one's contributions is the entire premise of the wiki model and fundamental to the collaborative editing environment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No statement by any parties is deemed to have been endorsed by the arbitrators merely because we have not yet commented on it -- much less when two of us have said that that we consider your premise to be fundamentally misguided and irrelevant to the case. You have been advised of this (and it is obvious in any event) before; do not do it again.

It is exceptionally unhelpful to the collaborative editing model to invoke legal issues over licensing terms in connection with a dispute concerning your editing. The logical conclusion to your proposal is that disputes over whether one editor had damaged the work of another, if not resolved between the two editors, would be resolved by a court. This is wrong.

I am having increasingly grave concerns regarding whether, if you view the terms of editing here in this manner, you should be allowed (or should want) to continue to do so. There are many, many places both in print and online where you can publish your own work without risk of "adaptation," "mutilation," or editorial disagreement. Wikipedia is an environment where, according to the sitenotice, your contributions may be "edited mercilessly." The available venues for disagreements concerning such editing do not include judicial proceedings, either against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Brad. You are trying to stretch this to say something it does not, to allow you to run rough shod over the wikipedia model and fundamentals. SirFozzie (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental: EGMichaels, you are going down the same primrose path as Alastair has well-trod before. SirFozzie (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Clearly, a non-negotiable principle is protecting the Foundation, as Licensor, from legal action for breaching the terms of the license it offers to every contributor as a protection under her "applicable national law" (e.g. Japan or Australia). For example: no "mutilation" of sourced and stable contributions, or other "derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation." Alastair Haines (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your frank comment, Brad. I seem to recall you are a lawyer and more expert in all this than I. I have only satisfied basic training requirements in military law, biblical law and canon law, and functioned as the legally accountable CEO of two non-profit organizations for about a decade each.

While I understand and agree that anyone who wanted to turn content conflicts into legal battles would be unsuited to editing at Wikipedia, for precisely the reason you mention, it is a matter abundantly proven that I am the exact opposite of such an editor. Were I such an editor, I'd recommend banning rather than messing around with mere topic bans or other restrictions.

Such an editor would be no threat, but the point is she'd just be a huge time-sink and financial risk, since CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) explictly provides for the right under Secton 3(b) to make Adaptations. Adaptation is not necessarily mutilation. Wiki has perfectly good processes in place for discussion of whether content adaptations are improvements or mutilations. It is only in cases where users like Kaldari bypass those processes and threaten or take action to conclude matters without sufficient content discussion that risk under CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) arises, and especially so if such inappropriate conduct is endorsed by others and deemed final.

Like others, I think WP:NLT needs considerable work. For a start, I see at least three distinct types of problem editor:

editors who make legal threats against other editors (wrong forum and jolly scary);
editors who threaten to take legitimate content conflicts to legal courts for resolution (scary, waste of time, financial risk); and
editors who contribute potentially libellous comments re identifiable living people (rude and puts WMF at legal risk).

I hear what you're saying, Brad, and I agree with the principle you're suggesting. You simply have no evidence to apply it to me however.

But you are jumping the gun and, to quote Fozzie, "running rough shod" over the application of the principle I will be making. Again to quote Fozzie, "you are trying to strech this to say something it does not", in this case you are putting words in my mouth.

The thrust of section 4(d) is proscribing "derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation". It also proposes three non-exhaustive, not-mutually-exclusive examples of how this might eventuate: "distortion", "mutilation" and "modification". It clarifies that the kind of "modification" it proscribes does not extend to legitimate "adaptation", conceived of as broadly as possible, but clearly acknowledging that not all adaptation can be presumed to be legitimate. Section 4(d) also specifies that the Foundation acknowledges the final authority of the Original Author's jurisdiction in settling matters covered under the section.

Unless the arbitators wish to confirm that they refuse to uphold the conduct requirements of CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d), and demand that "derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation" is permissible, this RfAr proceeds on the basis that my point of principle has been endorsed, and will, in due course, be applied to the first-RfAr-resolutions of the Foundation-appointed arbitrators, who volunteered to accept responsibility for dealing with such misconduct, and to Kaldari, in both his capacity as an editor and as an administrator, with appropriate remedies as may be agreed by the parties. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, the fact that you and Fozzie have expressed misunderstanding of CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) and of my position is of little consequence. CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) stands as a principle given to us by the Foundation, whether, to paraphrase something you said a long time ago, you and Fozzie like it or not. This principle is endorsed by the Foundation not by arbs. You don't get a vote.

If you are seriously unwilling to uphold the conduct issues clearly specified by the Foundation in CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) you are abdicating responsibilities you have undertaken to fulfil, and should resign. If you cannot understand how it applies, you are not in a position to pass judgment on the case, and should resign. Neither of those things will happen, because you are perfectly capable of understanding and applying the principle to Kaldari's abuse of processes, and observers will expect you to faithfully discharge that responsibility.

It most certainly does not follow logically that breaches of CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) will end up in court. Have I sent any letter to the Foundation? What follows logically is that despite having that option, I am choosing to trust arbitrators to uphold CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) instead. If arbitrators uphold CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) there is never any need to go to court. Even if an arbitration declines to deal with it, arbitration rulings can be appealed internally. I trust that won't be necessary, but I'm happy to commit to taking that step if it becomes so. As for court, what I might choose to do in the case that I disagreed with arbitration, and an appeal also failed, is something I can't say for sure unless it happens. It is irrelevant to deciding the matter. I decline to comment except to say that court action does not follow "logically".

I don't publish my own work at Wikipedia: that would be original research, and rather self-defeating given the other avenues for publication that you mention. At Wiki, I copy-edit other people's work, make friends, document bits and pieces that come up while I'm researching and might help others. That's why Kaldari's breach of CC-BY-SA 3.0 4(d) is so serious. Potentially it could rebound against my own genuinely original work outside Wikipedia. He has accused me of bias and many other things via processes, rather than deal with me providing even more sources to support gender-related material he doesn't want available at Wiki.

If you want to try to do a deal with me on the basis that it is unfair for professional writers to be involved in content discussions in their subject areas at Wikipedia, that's something I have sympathy for. If you want to try to make out that I've caused trouble and force me not to edit in my areas of expertise, that's another matter entirely. I've not done that much work in gender actually, it's not my main game at Wiki. But, obviously I'm not going to let people trump up charges and set up kangaroo courts to provide a pretext to exclude me, when that involves maligning my real name.

I have no choice but to defend my real life name. You have no choice but to defend healthy robust content discussion. These are not irreconcilable aims, but the current forum is not exactly conducive to producing reconciliation. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting comment, Fozzie. As EGM observes, is it an admission of general arbitrator hypocrisy, or only that of Fozzie himself? Or is it only an assertion that demands the right to silence anyone who attempts to show evidence of the hypocrisy: arbs and administrators acting contrary to very the policies they make only a show of being willing to uphold?

Whatever. Again it seems we see a slightly cryptic failure of an arb to WP:AGF. Will this arb have the same integrity as Coren, however, to actually admit it?[15]

Apologies to Shakespeare.

Do not, as some ungracious admins do,

Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,

Whiles, they like puff'd and reckless libertines,

Themselves the primrose path of dalliance tread.

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Question for the arbitrators -- how in the world can you expect a person accused of making legal threats to not use Wikipedia's own legal policy in his defense? This is right up with the problem before when Alastair was defamed (in his, mine, and at least one other person's view) and yet not allowed to ask for help with the defamation. Wikipedia has policies. As long as you are following those policies there is no problem. But if you refuse to follow policy, and in fact gag and threaten editors who appeal to it, then YOU would theoretically be creating a legal liability where there was never one imagined to begin with.

If you administrators will drop the "legal threats" charge, then maybe Alastair can safely stop quoting Wikipedia policy to you.

To put this in "non-legal" terms: how do you expect to SOLVE a problem by DENYING the problem exists? Would you find that acceptable behavior for Alastair? Please apply your own standards to yourselves and lead by example.EGMichaels (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: Yes, I think you would be correct, but for one thing: To be led down a primrose path is to have a false sense of security as you are led astray by a hypocrite. I hold no such illusions about the present venue.EGMichaels (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

2) Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The fact that editors are anonymous or do not declare any affiliations does not mean they are neutral. The reverse is also true: simply because an editor is named and declares affilitations, does not mean she is biased. The only acceptable contributions to articles are the opinions of reliable sources not editors. Ideally, discussion has representatives of all interested parties. Sole representatives of significant points of view should be treasured, not bullied because they are temporarily outnumbered by opposing points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is a particularly bad habit at Wikipedia for two, three or even half-a-dozen or more editors to claim "consensus" against a minority. "Consensus" is misunderstood as "majority". Less vicious is misunderstanding "consensus" as "compromise". Both views are short-sighted, since there is no quorum for a majority, and a compromise is original research and a new point of view. The wrong understanding leads to instability, since any single later editor can object on the grounds of reliable sources. It leads to disharmony, because those who invested a lot of time in gaining "consensus", feel threatened when someone new objects. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Decorum

Do you mean WP:RFAR rather than RFA, being request for adminship? Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, thanks, I'll fix it. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More laughs. Sure, it's my fault. It's a redlink at the moment because people are currently wanting me to do seven things at once. I'll get back to this, no worries. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

3) Kaldari has removed reliably sourced content from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As written, this appears to be content rather than conduct related. Shell ^babelfish 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

That is correct. I have replaced out-dated dubious claims by individuals with well-established claims from current college textbooks, per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Kaldari (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, The Inevitability of Patriarchy was a metastudy awarded a PhD and listed in the Guiness Book of Records. The universality of patriarchy is a consensus view among scholars of many disciplines.

"But what explains the universality of patriarchy? It seems, then that if the SSSM is to meet the challenge posed by EP, it must advance its own explanation for the existence of universals."

—Neil Levy, "Evolutionary Psychology, Human Universals, and the Standard Social Science Model", Journal of Biology and Philosophy 19 (2004): 459–472.

"... having implications for the status and claims of Aboriginal women (as for example in land rights cases), and in collaborating or denying some feminists' assertions about the universality of patriarchy."

—Jan Pettman, "Gendered knowledges: Aboriginal women and the politics of feminism", Journal of Australian Studies 16 (1992): 120–131.

"Goldberg's theory of patriarchy and male dominance is proven in that there has never yet been a society in which women normally held all the most senior posts or filled most high status non-maternal roles."

—Catherine Hakim, Key Issues in Women's Work: female diversity and the polarisation of women's employment, 2nd ed., Contemporary Issues in Public Policy, (Routledge Cavendish, 2004), p. 7.

Goldberg's theory of patriarchy is certainly early, if not the first hormonal explanation. But Susan Pinker's APA first-place prize-winning The Sexual Paradox still advances the hormonal explanation as a factor in gendered behaviour. It's a standard view. I've not seen any "replacement" of the text you've removed Kaldari. Government policy advisors[16] like Hakim would trump college textbooks, but we're neutral here, both POVs can be accepted. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, as I said when I asked the arbs to take this case, this is a content dispute that Kaldari is trying to make out is a conduct issue. That itself is bad conduct from Kaldari, and I'd appreciate help in fixing things. Removing reliably sourced content from Wikipedia clearly breaches the very first principle of conduct listed by Kaldari himself. We are building a quality free content encyclopedia. Kaldari simply needs to accept that there are reliable sources out there that do not say what he wants to hear. Shooting the messenger is a no-no here, isn't it? Look again at Kaldari's bottom line: he doesn't want me providing sources at gender articles. I predicted that on the very first page of this case. Delaying posting his proposals only goes a little way to hiding his intentions. He exploited the first RfAr to mutilate articles related to Steven Goldberg and discredit and restrict me. He wants more of the same unfair advantage.

I'm posting some basic sources here so that arbitrators have no excuse for permitting content I've been defending to be removed from Wikipedia, and so outside observers can see that Kaldari's personal objection to the material is understandable, just unacceptable, especially executed in the way he's been doing it. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kaldari unilaterally and arbitrarily deleted over a half dozen refs at JW without trying to get consensus on talk page 20:07, 21 April 2010 Kaldari (talk | contribs) (114,897 bytes) (spamming the intro sentence with refs is not appropriate. If the intro sentence can't stand on its own (without a dozen refs), reduce it to something everyone (or nearly everyone) can agree on.) Deadtotruth (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocricy

4) User:BlackCab (formerly User:LTSally), User:Jeffro77 and User:Maunus posted provocative statements at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses regarding Alastair, then claimed his measured defenses as somehow inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The conduct of these editors in regard to Alastair at the JW article is so gross and obvious, that they have weakened Kaldari's case substantially. As a result, I harbour them no grudge. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People only have to read the talk page, Jeffro. I don't have to copy it here. But I will anyway. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coren high-handed and rude

4) Coren presumed to act unilaterally and without sufficient evidence to wrongfully and indefinitely block my account; and he never offered an apology. The wrongfulness is proven by the lifting of the block. His refusal to apologise has been repeated at this very RfAr. The unilateral nature of the action was proven prior to lifting an identical block on User:SkyWriter. Coren's prejudice is demonstrated in lifting the block on SkyWriter much earlier than on me, and in his offering an apology to SkyWriter, but not to me. Coren has now admitted ongoing assumptions of bad faith.[17]

Note: Arbitrators comments below have now been made redundant by Coren's own admission above. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I disagree. The policy is firm as regards to legal threats and charges such as being "defamed". SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this DEFINITELY caused confusion (several arbs had to take a bit to understand the comment), User:EGMichaels used to be User:Skywriter, who was blocked in April of last year for an incident, along with Alastair. EGMichaels later closed down that account and created EGMichaels (although if you look at the User:SkyWriter page, he does link the accounts). SirFozzie (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beside the fact that Coren is in no way involved in the current dispute and you've drug him here without any prior attempts at resolution, this statement is rather silly. The initial action, review and unblock were all reasonable. Shell ^babelfish 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

When one is entrusted with a responsibility to serve people, and especially if those people have not elected you, it is important to set an example. Democracy means public servants are accountable to people. When, inevitably, they make small mistakes, apologies show the respect that is due to those being served, and likewise win the respect of those served. Respect is a two way thing. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: I'm not against the policy. That is not the point I'm making, Fozzie. Please read it again: Coren indefinitely blocked my account because of an email I did not send, nor organize to be sent. The facts are clear. The block was lifted. An apology was given to User:Skywriter, but none was given to me. That is rude. Is that clearer now? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That block continued to plague me. I was later unable to edit my own talk page or restore it after an admin blanking -- even though I wasn't blocked from the rest of Wikipedia (Coren assumed I was the one who sent the letter -- I wasn't). In any case, because of the bad history on the botched ArbCom and fallout, I stopped using that sign in. I'm not blocked there. I did get an apology. But the "history" of blocks is annoying.EGMichaels (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What does Alastair's block have to do with you? And what "history of blocks" are you talking about? You've never been blocked. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell: Kaldari dragged me here without any prior attempt at resolution. I was dragged to the first ArbCom without any attempt at prior resolution, except two that I started in good faith. The point is, Coren's conduct is typical of the conduct of the handful of people who have treated me and my account with obvious disrespect, unsuited to Wikipedia.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a proper series of genuine attempts at resolution before handling a matter, then you need to quash the first RfAr in my name, and vacate this one. But seeing as we are here, we might as well procede, and that means Coren gets the same treatment I do. What's the big deal? ArbCom want to demand the right to block accounts at will without talking first or apologizing when they do it in error? Surely not? All we need is an apology here, and a clearing of the block log. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@SirFozzie: Check the block log for SkyWriter. I ended up just leaving the screen name because of the fiasco. SkyWriter is not blocked now, but was mistakenly blocked before. Incidentally -- I don't believe I ever got an apology from Coren.

In any case, the previous ArbCom was so badly botched that defamation was allowed to be perpetuated on the arbcom itself. It was so ugly the whole thing had to be blanked. I find the entire affair to be shameful -- everyone was upset that Alastair was complaining about defamation, but no one seemed to care about the defamation itself. It was a twisted situation in which complaint about a problem was not allowed, but the problem itself was allowed.

And now we are here. As I said, I had to stop using a previous login after getting fed up about the mistaken block against me. Lisa, Ilkali, and Alastair were all given equal restrictions (now expired). Making a case of "Alastair 2" is just prejudicial.EGMichaels (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment in the remedy section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly Coren all over again. The Coren investigation revealed that Alistair had experienced uncivil behavior by others and he responded. Almost everyone was banned including the admin when parts of Coren's investigation were blanked by Wikipedia itself due to Coren' passive involvement with allowing new uncivil remarks against Alistair during the arbcom. In the current action, several individuals primarily Maunus and to a lesser degree Kaldari and Jeffro77 have been derisive, derogatory, rude, or uncivil on the talk page and now their clique has asked for an arbcom on Alistair after he responded. WHY ISN'T THERE AN INVESTIGATION OF MAUNUS, KALDARI, and JEFFRO77? Maunus even admits being rude and yet their victim, Alistair, is the only one being investigated. So is this an unbiased investigation? No, it is the same biased investigation as Coren. Arbcom's should be opened on the perpetrators as well as the victims. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL REASON WHY AN ARBCOM HASN'T BEEN OPENED ON MAUNUS. Alistair asked for the JW discussion page to be investigated for uncivil remarks made toward him by others. I have seen no evidence that the JW discussion pages were researched by the admin of this arbcom and those involved in uncivil behavior investigated appropriately. Below in case it was missed earlier are some of the comments indicating that Maunus, Kaldari and Jeffro77 are acting in concert to derisively comment on Alistair's intelligence simply because he is a Christian. I believe that Wikipedia has a policy concerning discrimination based on a person religion.

@Alistair These endless efforts to game the system by slicing and dicing a dozen different definitions (and definitions of definitions) are pretty transparent. Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus violates WP: civility

@Alistair This is an excellent example of how you twist sources to appear to confirm your views. There are two possible explanations: bad faith editing or you are simply not intellectually capable of understanding simple phrases. Maunus•ƛ• 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair We are not nearing consensus and you're biases are so blatant that not mentioning them would be a crime towards wikipedias foundational principles. We have provided sources all along - that you choose to disregard them instead flaunt your irrelevant theological sophistry is not our fault.•Maunus•ƛ• 10:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair Your hypocrisy is clearly visible… •Maunus•ƛ• 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Alistair …As for the rudeness with which you were received as I have hinted that a modest amount of introspection might lead you on to why that might have been…Maunus•ƛ• 14:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro77 violates WP: civility

Alastair, I'm fairly sure you already know the etymology of the words Christ and Messiah, and I certainly don't need to cite the 'Kid's Alamanac' for it. Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Deadtotruth (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deadtotruth posted this in several places. Response at [18]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deadtotruth includes my username in connection with an alleged 'clique' together with Kaldari and Maunus. To my knowledge, I have not edited any articles in common with Kaldari, apart from recent interaction between Kaldari and EGMichaels at the JW talk page, in which I did not interact directly with Kaldari. I have no special affiliation with Maunus—sometimes we agree on things and sometimes we don't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Quash past sanctions

1) Past sanctions against Alastair be quashed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The remedy imposed in the prior case expired several months ago. If the request is that we find that the remedy was unjustified at the time it was passed, I am unconvinced. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There would need to be strong evidence that the findings of that case were incorrect; I have yet to see any evidence to that effect. Since some of the problematic behaviors seem to have continued, that lends credence to the appropriateness of the original case. Poor behavior by other editors is not an excuse to behave badly. Shell ^babelfish 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the sanctions and findings of the past case were incorrect or unjustified in any way. SirFozzie (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Past sanctions were not made based on due diligence. Additionally, they are often cited in content disputes to delete reliable sources provided by Alastair, or to undermine the substance of Alastair's contributions to talk page discussions. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is long overdue. The worst that COULD be said regarding Alastair on the previous ArbCom was that he was no worse than the parties accusing him. Some of the accusations were similar to here: Alastair is too polite and we don't trust it was the gist of one of them. This is just a waste of time, and the existence of the previous ArbCom is simply invitation to KEEP wasting everyone's time with more trivial escalations of content disputes.EGMichaels (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about lifting the expired restrictions. We are talking about deleting the case to prevent trivial appeals to it to win a content dispute because of the prejudicial nature of the case. Please bear in mind that EVERYONE INVOLVED in that case received sanctions. The fact that Alastair is being considered in "Alastair 2" is unecessarily prejudicial, and the fact that his name is on a case in which everyone was sanctioned equally is also unecessarily prejudicial.

Believe me, if Alastair is doing wrong at this time or the future, administrators have no need of "Alastair, the sequel" to make a decision.EGMichaels (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

2) Jeffro, BlackCab and Maunus warned for attempted intimidation, baiting and Wikilawyering.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Alastair Haines, obviously my response here was based on evidence submitted to date. If additional and material evidence were to be presented that there is a problem with one of these editors beyond what presently appears, of course I would be willing to reconsider the matter.

However, I think you may be suffering from a misapprehension that if we do not make a finding against or sanction a particular editor, we are endorsing every edit or comment ever made by that editor. That is far from the case. The Arbitration Committee, as the last step in user-conduct dispute-resolution, generally steps in when there is a problem of a persistent or serious nature. In situations where an editor has made an uncivil remark or personal attack but the editor has long since stopped the problematic behavior and it was an isolated incident, we may conclude that there is no need for intervene. That may, or may not, be the case with any inappropriate comments by the editors you mention. It would be a serious error to conclude that because I or other arbitrators conclude that a particular editor should not be sanctioned, we are "endorsing" or declaring acceptable every word that that editor ever posted.

Finally, please refrain from telling us the matters in the case are "non-negotiable." Our decision regarding what issues to address in our decision will be based on the evidence and what is best for Wikipedia and are not the subject of negotiation with the parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an evidence that bears this out. Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified and unwarranted per the evidence provided so far. SirFozzie (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The aim of keeping this to a warning is to prevent escalating things further. Restrictions might cause understandable resentment, all the more when feelings have already been roused on far less substance. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: Kaldari made no effort to even start a dispute resolution process. This RfAr appears to uninvolved editors to be a bid by Kaldari to manipulate ArbCom into restricting quality "conservative" contributions to gender articles.[19] As for evidence of wikilawyering, baiting and intimidation on your part Maunus, the false "evidence" you have provided yourself is all the evidence needed to prove the point against you. But let me add:

"There are two possible explanations: bad faith editing or you are simply not intellectually capable of understanding simple phrases."[20] [Emphasis added.]

As I read that, there are two possible verdicts: Maunus either breaches WP:AGF or he breaches WP:NPA. Do I really need any more evidence?

But EGM is absolutely right. Kaldari is clearly shopping for people who might back him in an appeal to ArbCom to restrict Alastair's contributions in gender articles. Kaldari is, of course, welcome to push his POV from reliable sources. What must be remedied is: Kaldari's content censorship, his abuse of processes, and his abuse of other editors—via manipulation or intimidation.

Three editors at JWs expressing heated disagreement with Alastair appears to have given Kaldari the opportunity he was waiting for. I agree with EGM's analysis: although unaware of what they were doing, these three editors created this action. Alastair has no enemies except Kaldari and Abtract, and Abtract has been restricted. The fresh appearance of potential enemies, imo, created this RfAr. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wasn't even aware of the disputes at Jehovah's Witnesses and Hijra (South Asia) until I started compiling research for this RfAr. Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt by me at "intimidation" (or the other claims). Alastair asserted that the Catholic Church's POV of Christianity excludes JWs. I provided specific references, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, that show that the Church does not officially prescribe what other Christian religions must believe. Provide specific diffs if further elaboration is required--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Brad: I encourage you to read discussion at JWs in detail. Warnings for Maunus and Jeffro are unquestionably warranted. I can't imagine the community endorsing phrases used by Maunus and Jeffro as acceptable if made by any users in any context. Were we to give examples of their phrasing in the WP:NPA policy as language that falls within what is acceptable, I suspect we might as well discard that policy altogether. Maunus and Jeffro's provocative personal attacks are so blatant that perhaps I need to resolve that this particular matter is non-negotiable. Perhaps you are particularly lenient when people make personal attacks, Brad, or perhaps you are simply lenient if they are made against me. In any case, I'll detail the aggressive commentary provided by Maunus and Jeffro, so people I invite to comment here over the next few weeks can say whether they agree with your evaluation of what level of confrontational language is appropriate at Wikipedia. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Shell: as I hope you'll observe, some evidence against Maunus and Jeffro is already on the evidence page in the nature of the evidence offered against me by Maunus and Jeffro. Their evidence shows no fault in me at all, only their enthusiasm to misrepresent my responsible and appropriate pursuit of improving the JWs article. I think that's plenty to warrant the warning, as I trust the community to uphold. However, to assist us to come to agreement on this, I'll detail considerably more evidence; though this sort of thing is best viewed in context, and there's no substitute for reading the JWs talk page in full. Naturally, all arbs in this case will be reading all the discussion there in the course of this case. Please ask me questions if you think you can find something possibly inappropriate in my discussion posts. Until then, I'm assuming no arbs have any objection to my conduct at that page, and I'll focus on other things. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated[21] I can accept that part of the escalation of the conflict is mine, but that you can maintain that you are pure as a saint and completely without fault when faced with an ArbCom with dozens of diffs filed as evidence against you by multiple unrelated editors is simply ludicrous. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair, to which phrases of mine are you referring? I have certainly argued the point, with repeated references to specific sources, but I have not made the personal attacks you claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Further, they should be instructed on how to properly conduct content disputes, assume good faith, and refrain from personal attacks (as they have failed to do by creating this action).EGMichaels (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "action" was created by User:Kaldari. And bringing a dispute before Arbcom is not a personal attack or a lack of good faith - it is a part of the dispute resolution process. Anyway we have not been presented any evidence that "wikilawyering", "baiting" or "intimidation" has taken place by any of the mentioned editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus -- this is like the old political gag that "even though the charges are baseless, we have to consider the SERIOUSNESS of the charges." Uh huh. Maunus, this is the wrong venue. Kaldari has a content dispute with Alastair. He wants to delete sourced material and Alastair is insisting on all notable points of view (including Kaldari's) being included. The fact that Kaldari has no basis for a content mediation is no excuse to do an end run around the system by trying to gag another editor -- especially when he's trying to use a botched arbcom as a crutch. Yes, this is a dispute resolution process -- but it is the wrong process for this dispute. This is a content issue. Nothing more. Kaldari's inferences should be used as evidence that he infers too much, and that's about as far as this should go.EGMichaels (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me where I have a content dispute with Alastair? I would love to know so that I can get ready to celebrate my grand conquest of Wikipedia. What sourced content am I interested in deleting? Your argument is nothing but a poor attempt at distraction. I have no current content dispute with Alastair on any article on Wikipedia. Not a single one. Yes, I had a valid content dispute with him at patriarchy a year ago, but that matter is long settled and I haven't edited that article in months. So I have nothing to gain personally from this RfAr, except hopefully freedom from harassment. Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Kaldari restricted

1) Kaldari restricted from escalating content discussions involving Alastair via formal processes for a period of one year; and if Alastair ever refers to it, an indefinite sanction be imposed on Alastair not to refer to it again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see any evidence that an interaction ban is necessary. Shell ^babelfish 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is germane, necessary, or warranted. SirFozzie (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The aim of this restriction is to provide an opportunity for discussion between Kaldari and Alastair to stay on article talk pages, to be used by both of them, and other editors, to improve articles. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not requesting an interaction ban. I think that would be contrary to Wiki ethos. Kaldari has not read Steven Goldberg's works, or he has overlooked important parts of them. He has certainly not read more recent work that cites and or represents some of the ideas that Goldberg was first to publish. There's nothing wrong with Kaldari asking for more quotes from Goldberg and others regarding the facts that Kaldari doesn't want Wikipedia publishing. As I document as much of Goldberg and others as Kaldari thinks necessary to securely establish this important scientific POV, at some stage he will be satisfied and Wiki will be enriched in the process.

All I am requesting is that Kaldari be restricted from following the pattern of avoiding content discussion by making personal attacks, and threatening ones at that, at elevated levels of the dispute resolution processes. I'm happy to overlook past personal attacks in the interests of making future interaction possible.

Of course you are right, however, that I've not yet provided the evidence of Kaldari avoiding content discussion by appeals to process, but it is easy. There is this RfAr for a start, then two appeals to enforcement under the old RfAr. In both those prior cases Kaldari was seeking restrictions on my account while involved in content disputes with me. In both cases Kaldari wanted the censorship of large quantities of reliably sourced material. The conflict of interest is obvious. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coren restricted

1) Coren restricted from exercising administrative actions on fellow-editors without documenting consultation with other editors first, and talking personally with the party concerned, indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You are upset that Coren interpreted a psuedo-legal threat as a legal threat. As the policy states, "Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion.". He was acting within the normal discretion that any administrator is given when dealing with such actions. SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've pulled in an unrelated party because it was convenient. I don't see anything here that was unreasonable or outside the realm of normal administrator discretion. That Coren reviewed and later determined an unblock was warranted is actually evidence that this was handled properly. Given your long history of quasi-legal threats, it was a reasonable assumption. Shell ^babelfish 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to 1 and 2, can you show where you've tried and failed to resolve this issue or any prior dispute resolution? It's clearly not related to this case in any manner I can discern. As far as 3, both the prior Arbitration and the evidence in this case show a pattern of using legal sounding language as a bludgeon. Shell ^babelfish 08:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I can be more clear. I've not said anything about an apology or not. I've asked, very politely, what dispute resolution you've undertaken on this issue or how you've tried to resolve it. I've also pointed out that I don't believe this concern is in scope for the case at all. Coren was not involved in this recent string of disputes that resulted in the case. If you try to deal with your concerns over the block and are unable to resolve them, then perhaps you could file an Arbitration request once all other things have failed.

Like it or not, the case is about your behavior. That you don't see your behavior as problematic and have refused to change it is precisely why it was brought here. You've now been told by multiple Arbiters that when you think you're talking about the Foundations legal responsibility you are crossing the line of the NLT policy. We're giving you indications here about what we see from the evidence; please take the clue that your behavior is a problem. You should also seriously considering toning down your language; if you can't remain civil here, that doesn't bode well for your participation elsewhere. Shell ^babelfish 09:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The aim of this restriction is simply to make explicit the standard expressed in existing policies and principles. It extends to Coren's future conduct with all editors rather than just Alastair, because we must WP:AGF that Coren had no personal reason to discriminate against Alastair, and was merely showing the rudeness he would show to any other editor. It is important, therefore, to provide a guarantee to protect mutual respect for everyone, not just respect for Alastair. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fozzie. No. An email was sent, without my knowledge, from an American publisher, one of whose books I had reviewed. In response, Coren indefinitely blocked my account. He had to unblock when it was finally worked out that I had no part in the email. He shot first before asking questions, did so unilaterally, and gave no apology afterwards. Are those the standards expected of Arbs? If it's not yet clear that such conduct is unacceptable, then the restriction is genuinely needed to make it so. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fozie -- Coren also assumed that I had sent the letter and blocked me too. Again Coren was wrong. But please note: Coren assumed BOTH Alastair (in Australia) and I (in New York) sent the same letter. Were we both the same person? I was later forwarded a copy of the mail and it was laughably innocuous. The publisher just asked that the objectionable statements about Alastair be deleted by someone responsible for enforcing civility, and there was no legal threat. No legal threat. Not from Alastair nor myself. Most importantly, Alastair and I cannot possibly be the same person, so thinking we both sent the letter is irrational. Both of us were blocked indefinitely. My account was so jammed up I just stopped using it (even though the restrictions were lifted, there was some kind of tag that was left accidentally). Neither of us got an apology. And now somehow this is the basis for the current ArbCom? The only thing the previous ArbCom could serve as a basis for is regarding Coren. He is the only person demonstrably at fault, and he has not apologized.EGMichaels (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell: you imply three accusations without proof: 1. that I've raised more than one conduct issue regarding people uninvolved with my editing at Wikipedia; 2. that I do so for "convenience"; 3. that I have a long history of quasi-legal threats. You are wrong on all three points, and cannot provide proof. Your first two presumptions of bad faith are irrelevant to assessing Coren's behaviour, so I'll simply ignore them here. However, even if your last point could be proven (and it can't), although it would explain why Coren might have applied the indefinite block, it in no way justifies it. Coren was forced to remove the block because it was unwarranted in the first place. Why else did he do it? From the kindness of his heart? And you still haven't justified the failure to apologize. If Coren's block can still be found in my block-log, that also requires explanation. The longer Coren demands the right not to apologize, and the longer other arbs support that, the worse it looks for ArbCom. What does an apology cost? Do people feel their "authority" would be compromised?

Progress so far: Coren guilty of assuming bad faith, acting without consultation with others or the party he blocked, of failing to offer an apology, and now of holding out on apologizing when it is requested.

Recommendation: offer the apology, I accept, we move on. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncm please read the terms on which ArbCom accepted the RfAr: the conduct of all involved parties is to be investigated. Those are precisely the right terms. So far, the evidence shows no misconduct by Alastair, but considerable serious misconduct by a range of other parties.

Your demands regarding just when and where I can raise objections to the conduct of others strike me as petty. Normally, I have far better things to do with my time than complain about the behaviour of other editors, and contest blocks. Several real-life issues prevented me from being able to initiate time-consuming dispute resolution processes last year. By your criteria, it is Kaldari who has made no effort to ever start a conflict resolution process in his dealings with me, but has brought things straight to an RfAr. But that suits me too. Kaldari's conduct comes straight to RfAr. It also suits ArbCom, since they've accepted the case. I appreciate ArbCom exercising discretion in favour of letting us "jump the queue", though I'd have been just as happy for it to have been declined, and Kaldari forced to attempt dialogue instead of abusing processes, as I agree with you, he has. There are indeed more appropriate forums than this one in which he can attempt to censor Steven Goldberg as a reliable source.

As is usual in your posts Ncm, I note an ill-informed position that seeks to find me guilty of technicalities, which are themselves not even reasonable, but more importantly fail to grasp the real issues. You claim I'm not listening, but that's not it, I'm just disagreeing. I should note that I've yet to see evidence of you facing any of the facts I've posted, now on a number of occasions. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell: you accuse me of a "pattern of using legal sounding language as a bludgeon" which you will need extremely good evidence and analysis of context to prove, because otherwise it is ridiculous and scandalous (and other fair criticisms I am forbidden to express under the threat of an indefinite block). You offer Coren's own block as part of the evidence for your outrageous accusation. As such, it is most certainly relevant to the current case. Coren's irresponsible action has misled you (along with other similarly irresponsible actions by others) to form an opinon prejudicial to your assessment of my editing.

The fact of the matter is that administrators have used WP:NLT as a bludgeon to silence my fair criticism of editors making irresponsible personal attacks, and administrators and ArbCom itself making unfounded resolutions.

You have precisely no chance of proving what you brazenly assert, since a bludgeon needs a target, and my so-called "quasi-legal threats", not only are not direct threats to sue, but consistently refer to the Foundation's responsibility to uphold CC-BY-SA 3.0 (4d) which is at the bottom of this very page, and in the edit window in which you will type your response.

But stop trying to get Coren off on technicalities, or turning things around to attack me. The issue in this section is did Coren indefinitely block my account or not? Did he unblock? Why? He unblocked because the original block was wrong. He could have found that out by asking questions before shooting first. In any case, he did not apologize afterwards ... and still refuses to do so. Why? And why are you demanding that no apology is necessary? It looks very defensive. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Alastair, this arbitration is about you - you are the subject. If you had a problem with the block imposed by this admin, you should've followed up the unblock with some form of dispute resolution closer to the time. Had you done so, and the issue was still not resolved today, then maybe there would be some relevance here - note: you did not do any of this. Consequently, there may have been some need to impose a restriction if there were other incidents of poor blocks (I can recall 1 where the community intervened, which regrettably, reflected poorly on ArbCom, and ArbCom were aware of that), but none of this is relevant to this arbitration, and it has not been subject to dispute resolution steps short of arbitration. Dredging this up one year later when you've become the subject of another arbitration, instead of trying to address your conduct short of involuntary means, suggests 1 thing: you are not getting it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair, 3 things. (1) Please do not misrepresent my position by pretending my view agrees with yours when it doesn't. I am not of a view that Kaldari has abused any processes, and I have not stated that either. I suggest you refactor the "I agree with you" part of your comment. (2) You appear to be alone in your opinion Alastair, again, so it might just be your own opinion that is "ill-informed". (3) I've started jotting down some thoughts here to hopefully guide others on the basics of the dispute resolution system. Hopefully it will make future editors in disputes to think twice; the path that you appear to be taking might not be the right one to tread on at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:EGMichaels

Proposed principles

POV

1) Every editor, reader, and source has a POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely. NPOV is not a lack of POV but a proper presentation of all significant POVs. Not sure how this applies in this case though. Shell ^babelfish 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Most of the time POV is a problem is when it is not admitted.EGMichaels (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, it applies here because this is where Alastair gets into conflict. He tries to include all POVs and often falls into trouble when other editors are trying to eliminate all "POVs" in a misunderstanding of how to apply NPOV policy. This forms 90% of the conflicts I've seen him in.EGMichaels (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) A neutral point of view policy requires the inclusion of all notable points of view, not the exclusion of points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, not quite. We do exclude non-notable viewpoints or confine non-mainstream viewpoints to their own articles. Shell ^babelfish 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes, and not the exclusion of editors with sources for points of view that are under-represented. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell -- I agree with the need for notability and have italicized the word for emphasis.EGMichaels (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Violation of "neutral point of view" is not by having a point of view, but rather by claiming your point of view IS neutrality and trying to eliminate any other views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A view can't be NPOV; it's comparing apples to oranges. However, attempting to exclude other significant viewpoints can violate NPOV. Not sure how this is relevant to the case though; I'd expect to see evidence that someone strongly pushes a particular view to the exclusion of others and that prior attempts to resolve that content issue had failed because of their behavior. Shell ^babelfish 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Very nicely put. Is anyone claiming they are neutral? Is anyone trying to exclude anyone else? Who? Alastair Haines (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell, you may want to do some light reading in the content disputes Alastair has been in. You seem to be entirely on his side here. You may be interested in seeing HOW we got here.EGMichaels (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civility

1) Insincere civility is still civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sure. You can be civil even to people you don't get along with well. Shell ^babelfish 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

No one sincerely likes EVERYONE they encounter on Wikipedia. We just have to behave.EGMichaels (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Requiring that all civility be sincere is beyond the scope of an Arbcom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True. We've yet to give admins ESP so this idea would be just a wee bit difficult to enforce. Shell ^babelfish 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some of the complaints here have been that Alastair doesn't REALLY like all the people he is civil toward. "His civility is fake." Well, okay. I'm sure it is sometimes. Given the cast of characters I've encountered on this site I have to confess that I can't hide my incredulity as well as Alastair can. Privately, however, in personal emails he has spoken in favor of the very people who have detracted him, urging me to believe in the system and in their good faith and value as contributors. I think that most of the disbelief in Alastair's sincere civility stems from a disbelief that ANYONE can think good of someone who is attacking them -- and yet I've seen Alastair do this time and again, which (unfortunately) tends to spur people on toward even further disbelief. Sorry -- if you don't believe Alastair is sincere, don't edit with him. This is a big site. When I reach my limits on a topic or an editor I move on; I don't go crying to ArbCom that "he doesn't MEAN it when he's sincere." What are we, a bunch of teenagers? We are required to be civil whether we like it or not, and whether we mean it or not. ArbCom can do something about uncivil behavior, but not slap someone for what he's THINKING.EGMichaels (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) Not all incivility is defamation, but all defamation is uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant and we do try to avoid legal terminology whenever possible. Shell ^babelfish 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alastair had an "observe and report" problem. A few weeks ago in Washington State a woman was being kicked, beaten, and stomped on by a gang member in front of two mall security "cops". She could have been killed, and the "mall cops" just stood there and did absolutely nothing. They had limited authority, and the attacker crossed a line they weren't capable of crossing. The woman pleading for help got no help at all. That's how the previous ArbCom happened. People were being rude to Alastair; no problem. He could report that and ask for civility. He chose to simply ask for civility instead of getting help. Why not? That's what most of us do. Somewhere along the line, though, the incivility became defamatory. And that's where, ironically, the uncivil people got a free ticket. You see -- Alastair can complain about deleting sourced material and get help with a content dispute; Alastair can complain about incivility and get an ArbCom running on an uncivil person; but Alastair canNOT get help if that uncivil person crosses the line and becomes defamatory. The reason? Not that Alastair was threatening to sue (he wasn't), but rather that Wikipedia freezes into a mall cop mentality once a shouting match crosses a certain threshold.

The irony here is that the Administrators and Arbitrators handling the previous case panicked and did everything backwards. They obviously had little understanding of the law as well. Wikipedia has no liability if it follows its own policies. It has a policy against incivility. While not all rude behaviour is "defamation", ALL "defamation" is rude. Simple -- the FIRST thing they should have done was to gag the perps, not the victim. Instead they used a "no legal threats" policy to gag someone who was pointing out that incivility was happening. Did Alastair use the term "defamatory"? Sure. Should they have clarified the legal threat policy regarding him? Perhaps -- but they should have stopped the defamation FIRST, because it is uncivil.

Kaldari had an interesting line in this present melodrama about Alastair "using a third party" to make legal threats. The letter from the publisher was not a legal threat, and it wasn't made on Alastair's behalf or by his knowledge. I know this, because I didn't even know about it ahead of time and I have closer business ties to that publisher than Alastair does.

But note what is happening here -- while a person can't get away with "incivility" around here, he can apparently get away with "defamation" because we'll gag anyone who complains about it. This is like a bully-wonderland here, where you can hit the accelerator at an "incivility" yellow light and just blast all the way through that line to "defamation" so you can keep beating up on another editor and he can do nothing about it.

Alastair was only vulnerable here, of course, because he uses his real name. Should he use his real name? Well, it's a little late now. One can't counsel a young woman on how to dress less attractively AFTER she's been raped. It's a little late then.

Interestingly, Wikipedia DOES have a policy against libel and defamation. Those are no-nos as well. Had the administrators involved simply followed that policy, the previous arbcom would have never happened. The Wiki-bullies would have had nowhere to go. THEY would have been gagged according to the Wikipedia libel policy. And KALDARI would have no one to enjoy beating up on now.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, this is a little melodrama where Kaldari has found what he thinks is a loophole to use against Alastair. There is no loophole. Alastair did not violate policy by screaming "defamation"; another editor violated the libel policy, and the administrator handling it was simply unaware of the policy.

The publisher in question did apparently look up that policy, noted it in the letter -- and the previous ArbCom was subsequently, and correctly, blanked, as it should have been from the beginning.

While this Arbcom may not need to be blanked. It should suffer a far worse fate: it should be ignored. The arbitration committee here has a wonderful opportunity to stop Wiki-bullying in its tracks and correct a previous mistake that was too late in being corrected.EGMichaels (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell -- I entirely agree that we should avoid legal terminology. At the same time, however, we need to avoid even the basis for legal terminology. When Alastair complained of "defamation" he absolutely should have been temporarily blocked, but only if the statements he complained about were also blocked. The problem is that the NLT policy was being applied to gag him WHILE the "uncivil" or (what he regarded to be) "defamatory" statements were continuing to be made! Instead of resolving the problem, it just made it worse. Yes, block the person using legal terminology in a complaint, but ALSO block the basis for that complaint itself. It's not sufficient for administrators to eliminate legal threats -- they need to also eliminate potential liability (which is thankfully only a simple matter of applying the WP:CIVIL policy). We have good policies. Following them keeps everyone here safe and sound. This really was a non issue. People were being uncivil. We have a policy. We should apply it. Alastair goofed everything up by calling it defamation, perhaps. Or perhaps the "uncivil" editors themselves goofed it up. By blocking BOTH SIDES you don't need to take sides. You can smile, tell all editors to sit down, shut up, and play nice. And then unblock everyone with the problem resolved at a low level.EGMichaels (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ArbCom

2) Appeal to the previous ArbCom is misguided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Past editing history is relevant; recidivism may result in more severe sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of other editors is never an excuse for one's own behavior. When someone has been properly warned, especially to the point of an arbitration case, repeating that behavior is inadvisable. Shell ^babelfish 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The previous ArbCom involved Alastair's complaint about uncivil behavior. At least two editors had been uncivil toward him. After a point, that uncivil behavior may have crossed the line of defamation. Alastair thought so, I thought so, and apparently at least one publisher thought so. Once Alastair pointed that out, he was gagged. When the publisher pointed that out, I was gagged (I got caught in the wake by mistake). But please note that no one seemed to CARE about the defamation itself. Wikipedia has a policy regarding civil behavior. Regardless of what synonym we use for uncivil behavior, it is the responsibility of administrators and the arbitration committee to enforce that policy. Even though Alastair did not threaten to sue, he was demanded to do something that NO ONE can legally promise: never to sue anyone for any reason under any circumstances. I'm sorry, but I could theoretically get mad at Alastair, fly across the planet to Australia, and short-change him for lunch. He could theoretically get upset about the lunch bill (it was quite a lunch) and sue me in small claims court. All of this could stem from my being annoyed with an edit dispute. How in heaven's name can anyone so thoroughly foresee the future that he can know there will never be a time he needs to sue? Maybe Alastair doesn't have the money for that royal lunch and he's being sued by the restaurant. In any case -- no one cared about the uncivil behavior; they merely cared about which synonyms for "uncivil" Alastair was allowed to use in asking someone to stop. All the while the incivility continued on the ArbCom itself!!! Now this is where things get weird, because you can only really sue an organization of individuals when they fail to follow their own policy. The ArbCom, by gagging the victim of defamation (i.e. incivility) rather than the perpetrators of defamtion (i.e. incivility) was NOT following Wikipedia's own policy regarding civil behavior. Potentially, the ArbCom was creating a legal liability. When a publisher asked for the uncivil comments to be removed, that publisher did not appeal to a lawsuit, but rather to Wikipedia's own policy. After Coren again gagged everyone except for the perps, someone behind the scences finally followed Wikipedia policy and eradicated the defamatory statements. While the previous ArbCom could be used as evidence that the arbitrators needed better training, it cannot by any stretch of rationality be used as evidence or grounds against Alastair here. And, finally, the worst that was imposed on Alastair was the same temporary restrictions placed on all parties equally. Again, Alastair cannot be singled out as some kind of bad egg here. The previous ArbCom should be either (at the very least) ignored, or (better) eradicated.EGMichaels (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, it is misguided because the so-called recidivism was not consistently applied to all parties of that ArbCom. Any appeal to that previous ArbCom is evidence that administrators are not applying policy equitably for all involved parties. You'd do far better to start fresh.EGMichaels (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, why go through such great pains to avoid low level resolution when I've demonstrated how effective it was for all other parties of the previous ArbCom? There is no reason not to try.EGMichaels (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building an Encyclopedia

2) Wikipedia needs to stay focused on building an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@EGMichaels: Let me ask you, is this a real compliment or a fake compliment: "When big people write in big books, they often talk about two things at once. Very often they talk about three, four or more things. I think you can do this too!" Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, Kaldari, is not a compliment, it is a reply to someone who was placing tags on three lines of a stub! Tagging stubs instead of expanding them is not staying focused on building an encyclopedia. When I placed tags in the lead at Jehovah's Witnesses, I was told that tagging a lead was tendentious. I'll remember to say that instead next time. What do you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: THIS is what you're making an ArbCom about? Kaldari, the arbitration committee has real work to do.EGMichaels (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Years ago I used to bemoan the fact that discussion groups never actually built a resource together. Viola! -- Wikipedia comes along. We can come to a topic from different perspectives and build a resource that everyone can use. Basically the rules are simple: include ALL notable points of view from reliable sources and create a huge bibliographic database for people to match subjects to references so they can drill down and do research. I even taught my daughter how to use Wikipedia for college: ignore the content of Wikipedia, and just use the references that are mapped to particular points in the article; find those sources in the library (or online), verify the point, look for a counterpoint the Wikipedia article may have ignored, and make a paper.

But, then, some folks aren't here to use discussion to build articles; they are here to use articles to build melodrama.

Since Alastair uses his real name, he's like a scantily clad young woman walking through a dark alley. A tempting target. Suddenly the issue is no longer "Gender of God" but something far more sexy: "Gender-editor Alastair." Let's poke and prod him because he's using his real name and can't complain about defamation without getting gagged. "She can't complain about rape; she was asking for it. Look at how she was dressed; she wanted it." Great.

Folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia. How we can do it with all these ridiculous distractions is beyond me. Yes, Alastair probably shouldn't have used his real name. Yes, the woman shouldn't have worn a mini-skirt. So? This website isn't about Alastair. I like Alastair, but I don't think he's interesting enough to spend my entire life on. Wikipedia, however, is another matter... Let's remind Kaldari that he's here to BUILD references rather than tear them down, work WITH other editors instead of against them, and stay focused on each TOPIC instead of other editors he thinks he can Wiki-bully with melodramatic ArbComs.

I mean, really -- Kaldari expects us to SERIOUSLY consider

"someone else sent a legal threat on his behalf": even if it had been a legal threat (it wasn't), proving that Alastair even knew about it (he didn't) is way beyond our paygrade.
"tell him not to make back-handed compliments": er... and Kaldari's fore-handed Wiki-ArbCom-bullying is better? Maybe Alastair actually MEANS the compliment! Has anyone ever considered that? I can cut and paste real behind-the-scenes (oooh!) kind words Alastair has said even about his detractors. The fact that Kaldari can't BELIEVE that anyone could really mean a compliment is not Alastair's problem.

Let's stop inferring legal threats and fake compliments. Let's simply keep eveyone civil, and keep them focused on the task at hand, building a big bibliography.EGMichaels (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeableness

1) This encyclopedia isn't about us or our opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think I get what you're saying here. There's a principle on the purpose of Wikipedia that comes up from time to time that might encapsulate this idea:

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Or did you mean this to be more about not having original research and not owning articles? Shell ^babelfish 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some folks have an inflated sense of their mission here. We aren't here to determine objective reality, nor are we here to win arguments. We are here merely to record what OTHER (notable) people thought, when they thought it, and where they said they thought it. In other words, we aren't here to disagree with each other, but rather to agree about what other people disagreed about. We're just yeomen here. Let's put our egos away and stop being too big for our britches. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses are neither "Christian" nor "non-Christian" in objective ultimate reality. They are "Christian" according to the dictionary and themselves, and according to the historical parameters of Pre-Nicene Christianity, which included Arianism. They are "non-Christian" according to Nicene definitions of what delimits the parameters of Christianity as it developed over time. In the same way, while the original Christians were all within the parameters of "Judaism", once "Judaism" became more narrowly defined to exclude Essenes, Karaites, Sadduccees, and Christians (in other words, "Judaism" became normalized as "Rabbinic") then those definitions and use of terms changed for those definers at that time. So, we aren't here to decide who's right and who's wrong. We're merely here to report who used what terms with what meanings, and when they did so. We aren't here to eliminate conflicts of meaning, but rather to report. Again, it doesn't matter what we think "Christianity" or "Judaism" is or is not. We merely note the various meanings and parameters those groups have of themselves and how they are defined elsewhere. When there is a mismatch, we note it, cite it, and call it a day. Ultimately we can argue till doomsday whether or not "Jehovah's Witnesses" are or are not "Christians" but we wouldn't make any progress for Wikipedia -- because Wikipedia doesn't CARE what WE think.EGMichaels (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell -- thanks. Yes, you got the sense of what I was trying to say.EGMichaels (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

1) Wikipedia is built by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, consensus is core but I'm not certain I see how that applies to the evidence here. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Sometimes consensus is wrong, but it's still consensus. When you are outnumbered, whether right or wrong, it is best to move on.EGMichaels (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That would be death for Wikipedia. Consensus incorporates diverse points of view. It doesn't compromise, it incorporates. Consensus is not equivalent to democracy. Democracy is death for neutrality, it is divisive and it excludes minorities that are sometimes right, and nearly always significant.

When parties are outnumbered, members of the majority group should bend over backwards to keep the minority group engaged and involved. In practice, what sadly happens too often at Wiki is people claim "consensus" as a right to bully minorities, or to invoke conduct processes to silence them.

What would have happened at Genesis creation narrative if Lisa had packed up and gone away? Vastly outnumbered she was willing to put forward her own orthodox Jewish perspective and ended up winning the most support. "Bravo!" says I.

To suggest that minorities or individuals should give up when outnumbered only shows the majority don't understand the wiki philosophy of co-operative editing.

Unfortunately, many administrators and even some arbitrators don't understand how this works.

So, what should we do? Move on? No! Keep preaching the good news of building consensus from diverse points of view.

A very old word for it is anekantavada. We're making an elephant, not a trunk, two legs, an ear, a tusk and a tail. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair -- thanks for your note. But this observation of mine has more to do with self-preservation than preservation of Wikipedia.EGMichaels (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell, my point was only that it is sometimes the better part of valour to retreat. Alastair will stick with sources and inclusion of all POVs even if an article is being "owned" by a group who want to eradicate all POVs but their own. While Alastair is "right" about sources and NPOV, it does no good when there are not enough editors with multiple POVs involved. Rather than benefiting Wikipedia (which is Alastair's aim) he has only brought attacks upon himself. I've experienced this myself with bogus sockpuppet accusations and ANIs (neither of which were deemed worthy to pursue by an admin) when I was in the minority at Genesis creation narrative. It DOES grate on you after a while, and it's better to just move along to a different subject or to invite several different POVs to participate. That happened successfully at Genesis creation narrative but did not happen at Jehovah's Witnesses. When you are alone, even if you are trying to follow policy, it's not going to end well. This, ultimately, is how we ended up here. Alastair really does do what he does to apply NPOV and citation policy, and he sticks it out trying to leave a core for other POVs to flock to whenever they wander by. But his standing in the gap has gotten him here. It was a valiant effort, but in the end, he'll simply be a casualty.EGMichaels (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Matters of Fact regarding Proportion

1) Gender and Religion articles are unusually charged subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

They can be; statements like these are generally listed as a principle rather than a finding of fact. Might be fleshed out a bit more:

Editors working on articles in these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Shell ^babelfish 21:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Before we judge any of the parties here, we need to remember to judge them in context. These are not literary criticism or pop culture subjects, but rather subjects with long and brutal histories which are heavily contested even by the editors themselves. The contentions regarding Alastair, Jeffro, Maunus, Kaldari, Hammy, and myself are in part because of the subject matter we choose to edit in, rather than the manner in which we choose to edit. Thus, Hammy's charge of Alastair being "illegal" or Kaldari's escalation to an ArbCom without attempting to be neutral are symptoms of the lack of objectivity editors often face on these subjects.EGMichaels (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Alastair is a highly prolific editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In judging Alastair's actions, we must do more than find an example, but we must examine the weight of examples. Alastair interacts with numerous editors on numerous articles. He may be poked and prodded by six editors and prod one back. It is the responsibility of administrators to look at the weight of Alastair's participation.EGMichaels (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coren has a conflict of interest

1) Alastair cannot be found innocent in this case without finding Coren at fault. Frankly, I'm astonished to see that Coren's even still allowed to be an admin, let alone an arbitrator -- but letting Coren be on the committee that decides whether Alastair is innocent or guilty is absolutely unacceptable. It's like having the district attorney double as the judge. Coren should and must participate, of course, but not on the Arbitration Committee!EGMichaels (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Every member of the Committee is an administrator and we've all deleted pages, blocked editors and used other tools in that capacity. Simply blocking an editor does not indicate involvement that would cause a recusal. Shell ^babelfish 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Just to be clear, the fact that Coren has not recused himself even more disqualifies him from participating as an administrator. This is just common sense and common decency. The present ArbCom is invalid as long as he is on the committee.EGMichaels (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There was no attempt to resolve this at a lower level

1) The policy states under #Case_acceptance:

The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so.

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process: it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Having examined Kaldari's evidence, there was no attempt to resolve this at a lower level. As I demonstrated in my own evidence, Ilkali, Lisa, and Abtract were all correctly handled at a lower level. In short, regardless of Kaldari's request and Alastair's acceptance, both editors entered into this venue improperly. Understandably, a previous arbcom is being cited as the avenue to come back immediately to this venue, but this was not necessary with Abtract, Ilkali, and Lisa -- and may not have been necessary with Alastair.

An ArbCom is a LAST RESORT. Kaldari pulled out a bazooka on a jaywalking violation. Even if Alastair is found "guilty" as charged, the venue and the sanctions being proposed are not in proportion to the offense.EGMichaels (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Irrelevant, so no - see my comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Simple Escalation Process

1) ArbCom should simply refuse to accept cases in which no attempt has been made on a lower level.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We do, frequently (see the current case page in fact), however in this case we felt that enough attempts to resolve the problem had occurred. This isn't going to change after several weeks of a case being open simply because one party doesn't like the way things are heading. Shell ^babelfish 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

ArbCom is a LAST RESORT. If ArbCom bounces trivial and frivolous cases back to their proper level, we'll all have more time for editing.EGMichaels (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm, do you think it is wrong that Ilkali, Lisa, and Abtract were dealt with on lower levels for violations of the same ArbCom? Please explain.EGMichaels (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm -- Ilkali, Lisa, Abtract, and Alastair were parties in the previous Arbcom and all given similar restrictions. All of them were dealt with for violating the restrictions, and I have diffed those lower level handlings of Ilkali, Lisa, and Abtract on the evidence page. Alastair is the only one who was not dealt with on a lower level. Either handling Arbcom violations on a lower level is WRONG or it is NOT WRONG. But it's a huge stretch to claim both in this case. Lower level actions are a first step in a resolution process. The last arbcom has expired, and there was no reason not to try a lower level process -- as was successfully done with Ilkali, Lisa, and Abtract. Please either explain how handling them on a lower level is wrong for all parties, or not wrong for all parties -- but you'll need to pick one approach for everyone here.EGMichaels (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, my problem isn't as much the way it's going, but the way it's getting there. We have not followed proper escalation. Even if Alastair is unfair, we can't be unfair in coming to that conclusion. We are supposed to do better, no?EGMichaels (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Right, but irrelevant, so no. This was already tried at a lower level...that was when the first case arose. When the issues from the case continue to remain unresolved some time down the track, then ArbCom have jurisdiction to revisit the old case (via amendment) or open a second case - the community prefers ArbCom doing this instead of forcing a pattern of ineffective dispute resolution at preliminary stages where resolution cannot be found. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "violations" are you talking about? Also, were they the principal party of the previous case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

2) The only person who can be responsible for the behavior of an editor is the editor himself. A basic assumption of this arbitration is that the behavior of an editor is consistently disruptive and can't be dealt with in any other way. The confusion here is typical of the problem. The discussion veers off to focus on other people, who are not to blame. But fundamentally, the editor will not or cannot change his behavior. Many people have attested to this. The accusations being leveled at people who are not the subject of this arbitration should stop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hammy, you have only just begun to work with me. What you are unaware of is that I've worked very widely with many editors on a whole range of topics. Some of those topics are controversial, yet there have not been problems. What that suggests is that it is quite probable that it is other parties, not myself, that are responsible for the "confusion" you have observed at a single article. Indeed, this RfAr is all about stopping the confusion. I anticipate that at long last that will happen, if the very few people who are generating hysteria regarding me are redirected to use more appropriate forums in future. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair, I am not depending on other editors. I have experience with you myself. The attestation of others should have more meaning to you, it seems to me.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Baffling behavior

1) This struggle with Alistair Haines has defined my experience at Wikipedia up to this point. There is absolutely no recourse for an editor who is on his or her own against him, except to give up or take formal action. When I first noticed it, the quality of the Patriarchy article was poor and the neutrality and source flags were the first thing you saw when arriving at the article. He had taken charge and claimed to have been there for 2 years, yet his comments to other editors, which I printed and read, were flagrantly unfair and seemed manipulative and self-serving.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

When you arrived at Patriarchy in July 2009,[22] Hammy, I agree entirely that the article was in exceedingly poor shape. The article had degenerated over a period of several months, while Kaldari had "taken charge" and was ignoring or overriding my limited input. The neutrality tag had been posted by myself in December of 2008.[23] My work at Patriarchy started in January 2007 in consultation with User:Rintrah. My first day of work took things from this to this. Rintrah's comments can be recovered from my user talk archive 1. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I just looked at the link to my first edits above for etymology. I believe those additions were deleted in short order and I didn't put them back again. The entire article, except for two paragraphs in the Biology section written, I think, by Kildari, and also the source under "Alleged benefits of patriarchy," written before I arrived, was written by me. I read extensively and gave it a lot of time. Maybe I should be more exact about my contributions, but I thought the arbitration committee could see for themselves what happened. I am not the focus of arbitration--you are. Why would you be making a case about the quality of my work if you weren't hoping you could redo everything? In fact you have said that is what you want to do. Don't act like my friend in other disucussions and then do things like this.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here [[24]]. My real contributions start then under the heading, "Remove incorrect information." But I am part of the discussion before that. This took place during Alistair's first enforced absence.--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair refers to this "stable version" which he wants to replace the current version. I did not change this--others changed it before I was here.[[25]] The table of ethnographies is there with the "no source" flag, as of Aug, 2008. No one is objecting the current version.

Again, I am using my own experience with you, as opposed to Kildari. He was helpful--you were not.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair, I looked at your before and after articles that you put on the arbitration discussion. I see this has been a complex and hard-fought article, although the 2nd version was quite short. Maybe you have lost perspective in all this. You are right that we have just started to actually work together, and things have improved, but some of the things you say are not helping. When you say you are going to add old material, and that I have not done so much work after all, I wonder whether as soon as you are off the hook you will do all the same things again. --Hammy64000 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has not been trustworthy

2) Alistair's deletions and additions in disregard of the warnings he has received, are not the actions of a reasonable person. He only started to address me in discussion after I posted my concerns about his threats on my user page, (April 20) but he has sprinkled his posts all through the earlier discussion so it looks as though he has been involved. I just noticed he has misrepresented my contribution (in the 'third opinion' section of the Patriarchy discussion), and I didn't know until today he had contributed at all in that portion. When he started to discuss things, I thought he had straightened up, but I see he hasn't changed at all.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair has added the disputed table, as of yesterday, without discussion

Unbelievable! I have been asking Alistair for proposals for this section in discussion since, I believe, April 21. I believe I've made 5 requests for a proposal. But he has added this without discussion, while in arbcom. I give up!--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out! [[26]] I no longer know who or what I am dealing with.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence May 4

I'm sorry if this evidence is too late, but Alistair knows I'm not a he. I preferred he didn't know it in the discussion, but Duncan guessed it and was insulting about it, as these first two links show. And in the 3rd link, Alistair talked to Duncan like he was an ally.[[27]][[28]][[29]]--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link from Duncan Butlin's user page.[[30]]. He is an ex-con with mental problems and a vendetta against women. And yet Dougwaller repeatedly warned me for my tone, etc.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, he says he is an "evangelical," and he pushes Goldberg. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

I see, finally. I can work with whatever is decided here--I'm just glad you have to decide. --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talked to a friend who thinks I need to get out of here--forget the worry about Alistair. This is too much--it makes no sense any more. Someone came by today looking for my son--and I'm thinking he wasn't for real. Yeah, this was an education.--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hammy refers to comments I posted that begin "Hammy is a valuable contributor to this article."[31] I believe Hammy is taking offense, because I later refer to changes (which include her own additions) to the stable version of the Patriarchy article as involving a "small quantity of information". Given the quantity of information deleted from Patriarchy by Kaldari and User:ChildofMidnight, I think my assessment is fair enough. Hammy's contribution as a proportion of total contributions since January 2007 would probably be no more than 10%. Many would consider Hammy's contribution to look like an original research essay, arguing to a conclusion from primary sources. I think it has a workable core of valuable information. Neither small quantity nor redeemable original research imply poor quality or low value. More importantly, unlike Hammy, I don't question her personal motives or value as an editor.

As regards me being responsible, from Australia, for Hammy's real-life woes, it's a bizarre accusation that fails to assume good faith, and suggests Hammy's opinion of me has been diminished by the blatantly untrue accusations Foundation-authorised office-bearers have continually insisted on permitting to be published. Far from taking offense at Hammy's poor opinion of me, I am grieved at the irresponsibility of various administrators and a prior RfAr for allowing unhelpful nonsense to have continued currency, leading credulous people to suffer real-life anxiety. Failure of due diligence doesn't injure my reputation, which is based on far more solid grounds than anonymous Wikipedia editors, whatever their role here might be; instead it simply wastes volunteer time, but much more seriously, causes psychological stress for people like Hammy. I am eagerly looking forward to the current arbs putting a lid on all this hoo hah once and for all. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Okay, now I'm worried. I just had such a reasonable response from you on the Patriarchy discussion--The above claims sound like they are coming from another person entirely. This is what I mean. Who are you really? I have perceived some disturbing things in your discussion and your behavior and you keep proving to me that these concerns are still valid. I will go over the article line-by-line if you keep making this outrageous claim. I don't think you are getting this at all. You seem oblivious to the experience of others in working with you.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent objections had to do with sources and translations for the Timaeus. See [[32]] Under heading "Content discussion continued." I corrected sources and answered his objections. Shortly after this, someone who had not signed on deleted a word, "Although" and changed the meaning of the sentence. Then someone else asked for a source on a sentence that shouldn't need one, but I provided two. Next User:smackbot claimed to have done clean-up on much of the Biology and Anthropology sections. When I compared versions, I couldn't find any changes.--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Probation and service hours

1) Alistair should serve a year probation and be banned from topics where he has had conflicts. He should contribute at least 10 hours per month on articles with no religious or gender associations, or with no other associations that have led to trouble in the past. Articles should concern a topic that he really knows nothing about. He should work with at least one other editor per month on a non-controversial topic, in a cooperative manner. He should indicate his choice of article and his working partners should be experienced people and good at working with others--hopefully volunteers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See also below. As an experienced editor who is good at working with others, I'm currently looking to help Hammy learn how to be more co-operative as he helps out at the mildly controversial topic of patriarchy. I'm not going to crack the whip and insist on ten hours a month of coaching however. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I have just said on the Patirachy discussion page, I just realized you added the disputed material yesterday, without discussion. I no longer recognize you even as a worth foe. In fact, I dont' recognize you at all. I've never seen anything like you before.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He should work on articles that need work

2) Alistair should not propose work on articles that are complete simply because he intends to change the focus or some other fundamental aspect of the article. Also, he should only add information that other users agree is helpful. Also, there are plenty of articles that need work and that no one is working on.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since no one else is likely to want to correct Hammy on this, I'll do it myself. Hammy, even featured articles at Wikipedia carry the comment that editors are encouraged to improve them if they believe they can do so. There is no such thing as a "complete" article at Wikipedia, and there never will be. Likewise, all editors are encouraged to WP:Be bold: adding sources or other content, or copyediting, is always encouraged. Naturally, such edits can also always be challenged. No one needs permission to edit an article. Finally, just as Hammy seems to be unaware of the the huge quantity of work I've done assisting other editors get their articles to FA, she also seems to be unaware of how many new articles I've stubbed or created.

What the last year or so have shown is that a very productive and co-operative editor's output, namely my output, has been reduced due to the tendentious editing and personal attacks of a handful of editors who want to censor the sources I contribute. The longer it has gone on, the more obvious this has become. However, the longer it goes on, the worse it will get, because good faith new editors like Hammy will be misled. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy, you don't understand. This RfAr is about quashing all the personal attacks Kaldari, Coren and others like yourself have made about me. It is also about correcting errors arbitrators made in an earlier RfAr. So far it is going well. I have encouraged people to find any evidence of misconduct on my part, and none has been found. We are now moving to the business of investigating Kaldari, Coren and others, including yourself.

I can tell you in advance, that I'm not going to propose any restrictions on you, because I might just be able to mentor you myself. I like your work and your approach, and don't take personal attacks you made when you first arrived at Wiki to heart. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last response to you. I am going to sign off, and try to deal with the fear and revulsion you inspire in me.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

violation of wp:civility by Hammy64000

Hammy64000 reverted a large portion of edits by Alistair and started an edit war that has now reached this arbcom see [33]. The edits by Alistair were entered here [34]. But this is more than the beginning of an edit war since hammy64000 violated wp:civility when he stated "Removed illegal additions" [35] he also referred to Alistair as a "problem editor.[36]" At that point, alistair should have requested an arbcom regarding Hammy64000. However instead a few days later alistair reverted one of Hammy64000's posts and shortly thereafter Kaldari and hammy64000 discussed starting this arbcom against Alistair. Hammy64000 started all of this [37]and given the fact that the admin Kaldari was assisting him there wasn't any real recourse for Alistair. So why isn't there an arbcom against Hammy64000? alistair did not violate any laws. The only violation that occurred was a policy violation when Hammy64000 initiated an edit war and violated wp:civil and wp:editorial policies. Deadtotruth (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in the decision to begin this arbcom. Kildari has been aware for a long time of Alistair's tactics on the patriarchy article and could see for himself what was taking place there. I was notified of the arbcom on my user page, by someone else. In fact, I didn't even provide evidence for the arbitration until April 20, and only after seeing Alistair was misrepresenting my contribution on the Patirarchy article. It shouldn't be hard to discover in discussions and on my user page that Kildari doesn't discuss dispute resolution with me. However, I have seen that he has the skills to disagree peacefully--we haven't agreed on how a certain topic should be approached or on some of our basic views, but that didn't stop progress on the article.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the edit war. It is clear in the article discussion that it had been going on for a year or so before I arrived.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any changes to the article took place after Alistair was banned from the topic of patriarchy. I had nothing to do with the ban or the arbcom.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the first link above, it is still not clear to me whether his ban had been lifted at this time. But someone else had previously added "Alleged" to that heading--not me! He removed that word without discussion, but the main thing was the table of ethnographies. It had been disputed for lack of a source the first time he had it in the article. (I already covered this above.) In the Patriarchy discussion, I was actually starting to address the addition with Alistair, until I realized all the issues with the way it was added, and with the source. While checking the anthropologists listed in the table, I hadn't got very far when I saw that at least one of them clearly does not make the argument Alistair was claiming he made. I will check the others, if needed. Then I did some research on Goldberg honestly trying to see whether I could understand his point of view based on where he went to school. But none of these things were ever discussed in a reasonable way.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Hammy64000 should be warned by the arbcom concerning legal threats and wp:civility

Suspend Kaldari as an admin for 1 day

1) {Kaldari should be suspended as admin for one day since he violated wp:civility 1(c), 2(b). Furthermore he should be banned from further editing in Wikipedia for a period of 1 day}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not warranted based on anything I've seen to date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported by any evidence. SirFozzie (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Appropiate, and it will give him time to review dispute resolution processes.EGMichaels (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ban Maunas for 1 day

2) {Ban Maunas for 1 day from editing for violating WP:civility}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ban Hammy64000 for violation wp:civility by referring to the actions of others as illegal

3) {Ban Hammy64000 for violation wp:civility by referring the the actions of others as illegal see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarchy&diff=next&oldid=330245217]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not warranted. The use of the word "illegal" in an edit summary should be avoided but what is cited is a single diff from five months ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Brad. One diff, five months ago.. Hammy6400 should be reminded that the word illegal should be avoided, but don't see anything that supports the finding. SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I wasn't aware the wording was a problem. I meant that this editor changed the article without discussion while his ban was in force. Apologies to everyone, included Alistair.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Alastair Haines has made legal threats

1) Alastair Haines has made legal threats against other users on a number of occasions [38], and has been blocked on a number of occasions for doing so [39].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism

6) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Alastair Haines banned

1) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Wikipedia for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines put on 1RR

2) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Exceeding this limit or failing to discuss a content reversion shall constitute a violation of this restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines put on probation

3) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if Alastair Haines makes any edits which are judged to be disruptive, uncivil or harassing. The sanction(s) will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Alastair Haines may not appeal this restriction for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, or any user subject to discretionary sanctions in this case violate a restriction imposed by an uninvolved administrator, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Witch hunt pattern engaged in by Kaldari

1. Initially, various editors add information to an article.
2. Some editors through edit reversions try to censure information of a particular subset of information that they oppose for various reasons.
3. Some of the editors form cliques.
4. Typically there are two major cliques. Clique NPOV wants all pertinent information pro and con that can be properly referenced added to the article (Per Wikipedia objectives) and become information protectors. Clique POV wants to censure certain subsets of information often for ideological objectives such as secular versus religionist or sect versus sect or nation versus nation or party versus party and Clique B become information predators.
5. Clique POV censures information through a pattern of predatory escalation.

a. Clique POV removes information that they wish to censure on the basis that it is not properly referenced. Note that Clique POV does not remove all improperly referenced information but only the information they wish to censure. Clique NPOV then properly references the information in question.

b. Clique POV removes information that is properly referenced on the basis that it doesn’t fit certain academic requirements which are often beyond those required by Wikipedia. Note that Clique POV does not remove all referenced information that doesn’t meet their academic requirements but only the information they wish to censure. Clique NPOV then upgrades the references to the information in question to meet the arbitrary criteria imposed by Clique POV that is beyond that required by Wikipedia policies.

c. Clique POV removes references to information that they wish to censure under the pretext that the information doesn’t require references or that information in the lede for instance shouldn’t be referenced. Then Clique POV at a later date removes the information since it isn’t properly referenced since they had the references removed. Note that Clique POV only raises questions concerning information that they wish to censure. For instance, Clique POV removes references to some information in the lede that they wish to remove later but they don’t remove references in the lede to other information. Clique NPOV then restores the information with references in the lede and other portions of the document.

d. Step c is more or less repeated until a stalemate ensues. During this time period an edit war exists between the information predators in Clique POV and the information protectors in Clique NPOV.

e. In order to break the stalemate Clique POV becomes more and more uncivil on the talk page and inevitably members of Clique NPOV respond.

f. Clique POV then performs a rope a dope on the members of Clique NPOV that responded to the uncivility. Clique POV often through a member of Clique POV who is also an admin reports the responses of Clique POV and requests an arbcom on one or more members of Clique NPOV. Note that none of the uncivil actions of members of Clique POV are reported by Clique POV to the arbcom.

6. An arbcom is opened investigating a member of Clique NPOV but there is no arbcom opened to investigate the uncivility, edit warring, unwarranted deletions, and vandalism of information by Clique POV.
7. The arbcom becomes a witch hunt against one or more members of Clique NPOV without any regard to the actions of Clique POV.
8. One or more members of Clique NPOV are banned.
9. Clique POV completes its predatory censuring of information since the information protectors in Clique NPOV have been neutralized in the arbcom or Clique POV’s censorship activities are curtailed by the arbcom when the activities of Clique POV are also reviewed.

Analysis The current arbcom stems in part from the editorial process in the Patriarchy article. The arbcom’s enacted during the editorial process in the genesis creation myth (GCM) article and the coren arbcom debacle follow the same pattern of editorial escalation as the one here. In the Patriarchy article, Clique NPOV is Alistair Haines and Clique POV is Kaldari and Hammy64000. In The Patriarchy article the editorial escalation pattern is exactly the same as listed above. The escalation resulted in arbcoms initiated by Clique POV (Kildari and Hammy64000) against members of Clique NPOV (AH) as an extension of Clique POV’s censorship objectives. In all of these cases, Wikipedia policy violations of the Clique POV information predators were not under investigation even though the violations by Clique POV were either more grievous or on a par with the allegations against Clique NPOV. Thus it is a finding of fact that Kaldari as a member of Clique POV in the Patriarchy article has requested this arbcom in an effort to support his ideological objectives by having a member of Clique NPOV banned and thus give him a freer hand in censoring information that he and his clique ideologically opposes - a violation of wikipedia editorial policy. As hammy64000 points out, when Hammy64000 first arrived on the Patriarchy article Kaldari was running the page. Later Alastair arrived and there was a difference of opinion since AH wanted to add info that Kaldari and Hammy64000 opposed. Kaldari initiated this arbcom shortly after AH started editing again on the Patriarchy article and Kaldari and Hammy64000 reverted his edits on that article. I submit that it takes more than one to edit war and it is no coincidence that Kaldari initiated this arbcom shortly after he and hammy64000 intiated and double teamed AH in an edit war. There is no indication that kaldari seriously attempted to form a consensus but gave curt remarks in his edits. He claims that he was trying to limit his interaction with AH which is just another way of saying that he didn't fully fulfill his obligations as an editor to be collaborative. Claiming that AH had a personal vendetta probably didn't help create a collaborative and repectful atmosphere either.Deadtotruth (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of Kaldari's actions

Let's look at the facts -

1. Kaldari just happened to name Jeffro77 who was in an edit war with EG Michaels and alistair Haines at JW as a party to this request even though he claims to have never interacted with him before.

I have no control over who Kaldari named as members in the Arbitration Request, and have had no direct interaction with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in a debate at Talk, not edit warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Jeffro77 and Manaus were in an edit war deleting references made by Alistair and EG michaels at JW when Kaldari asked Jeffro77 to join in an arbcom.

Please substantiate this accusation Mr. Deadtrout.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadtotruth likes posting things in multiple locations. Response and request for diffs: [40]--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. After intiating an arbcom with Jeffro77 against alistair Kaldari deleted over half a dozen references created by EG Michaels at JW without any plausible explanation just as Jeffro77 and Manaus were doing.

4. Kaldari escalated the edit war at JW by verbally attacking on the talk page or deleting references in the article the efforts of EG Michaels and Alistair Haines. Essentially Kaldari noticed an edit war at JW and then joined in against EG Michaels and Alistair Haines.

5. Kaldari claims that he isn't involved in religion articles at all. His involvement in the JW article and His comments on the talk page indicate that he is extensively involved in the JW religious article. If he isn't involved why did he join the edit war and why is his involvement against EG Michaels and Alistair Haines so one sided?

CONCLUSION - The only reasonable conclusion is that Kaldari initiated the arbcom against Alistair as a prelude to entering the already existing edit war that he did in fact join with Jeffro77 and Manaus against EG Michaels and Alistair Haines in the JW article. This arbcom is merely an extension of an edit war in which Kaldari took sides and is now trying to enlist the help of the arbcom through a witch hunt based on some old and already concluded arbcoms. Deadtotruth (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How can I be "extensively involved" in an edit war at Jehovahs witnesses by making one minor edit to the article and expressing my opinion (briefly) on the talk page? And if I'm so interested in winning this "edit war" with Alastair, why do my proposed remedies not even mention religious articles or Jehovahs witnesses?? Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we call it an edit-war or witch-hunt, Kaldari has shown a pattern, over 18-months, of attempting two things.

Firstly, Kaldari has acted for minimization of any sources, text or articles related to the consensus academic position, across all disciplines, that regretably or not, male Homo sapiens have up to (and including) the current point in history predominated in roles of public responsibility beyond the family. It is the rock-solid empirical foundation of feminist theory, that feminists like myself frequently appeal to when we publish. By far the most famous meta-study of this was published by Steven Goldberg. Kaldari's actions against articles related to this writer are numerous and a topic-ban on at least Goldberg related articles might remedy Kaldari's temptation to game the system there.