User:Alastair Haines/a fair bit of evidence

The first RfAr made three findings of fact against Alastair: edit-warring (6 diffs offered as evidence), incivility (6 diffs offered as evidence), and "inappropriate removal of comments" (2 diffs offered as evidence).

Alleged edit-warring

• Conclusion: the first RfAr imposed a strict sanction on Alastair, without demonstrating he had ever edit-warred, let alone demonstrated a pattern of such behaviour.

At the time of the RfAr, Alastair had made more than 12,000 mainspace edits, including several thousand in articles on controversial topics. In two years of editing he had never been identified as an editor who edit-wars. Yet the arbitrators deemed it worth restricting him to a single revert per week, as though there were some pattern of breaching Wikipedia editing principles. The evidence offered comprised six diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

first four diffs: "LL" removes Hebrew grammar x7

with concurrent talk page commentary—AH restores x3; SkyWriter restores x3; AH reports; "LL" blocked; AH restores; "LL" provides compromise edit; end of sequence.

• Key evidence: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:LisaLiel reported by User:Alastair Haines (Result: 24 hours).

The first four diffs,[7], [8], [9], [10] alleged to constitute edit-warring, are part of a series of edits from 3 and 4 of August 2008. The sequence can be scrutinised by starting with the following diff, where editor "LL" made changes that were essentially reordering, but also removed verifiable content of a simplistic grammatical nature.[11] Talk page commentary from all parties continues throughout the main page edit sequence.[12] It includes explicit 1RR, 2RR and 3RR warnings from Alastair to "LL". After 3 reverts, there was a fourth from "LL", which Alastair did not revert a fourth time himself. SkyWriter reverted, however. "LL" went on to 4RR, 5RR and even a 6th RR. Returning to the page, Alastair did not revert, but reported "LL"s reversions to the edit-war noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:LisaLiel reported by User:Alastair Haines (Result: 24 hours). The result of the notification was a 24 hour block on "LL", and no actions against or warnings to Alastair or SkyWriter. Since the text was still lacking the content removed by "LL", Alastair eventually restored it. "LL" followed up with an edit that made modifications without again unilaterally removing the verifiable simple grammatical content that had been defended by two other editors. Neither Alastair nor SkyWriter reverted "LL"s new edit, which they agreed was fair and helpful.

It needs to be clearly noted that the edit sequence was not a matter of Alastair insisting on introducing text, however valuable it may or may not have been, rather it was a matter of restoring almost trivially verifiable grammatical information, for which no attempt at consensus for removal had been made. Alastair simply acted to uphold policy, acted within it, asked for assistance, and was supported both by another editor and by uninvolved administrators. In short, the first four diffs offered as evidence of Alastair edit warring at Gender of God do not demonstrate any such thing.

This incident is particularly important, since it was on the basis of a question raised at ANI regarding possible collusion between Alastair and SkyWriter. That led a previously involved adminstrator to escalate conflict resolution at Gender of God to an RfAr. Yet, the RfAr clearly made no finding that SkyWriter had either colluded or edit warred. Clearly, Alastair could not be colluding either. In other words, the grounds for the RfAr as some kind of incremental process against Alastair were dismissed. However, it is bizarre that Alastair's edits, which had passed scrutiny at the 3RR noticeboard, and actually demonstrated restraint, were presented as evidence of edit warring.

5th diff: "AK" removes Latin grammar x1

AK challenges text on talk page; boldly removes Latin grammar; AH objects on talk page and restores; no further discussion; end of sequence.

• Key point: failure of due diligence on the part of the first RfAr is acutely evident here in failure to observe AK's long term pattern of misdirection and censorship regarding gender related articles, including "slow" edit warring and personal slights.

The fifth diff, regarding alleged edit-warring, regards two individual edits that it is hard to see in any way merit such a designation. It relates to User:Alynna Kasmira ("AK", whose misconduct has not yet been investigated) removing basic verifiable (and sourced) grammatical information regarding Latin (cf. "LL"s attempt to do the same regarding Hebrew).[13] Even cursory familiarity with the topic of God's gender in religious traditions can appreciate that grammatical inflection is part of discussion from all points of view. The text AK removed had been stable for a long time, as well as being sourced. The edit sequence here is extremely simple. Having made a talk page comment, AK was bold in removing text she disputed, it was reverted, and a reply provided on the talk page,[14]. AK did not continue the discussion.

6th diff: Ilkali demands article exclude polytheism, without consensus and against existing text

Ilkali boldly changes lead; AH objects and restores; Ilkali reverts; AH restores; Ilkali reverts; AH provides new edit; Abtract provides yet another new edit.

• Key point: Ilkali refuses to accept burden to establish consensus for change in article focus. He also deletes talk page discussion between other editors.

The final diff offered as evidence of edit-warring (15:22 8 June 2008) is,[15] like the first four, part of a larger context, beginning with Ilkali's edit at 15:16 on the 8th of June 2008.[16] Half an hour earlier (14:42 8 June 2008), Ilkali had removed a whole section of text from the talk page, which was part of a discussion between AH and another editor.[17] Talk page discussion of the lead debate continued in a sequence where Ilkali claimed my AH's edit was an essay (or OR),[18] yet Abtract argued it was plagiarism![19] Rather obviously it couldn't have been both, and in fact was neither. Indeed, text from that new edit of AH's still survives in the current, very degenerate version of the article, despite the rigorous editing that went on after the diffs considered here.

Conclusion

The diffs provided by the arbitrators raise questions about the conduct of the four editors (LL, AK, Ilkali and Abtract) interacting with AH, and about the rigour with which the arbs did or did not investigate the conduct of all parties, as explicitly promised by those arbs on acceptance of the case. These diffs do not evidence any action by Alastair outside either the spirit or the letter of Wikipedia ethos or policy.

Alleged incivility

The evidence offered regarding alleged incivility again comprised six diffs: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

In context, these are AH's statements deemed to be uncivil.

1. Context

L'Aquatique (real name Sarai, university student) to AH: "passive aggressive" (insult, AGF), "hurl accusations" (exaggeration), "dish it but cannot take it" (invitation to robust exchange), "improve your behavior" (assuming superiority).[17:44 6 July]

Ryusho (university student) to AH: "Alastair for the love of the Gods!" (to a Christian?), "You're going to get yourself blocked." (threat), "your obstinacy is deliberate" (AGF).[19:14 6 July]

3rd party Tim and 4th party Doug: "I've been following this a bit, tried to wade through the mediation, etc, and although I'm sure I have missed some nuances, I agree with what Tim has said. Alastair seems to have tried very hard to be civil. And there should be a reliable source somewhere (I should hope sources) that discuss how our view of the gender of our deities reflects our view of the world and ourselves. (Even if we don't actually believe in any deities). [18:57, 6 July 2008]

L'Aquatique: "you are in fact far from the little angel you attempt to pass yourself off as" (AGF, insult implying deceit), "Holy War, anyone?" (AGF), "sure as hell" (low tone);[26]