Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alastair Haines

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Rushyo (talk · contribs) feels that Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has behaved unreasonably in threatening him with an ArbCom arbitration which Alastair had no intention of performing, resulting in huge distress and undermining Rushyo's perceived worth as an editor without any due process. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Aquatique (talk · contribs) feels that, in addition to the above, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has repeatedly acted in an uncivil manner towards herself, Rushyo (talk · contribs) and Ilkali (talk · contribs). He has shown no intent to follow agreed upon consensus and instead continually pushes his POV and demands that his needs be met over others. He refuses to admit any of this and has stated more times than she can count that he is 'waiting for us to apologize' for perceived personal attacks toward him. L'Aquatique[review] 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ilkali (talk · contribs) feels that Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) views himself as the sole arbiter over what content can be included in any article he has an interest in, and rapidly descends into hostile behaviour toward anyone contesting his judgement. His aggressive temperament has lead to cascading incivility and has repeatedly stopped discussion in its tracks. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

I would like to see the user show some remorse for the results of his actions and not continue to state he intends to make an ArbCom case against another user, Ilkali, doing the same again. If the user's conduct continues in the same fashion more disputes will arise and more people will get hurt. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an apology to both Rushyo and Ilkali. I would also like to see him lose the attitude and start acting in a mature manner befitting a Wikipedian. I think that's about as clear as I can make it. L'Aquatique[review] 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Alastair to show willingness to respect consensus for a position that he disagrees with, and to focus on content rather than treating the disagreement as a personal war between him and I. I'd also like for him to start considering that he may not be an "impeccable editor" (his words) - that he can be wrong, and that others can criticise his actions and attitude without being guilty of making personal attacks. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

As a volunteer for the Mediation Cabal I offered to mediate on a dispute between Alastair, Ilkali and Alynna Kasmira regarding the article Gender of God. L'Aqùatique joined me as a mediator in this discussion. The case page is here and the discussion here.During this process a dispute arose between myself and Alastair and I resigned as a mediator to avoid conflict. I then posted a level 3 NPOV warning notice regarding repeated edits by Alastair and was greeted with a threat of ArbCom action. -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the other mediator involved in the Gender of God case. Rushyo's summary above is accurate, I'm not sure what else exactly I can say, but I've added a ton of diffs below. L'Aquatique[review] 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in discussions over this article with Alastair for a long time. He and Abtract and I (and later Alynna_Kasmira (talk · contribs) have disagreed over the article's title, scope and lead. After a time, an RfC was opened by Abtract (talk · contribs) to discuss the dispute, before Alastair closed it with the text "This RfC is now closed. The conclusion is that Ilkali has continuously acted like a troll, and I've been too gentle with him". ([1]). Alastair then began demanding that all things he considered personal attacks be deleted from the talk space [2]. At approximately this time, I opened an AN/I against him, which ended prematurely due to over-eager archiving. After a time, he deleted a section himself and added his own incivil commentary to another. When other editors reverted these changes, he edit-warred until he was reported for 3RR violation and temporarily blocked. He was shortly reported and blocked again when he tried to freeze the article in an old state until consensus had been reached to move forward, despite being the only editor out of four who disagreed with the changes. After failing to garner support at Wikiproject Christianity with an extremely incivil description of Abtract and myself, Alastair took the matter to mediation (whereupon Rushyo and L'Aquatique became involved). However, he eventually disengaged with discussion of content despite no progress having been made and demanded that the mediators turn their focus to me and what he perceived as my poor behaviour. In his words, this was the "real issue". He has now announced intent to go to ArbCom solely to have me reprimanded, explicitly announcing that this is "not about content".
At all points, Alastair demands that people be polite to him, on two occasions stating that this is a requirement for him considering their opinions ([3], [4]). Where he feels they have wronged him, he insists on an apology ([5], [6], etc). I believe his pride is leading him to escalate conflicts and is keeping him from functioning as a responsible editor. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair has now rejected mediation over Gender of God's content issues because he felt he was being "slandered" by the summary of how the previous mediation ended. Elsewhere, he refuses to acknowledge that (or even discuss whether) there is an outstanding disagreement over the scope of the article ([7]). Ilkali (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In further display of the attitude that brought him here, Alastair asserts "There is not and never has been a single infringement from me at Wikipedia" and belittles those administrators who have sanctioned him by saying "can people please stop sending me adminstrators to train" ([8]). Ilkali (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[9] -Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[10], but basically the entire case has been him making similar comments. L'Aquatique[review] 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I included diffs in my comments in the above section. Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:Harassment, WP:Civility, WP:Etiquette, WP:GAME
the above + WP:LAWYER, WP:TEND
the above + WP:OWN Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[11]
[12], [13], [14], [15] L'Aquatique[review] 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

-Rushyo (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
L'Aquatique[review] 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alynna (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I know I'm not supposed to edit here, but for the record's sake, these have been Alastair's responses to requests that he come here and watch this page: [18], [19], [20]. L'Aquatique[review] 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Semi-involved view by Teclontz

I came into this when I saw what appeared to be an edit war going in with the Gender of God article. At the time I did a quick review and a huge chunk of the article had been deleted, including sections on comparative religion and (most significantly) a definition summary of "Gender" to accompany a similar one for "God." Since "gender" could not possibly be less relevant to "gender of god" than "god", I judged the change to be possible vandalism, and I restored the missing sections [21]. Since the edit war continued, I moved the disputed section to the talk page [22], urging that something cannot be edited when it was continually being ripped out. Alastair agreed to that compromise. As far as I can tell, no useful editing occurred even on the talk page (I could have missed something).

Alastair seemed to be agreeable [23]
And we tried to hammer out some ideas on the talk page instead of in edit wars (yes, with a little meandering to reboot) [24].
But Alastair was getting warned about even that [25].
Alastair asked that we try to talk about the subject rather than himself (and unfortunately returned a warning with a warning) [26].
It seemed to go both ways [27]
And then we got sidetracked by something else entirely (by that time Alastair was looking like the popular punching bag) [28].

I finally gave up trying to find a way to work on the article. The only thing I fault Alastair for (from what I've seen) is sticking it out with the article. Once it got personal, you can't even proceed with an edit if it's correct. People will just yank it anyway. It's human nature. I think we Wikipedia editors should remember that "right" and "wrong" get turned on their heads once emotion comes into the room.

My summary opinion is that everyone should drop everything, here, there, and everywhere; go off and cool down in a corner; and try to edit pages where there isn't so much fighting going on.

Alastair and the other editors are all intelligent educated adults who have knowledge and interests that do not intersect. My suggestion is to take a break from each other, and edit other subjects they know things about. The Gender of God isn't going anywhere. As far as I know, He/She isn't scheduled for reassignment surgery anytime soon.

I'd also like to add that I've had peaceful and good dealings with both Alastair and L'Aquatique in other places. I don't think there is something inherently wrong with the INDIVIDUALS in the dispute. Rather, it seems that the DISPUTE itself is the problem, and everyone should just walk into their respective corners and give each other a breather.Tim (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Semi-involved view by LisaLiel

I also came into this when I saw a lot of editing going on in Gender of God. When I saw that Judaism was being labeled as viewing God as male. I changed that ([29]), since Judaism views God as not having gender, and this began a stream of edits by Alastair. First he changed it to "Judaism considers HaShem not to be feminine", adding a source that doesn't say anything about how Judaism considers God and ignoring the two sources I'd brought for the change I made ([30]). He left the sources, but changed the text to contradict them.

When I changed this edit back, leaving Alastair's additional source, despite its irrelevance to the text ([31]), he left a note on my talk page asking me not to remove reliable sources ([32]). He also continued to change the header, ignoring the sources that said what Judaism's position is.

When I moved his non-pertinent citation out of the header and put it into the body of the article (so that he wouldn't claim I'd deleted it), he went in and labeled one of the citations I'd brought as "POV" and the other as "irrelevant" ([33]). I was actually shocked by his disregard for the edits of others.

Over the course of numerous back-and-forths on the talk page of the article, I tried to no avail to explain to Alastair that the views of Judaism are not defined by the imagery used in the Hebrew Bible, and that inferring such a thing was both original research and synthesis. Alastair's response was to ignore everything I said, and continue to make the same points as though I'd said nothing. I can understand why his editing and discussion style is deemed annoying by others.

Finally, I warned him that his continuing to behave this way would result in my adding his behavior to this RfC ([34]). That seems to actually have gotten through to him. And I would have left it at that, except that reading this RfC made me realize that a point was being overlooked.

Alastair is exceedingly polite, in my opinion. But it is not civil. And that is not a contradiction. He is unfailing in his use of "please" and "thank you", and heaping praise upon other editors. He's done so to me as well. But then he ignores everything you say and goes ahead with edits that are contrary to consensus. This is uncivil behavior accompanied by polite speech. I don't think that his polite speech and manner should be allowed to obscure his uncivil behavior. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

LisaLiel (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rushyo (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alynna (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ncmvocalist

"The subject of this RFC" refers to Alastair Haines.

I have come to the finding that Alastair Haines has engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring; harassment, incivility and assumptions of bad faith; attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground and gaming the system.

The following diffs are of relevance in coming to the above finding: [35][36], [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].

The subject of this RFC has indicated here his refusal to participate in this form of dispute resolution or any of the earlier steps to arbitration. However, I am of the opinion that it is very important he takes note of the concerns here. He needs to understand the problems with his conduct, and make the necessary changes to fix these problems - this forum gives him a chance to do so voluntarily. If there is no change and the misconduct continues, then sadly, he may become subject to an arbitration hearing or may be subject to binding preventative measures which may include sanctions, bans or blocks. This sort of misconduct is unacceptable.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rushyo (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alynna (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LisaLiel (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Conclusion

After reading through all the diffs and the supported opinions, recognizing that Alastair was indefblocked with it later upturned, I hereby warn User:Alastair Haines to be civil in content disputes, not to make false threats and accusations, and urge him to take this criticism constructively into making himself a better Wikipedia user. I recognize, and hope those who have posted recognize, that further incivility and trouble could very well lead to an arbcom case (remember that they, however, do not rule on content). Wizardman 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I ask that no parties make any threats regarding taking the case to arbcom. If someone takes this to arbcom in the end then that's what happens, just don't threaten to do so. Wizardman 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]